Keeping Up with the Dow Joneses: Stocks, Jails, Welfare 0896086895, 9780896086890

Citation preview

1 111 Reeping Up

withN ONECSES STOCKS,

fond

abe!

—

JAILS, WELFARE

wr

ey

i

|

4

ITA

~CETELANm e

a

ALLL

Y PRASHAD. ad ine d .

".

5

Praise for Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses “Elegant, lucid, and incisive, Keeping Up with the Dow Joneses is an invaluable resource for political and intellectual challenges t o captivity. V a y Prashad’s critique o f globalization, local policing, welfare, and his

mapping o f resistance waged by women, the impoverished, the racialized, and incarcerated are fierce and fruitful.” — J o y James, editor o f Imprisoned Intellectuals, author o f Reszsting State Violence

“Vijay Prashad draws a compelling bottom-up picture o f the American political economy today. H e shows the m e s h between the stressed

economic situation o f working people and our increasingly repressive social policies. A n d h e also p o i n t s t o the kinds o f m o v e m e n t struggles

that might disrupt this fundamentalist neoliberal regime.”

Wiy Americans Still D o n ’ t Vote: Why Politicians Want 1t That Way

— Frances Fox Piven, author of And

“ S o m e people write eloquently. S o m e are wonderful researchers. S o m e

think clearly, giving us new ideas with each new page. Vyay Prashad manages all three achievements, and does i t with admirable passion, i n

his new book Keeping Up With The Dow Joneses. Essays o n debt, prison, workfare, and movement struggle are all, i n fact, really about h o w we c a n b e s t understand o u r w o r l d i n order t o dramatically change i t . [ t i s a

fine book belonging on every radical’s bookshelt and beyond.” —Michael Albert, author o f The Trajectory of Change “ V i j a y Prashad’s Keeping U p With the Dow Joneses provides t h e c o m p l e t e

package — a detailed account o f the ways i n w h i c h class, race, and vender inequality have played o u t i n the United States over the last twenty years, h o w they are related a n d get played out i n a wide range o f policies, and h o w groups are collectively resisting these pressures.

Wrapped a r o u n d the story o f growth i n low-wage, contingent

workforce and the opposition t o these efforts, Prashad provides careful a n d useful d o c u m e n t a t i o n o n growing greed a t the t o p a n d d e b t a t the

bottom, the criminalization o f poverty and the corresponding growth

in for-profit prison industry, as well as the hell-bent intent

to

dissolve

the safety n e t and force p o o r mothers into lousy jobs.”

—Randy Albelda, co-author of Glass Ceilings and Bottomless Pits: Women's Work, Women’s Poverty and co-editor o f Lost Ground: Welfare

Reform, Poverty andBeyond “Prashad expertly analyzes the linkages between globalization, racism,

and the prison industrial complex. What 1s particularly noteworthy about this book is that it does not just describe the problems we face, but provides a wide range o f creative strategies for tackling what seem

be overwhelming obstacles i n the fight for social a n d economic justice. I n addition, he highlights the organizing work o f people o f color, particularly women o f color, whose contributions in anti-globalization work are generally marginalized by other scholars.” to

—Andrea Smith, co-founder o f Incite! Women o f Color Against Violence

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses Debt, Prison, Workfare

Vijay Prashad

South End Press Cambridge, Massachusetts

Copyright © 2003 by Vijay Prashad Cover design by Ellen P. Shapiro

-

31143007145247 3 8 5 . D603 P r a P r a s h a d , Vijay . Keeping up with Joneses : debt, wvorkfare

ex

[hree Essays Press in

the Dow prison,

al words may be used rds quoted does n o t imber o f total words,

oo

please write t o South E n d Press for permission.

Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Prashad, Vijay. [American scheme]

Keeping up with the Dow Joneses: debt, prison, workfare / Vijay Prashad. p. cm. “First edition published as “The American Scheme’ by Three Essays Press in India” —T.p. verso.

“First appeared i n a much briefer version...in New Delhi (Summer 2002)"—P. . Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Introduction: America—Debt— Prison—Workfare—Movement. ISBN 0-89608-690-9—ISBN 089608-689-5 (pbk.) 1. United States—Economic conditions—2001- 2. United States—Economic conditions—1945- 3. Debt—United States. 4. Marginality, Soctal—United States. 5. Prisons—United States. 6. Public welfare—United States. 7. Welfare recipients—Employment—United States. 8. Social movements—United States. I . Title: Debt, prison, workfare. 11. Title

HC106.83.P73 2003 305.5°6’0973—dc21

2003050587 South End Press, 7 Brookline Street, #1, Cambridge, M A 02139-4146 www.southendpress.org 07 06 05 04 03

123456

TABLE OF CONTENTS Respect America Debt Prison

Workfare Movement Index

About the Author

About South E n d Press

Related Titles

RESPECT

Ko

Up With the Dow Joneses tirst appeared in a much briefer version from Three Essays Press in New Delhi (Summer 2002) thanks t o the initiative and hard work o f Asad Zaidi. Without him I would n o t have thought t o write a b o o k a b o u t the U S economy, a b o u t

p r i s o n s , about welfare. Here I a m , a n Indian historian with a tendency

write about racism, and a scribbler on matters political, trying t o write a book on so v a s t a topic. Ravi Ahuja asked me t o explain to

contemporary trends i n U S economic life for Marxistishe Blatter i n 2 0 0 1

(and the title for the book comes from the essay for that volume: “Mit den D o w Joneses Mithalten: Sorgen und Kampfe in den USA”). N . Ram (Frontline magazine in India), Krishna Raj (Economic and Political Weekly in India), Mike Albert (ZNET), Bob Wing (Colorlines magazine in the US) and Prakash Karat (People’s Democracy in India) published bits and pieces o f what has been totally refashioned i n this text.

I received several needed tutorials o n matters technical over the

years from Jenni Gainsborough (of the ACLU, in 1995), from Alisa Solomon (of the Village Voice), from Libero Della Piana (at the time o f RaceFile), from Merrilee Milstein (whose presentation on union density and the new AFL-CIO offered useful correctives t o my impatience), from Miriam Ching Y o o n Louie’s Sweatshop Warriors, from the fact

books and bibliographies and endless documents and briefs given by the Grass Roots Organizing for Welfare Leadership (GROWL) staff a t the Center for Third World Organizing (CTWO). I learned endless a m o u n t s a b o u t the lives o f the contingent class from conversations

with Sudhir Venkatesh, Biju Mathew, Brian Steinberg, Joelle Fishman,

Sudhanva Deshpande, and Johnny Williams. Mir Ali Raza gives me tutorials o n business management. M . V . Ramana and 1 co-wrote a n

article on Mumia that helped with the section on the death penalty. Brinda Karat offered very useful shifts in the framework t o make this

book legible. Andy Hsiao, Justin Podur, Naomi Klein, Eric Mann, and Michael Albert helped me think about the globalization movement.

Conversations with Gary Delgado, Linda Evans, Joy James, Raj Jayadev, Rinku Sen, and Mark Toney made the chapters closer t o our truths.

Work a t Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) in the mid-1990s introduced m e t o fiery organizers w h o taught m e about life o n the lam,

life on the Man, and life in the can: Shakira Abdullah, Grace Brown, Shirley Craighead, Conteh Davis, Lisa Dupree, Ana Franco, Maria

Guerrero, Alice Hicks, Dale Jackson, Simon Kue, Shannah Kurland, Sabtina Smith, Shitley Wilhelm, a n d a h o s t o f others. Extended

interviews with Angela Chung (PUEBLO), Joelle Fishman (Campaign t o E n d Child Poverty), Bonnie Macri (Jedi for W o m e n ) , D a n a Parades

(CTWO), Sandra Robertson (Georgia Coalition Against Hunger), Janet Robideau (Indian People’s Action), and Mark Toney (CTWO) provided the analysis for the chapter o n workfare. J o h n Trumpour

found W a r Against the Planet, tried t o get it

published i n the U S a n d introduced m e t o Tina Beyene a t South E n d

Press. Tina read these essays a n d enthusiastically shepherded this b o o k t o press. I a m very grateful t o her for her commitment t o this project.

T h e South E n d collective is a n extraordinary place, with a wonderful

crew whose hard work and humor helped get the book

out.

M y tamily 1s central t o m y life: mother, in-laws, siblings, aunts,

uncles, and cousins. Jojo and Meera introduced m e t o America many years ago, making me a part o f their home and teaching m e about its wonderful, complex people. Without that, I wouldn’t be me. N o r would I b e m e without Leela, and Rosy. W h e n I started t o draft the magazine articles a n d essays into a book, I kept thinking about s o r t o f America I wanted m y beloved Zalia

Maya t o

what

enjoy—I h o p e the

contradictions m o v e i n favor o f humanity i n her lifetime. This b o o k is dedicated t o her a n d t o her m a n y cousins.

The main argument a b o u t the structural a d j u s t m e n t o f the United States came from Elisabeth Armstrong in a spirited discussion a t o u t barsati in N e w Delhi more than a decade ago. A s the Indian government willingly joined hands with the International Monetary F u n d (IMF) bureaucrats i n 1 9 9 1 , she emphasized that w e n o t take a n overly nationalist

view

of

the p r o c e s s , b u t keep the class q u e s t i o n in

focus. This b o o k i s a set o f elaborations o n the ideas she presenged then

and later, o n the US and o n India. She read the entire manuscript,

pointed out several embarrassing gaffes, reframed the introduction, and made this book half decent. Always in your debit. Writers crave solitude. B u t those w h o write about things political

would be starved without ceaseless contact with the movement. This is also a movement book, so let’s move on.

This one is for Salig, Sonita, Gautam, Samir, Gauray, Ayesha, Ishan, Vivan, Saira, Zalia, and the baby from Pacifica.

“But now,” says the Once-ler, “ N o w that you're here, the word o f the Lorax seems perfectly clear

U N L E S S someone like you cares a whole awful lot,

Nothing is going t o get better, it’s not.” —Dr. Seuss, The Lorax, 1971

AMERICA In America you are n o t Required t o offer food T o the hungry, o r shelter T o the homeless, o r to visit

The lonely—in fact, one O f the nicest things about Living i n America is that You really don’t have t o D o anything for anybody.

—Homeless poet, Seattle, Washington, 1999 |

are many Americas. America has i t s p o o r as m u c h as its rich, i t s indigent and forgotten population tucked away i n segregated zones,

ridiculed b y racism and the frustration o f being p o o r i n the richest country o n earth. T h e p o o r i n America are n o t so because o f any inner failure, because o f a lack o f hard w o r k o r o f genetic deficiency. A n y c o n t a c t with t h o s e w h o live i n t h e straits o f poverty will s h o w that they

w o r k hard, b u t get nowhere, that o n e o r t w o m a y rise i n t o the

managerial

strata

and stand like a beacon for the rest, but these role

models are always a few, p r o u d b u t marginal. There are m a n y w h o have also given u p , gone off the grid o f social mobility, taken refuge i n illegal

economies o r else i n the w a r m embrace o f social networks.

Both Americas, the domestic hardships for a considerable population a n d the American fantasy, are maintained b y yet another

entity: the America o f global c o r p o r a t i o n s and the taxpayer funded

military force. T h e brand “America” 1s like C l o r o x corporation: i t sells

both toxic bleach (Clorox) and salad dressing (Hidden Valley Ranch). I f the salad dressing came with the Clorox label, we wouldn’t buy it. I f “America” c a m e w i t h images o f poverty and o f military domination, i t

Xiv

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

would fail as fantasy. The brand “America,” therefore, denies that i t reinforces poverty and suffering, and says that all that 1s outside itself, an excrescence, a result o f bad luck or bad genes, or else o f bad men who force the US t o bomb them.

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses 1s about people. I t 1s about those w h o live i n the U S , w h o are American, and yet w h o d o not benefit from the fantasy o f America. I t i s about the six million p e o p l e w h o are i n the

vise o f the prison complex, the six million more w h o have been thrown

off the welfare rolls since 1996, the uncounted millions who toil 1n

terrible entry-level jobs whose only solace 1s their neighbors and families, the bits and pieces o f joy that can be eked out in the throes o f economic uncertainty. Even as we gasp at the devastation wrought for the lives of these millions, keep in mind the virtuoso ways in which these millions seek pleasure and leisure, how they reconstruct their humanity. Father Gene Boyle, a priest who works with the strawberry workers in California, warns us, “We live in a time when people are working too hard and are still in poverty. And communities and neighborhoods are

crumbling because of it. We have t o bring this into the daylight.” “The American welfare state was supposed t o be dead, victim of the free-market economy and its success i n creating a job for anybody who wanted one,” wrote journalist David Leonhardt in late 2002.

While the unemployment rate rose in 2002; i t still seemed awfully low for the general crisis being reported from the basement o f US society. Food kitchens and homeless shelters cried out that they had reached capacity, and community organizations fulminated over the forgotten America—the workingpoor. Republicans talked about an across-the-board (regressive) tax cut, Democrats talked about a targeted tax cut for the “middle-income families,” but n o one with influence seemed to speak for those w h o had n o j o b , n o prospects, nothing. T h e unemployment rate,

Leonhardt gently reminded New York Times readers on a September Sunday, i s unreliable. I t d o e s n o t count t h o s e w h o give u p looking for

work, it d o e s not count those w h o collect disability payments, a n d it

does not count those who are i n jail. Those who collect disability now number 5.4 million (twice the 1990 figure), and the government spends more money o n them than o n Food Stamps o r unemployment

insurance. There are now t w o million Americans behind bars (again, twice the 1990 figure). Although there is no accurate count q f those who have ceased t o register themselves as unemployed, one study

America

XV

11 p e r c e n t o f m e n between the ages o f 18 work in 2000. Since the official unemployment rate 1s

Leonhardt cites found that

and 54 did n o t

n o w just below six percent, w e c a n surmise that it i s artificially l o w

because o f those o n disability, in jail; and outside the system. T h e rate o f indigence in our soctety and the strong ethics o f some o f

our people have engendered powerful social movements, such as those that oppose prisons and poverty, sexism and racism, homophobia and war. These powerful movements sometimes fight along the axes o f o w n o p p t e s s i o n s , but often

find common

cause

with

their

each other. T h e

latter, those w h o seek solidarity across the lines o f one fight,

acknowledge that even as the specific problems w e face may be different, there i s something that w e share i n our struggles. F r o m Critical Race theorist Kimberly Crenshaw w e learn that subordination does not operate o n a “single axis framework” and that w e need t o struggle against

the “complexities o f compoundedness.” Crenshaw offers the idea of “Intersectionality’” t o understand the “multi-dimensionality”’ of subordination: a black woman has t o deal with racism as well as sexism, and then she must deal with issues o f class and sexuality. Nothing can b e p u t between brackets for another occasion.’

I f intersectionality is a n adequate c o n c e p t for

the insistence that w e

see linkages between different concrete instances o f subordination, h o w does a n activist m a k e sense o f t h o s e links? I t i s n o t enough t o say

that those in poverty, in prison, on welfare, with disabilities, and others share something in common. I f we are t o make sense o f the links in practice, w e n e e d t o analyze o u r p r e s e n t condition t o find u n i o n and t o

act o n it. Prisons are not far from the welfare offices, b u t d o we have a theory o f our world t o make sense o f the links between them, t o find

the connections at a structural level? There are, o f course, various programs o f action

that circulate i n

the American Left, and these are all

useful documents that need t o b e read b y all o f us so that w e can find constructive ways t o bring all o u r struggles into the intersection o f the

system. I t is m y sense

that the current conjuncture, under the framework

o f neoliberalism, emerged in the 1970s and 1980s i n the aftermath o f the slowdown in the US, and global, economy. US industry lagged behind

Japanese and W e s t German manufacturing, a n d in response, the US state conducted the structural a d j u s t m e n t o f the economy.” When Ronald Reagan took over as president o f the US, h e intensified a process begun by his predecessors. As he accepted his party’s nomination on july 17,

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Xvi

1980, in an already gutted Detroit, Michigan, Reagan said, “I believe it 1s clear our federal government is overgrown and overweight. Indeed, it i s time for our government t o g o o n a diet.”

T h e strategy o f Reagan i n particular and o f neoliberalism i n general was not to

shrink the government in total, 1t w a s t o refocus the priority

o f government away from the creation o f equity a n d toward the

maintenance o f law and order. T h e stagnation o f wages from 1 9 7 3 and the creation o f contingent w o r k are not accidents o f history o r stories o f race failure, they are the natural outcomes o f the strategy used b y the U S

administrations from the 1970s onward. Chapter 1 (Debt) offers a summary analysis of the transformations in the US economy over the past three decades. Reagan’s assault o n America, his adjustment o f America, produced a state in the neoliberal image.# Neoliberalism, i n its

American theater, can be summarized in the following four components. Attenuation of t h e Social Welfare System

I n 1916, M . K . Gandhi told an English audience, “The t e s t o f civilization 1s n o t the number o f millionaires it boasts, but in the absence o f starvation a m o n g the masses.” T w o decades later, i n

his

presidential address, Franklin D . Roosevelt told his fellow Americans, “The test o f our progress i s n o t whether w e a d d m o r e t o the abundance

o f those w h o have much. I t is whether w e provide enough for those w h o have little” (January 2 0 , 1937). There was a

time, therefore, w h e n

the world’s leaders did n o t feel embarrassed t o admit that the task o f a state was t o minimize inequality a n d t o put the resources o f the state t o

this end. T h e best o f Gandhian socialism o r o f FDR’s N e w t o a n e n d as

Reaganism assaulted the welfare

Deal came

state.’

All the aspects o f the state that tended toward the social good, such

as healthcare, public education, income support, etc., faced the axe in this new regime. Funds spent o n the creation o f social equity, o n the

alleviation o f inequality, and the creation o f justice dwindled as the state’s managers claimed t o rule over large bureaucracies with bankrupt

exchequers. The

state

dispensed with the provision o f many basic

needs, giving them o u t t o the highest bidder i n the process called “privatization. ” Such areas o f social life o n c e thought t o b e under the dispensation o f the state, such as water o r electricity supply, came into

the private, or profit, sector. “There I s N o Alternative, ” we heard from London, for instance, as the Conservativ e government slashed a n d

America

XVil

burnt i t s w a y through Britain’s considerable social welfare system.¢ I n the U n i t e d States, the government allowed inflation t o whittle away at

the disbursements t o the poor until it dropped the axe in 1996 and ended “welfare as w e k n o w i t . ” T h e n e w bill threw the p o o r t o the wolves o f destitution, either t o the temporary workforce (to deflate

wages) or else t o the vice economy (and eventually

to

incarceration).

T h e violence o f workfare and i t s impact o n the lives o f the poor, o f the

temporary workforce, 1s detailed in Chapter 3 (Workfare). The neoliberal managers talk about “fiscal conservatism,” about

“small government,” about how our “belts 2

must

be tighter,”> about

“sacrifice,” and about the need t o have “less waste” and a “less bloated government.” M u c h o f this is obfuscation, because the state has n o t

shrunk its budget, only curtailed its expense on the creation o f humane social policies. T h e target o f the state’s accountants 1s social welfare, n o t the m a s s i v e expenditure o n t h e state’s police, p r i s o n s , a n d military.

Expansion of t h e Punitive Functions

Rather than fund social welfare, the state turned those funds over t o the police a n d the military. T h e global military

expenditure i s

estimated t o b e around $839 billion (based o n adopted defense budgets, a n d n o t counting any secret expenditures t o security forces).

From 1987

to

1998, the total declined as governments moved funds

away from military uses t o other, more productive uses. However, since 1 9 9 8 and especially since 9 / 1 1 , spending o n armed forces has increased exponentially. T h e U S military budget request for 2003 was $396.1 billion—almost half o f the entire world’s military expenditure.’

T h e career o f General Barry McCaffrey provides a usetul synopsis

(and retired General) Colin Powell’s d o c t r i n e o f “overwhelming force” as applied t o every aspect o f social life. From

o f Secretary o f State

Andover

to

West Point, McCaffrey w e n t twice t o Vietnam, spoke o u t

against racism and sexism within the military, and then took his 24% Infantry D i v i s i o n from Georgia t o Kuwait t o pulverize the Iraqi

Republican Guard. Two days after the ceasefire, on March 2, 1991, the 24th Infantry D i v i s i o n l a u n c h e d a n assault o n t h e column o f retreating

troops and killed tens o f thousands o f Iraqis. After speaking t o 200 US military p e r s o n n e l for h i s article, j o u r n a l i s t S e y m o u r H e r s h n o t e s

that

t h e assault “was n o t so m u c h a counterattack p r o v o k e d b y enemy fire

as a systematic destruction o f Iraqis w h o were generally fulfilling the

Xviil

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

o f the and the Battle o f the Junkyard, the

requirements o f the retreat.”® Called alternatively the Battle Causeway, the Battle o f Rumaila,

engagement would

be better

k n o w n as the Rumaila Massacre.!” T h e

army held four investigations o f the conduct o f the 2 4 Division, found that it had n o t acted inappropriately (although many generals felt this was a whitewash o f the truth). McCaffrey retired from the army in January 1996. Taken by this resume, President Bill Clinton invited McCaffrey into the cabinet as director o f the Office o f National Drug Control Policy, t o be the Drug Csar. McCaffrey then brought the Powell Doctrine of “overwhelming force” into play on the domestic scene (with a n intensification o f combat against street drug dealers) as well as against Colombia (the source for the drugs themselves). H e was the crucial

player in the US government’s massive $1.574 billion package t o the Colombian military t o fight the “narco-terrorists” (but really the

left-wing mnsurgency).!! Overwhelming force 1s the order o f the day.

Chapter 2 (Prisons) follows the growth of the prison economy in the US. With a rise in unemployment and underemployment, the state decided upon a strategy t o deal with the surplus population through increased law

and order in the cities. The Rockefeller drug laws from 1973 and the increased rates o f incarceration are not a result o f “crime,” but o f the turn t o debt among the population, the turn t o

drug trafficking among some for survival, and the general withdrawal of social services by the state. Expansion of Corporate Welfare

When the state insisted that its people go o n a diet, it did n o t extend

this provision t o the world o f the rich. T h e elected representatives slashed the income tax o n the rich with the argument that this m o n e y would go toward investment in the productive capacity o f the nation. I n the 1980s, U S firms got large tax rebates as a n incentive for them t o enhance their technological and productive operations, t o make them m o r e competitive against the Japanese and W e s t Germans, for

instance. However, in 1985, the House Ways and Means Committee’s report (which became the T a x Reform A c t o f 1986) noted:

Proponents o f massive

tax

benefits for depreciable

property have theorized that these benefits would stimulate

investment in such property, which in turn would pull the entire economy into more rapid growth. The committee perceives that nothing o f this kind has happened.!2

America

The money w e n t the “incentives”

XiX

firms that threatened departure from the US without t o remain stateside and guarantee re-election for the

to

representatives. T h e right-wing C a t o Institute calculates that all forms o f

corporate welfare i n the U S total $75 billion per year.!3 Even this, a low

figure, 1s extraordinary. With less money t o spend, the

claimed it could n o t atford fund the military and the police.

state

social welfare, even as it continued t o

But, in these “lean times,” neoliberal states across the planet continue to subsidize “free market” firms. O n this score, as with so much else, the U S 1s i n the lead. O n e federal agency, the E x p o r t - I m p o r t Bank, for

instance, disbursed $100 billion in international trade assistance t o global corporations, far m o r e than the U S government gives o u t i n

food, disaster, and development relief. T h e main recipients o f the

Ex-Imp Funds are (in order o f amounts pillaged from the treasury): Boeing, Halliburton, Fluor, General Electric, Petroleos de Venezuela, Northrup Grumman, Bechtel, the A B B Group, Siemens, Edward

Bateman, Applied Materials, Lucent Technologies, Chevron Texaco, KILA-Tencor, and Phillips Petroleum. Furthermore, the Internal Revenue Service shows us that non-US based global corporations pay

less U S income taxes o n business done

in the U S than comparable

US-based global corporations; these same US-based corporations gain the same unequal benefits from countries outside

the U S i n

a universal

quid pro quo o f corruption and sleaze.!* “This 1s naked corporate welfare,” said Representative R o n Paul (Republican-Texas). “ I t never

ceases t o amaze m e h o w members o f Congress w h o criticize welfare for the p o o r o n moral and constitutional grounds see n o problem with the even more objectionable programs that provide welfare for the rich.”!> T a x b r e a k s t o the

rich

a n d t o global corporations act as a n

“entitlement” i n the budget, because they l o c k i n the gains t o these

sections o f society w i t h o u t any annual discussion a b o u t their i m p a c t

and usefulness. This

tax o n

the budget has a regressive impact on the

working p o o r for w h o m state services are crucial. Promotion of Cultural Nationalism

I f the state i s less able o r willing t o p r o v i d e resources toward the creation o f equity, h o w d o the representatives return t o t h e people i n a

formal democracy and ask for re-election? W h y would people keep a regime afloat i f i t p r o m i s e s n o t h i n g i n return? T h e expenditure o n the

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

XX

punitive s i d e certainly takes cate o f a considerable amount o f organized

and unorganized dissent. Even the m o s t formally democratic states rule

with

some measure o f coercion and the prison/police offer enough

reason t o fear the state.

Consent, under neoliberalism, is bred through the promotion o f cruel forms o f cultural nationalism. This nationalism can be religious (Hindutva in India, Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia), secular (Ba’thism in Iraq, Fascism in France), or some measure in between. Most forms o f cultural nationalism posit a golden age in the past that offers the nation

the reason for its cohesive existence, and then urges people t o return in some measure to that ethical standard. I n the US, the national myth

evinces a nostalgia for the early years o f the Republic, when individual yeomen stood up t o the tyrant George III, fought for liberty, and then instantiated their ethical horizon mn the Constitution. The mythology undermines the political role o f the “motley crew mn the American Revolution,” the sailors, enslaved Africans, and working class “mobs” whose struggles enabled the “Sons o f Liberty” (Washington, Adams,

Jetferson) t o wrest control o f the situation t o their advantage. Furthermore, the 1dea that individual yeomen created the wealth of the nation obscures the role of both slavery in the accumulation o f values for the white landholders and the n e w state’s protectionism for its industrial development (as laid out in Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 Report on Manufactures and put into practice via such laws as the 1807 Embargo Act and in the War of 1812).17 State support and theft o f labor produced the resilient yeoman. Yet, the myth o f the individual who pulls “himself” up by the bootstraps persists t o torment those who came into history without its advantages—such as the descendants slaves. Therefore, the idea o f “self-reliance” (or individualism), without the context o f what kind o f “self” produced wealth in the first place, operates in a racist manner and 1s a form of cruel cultural nationalism. Even as individualism 1s the alibi for widespread racism i n our polity, there are other forms o f social oppression that work in tandem t o forward the violent agenda o f cultural nationalism. Misogyny a n d

homophobia i n equal parts a l o w heterosexual m e n t o feign social

power and t o claim the mantle o f bootstrap individualism. These four elements form the core o f the neoliberal state, and

Clorox America fits the definition aptly. With a n enormous military and police, with a n eagerness t o fund global corporations (with cash or tax

America

xxi

breaks), with the assassination o f social welfare, and then, with the manufacture o f c o n s e n t through a perverse mixture o f individualism,

and consumerism—this 1s the character o f C l o r o x America. Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses tollows the career o f the several millions in this country who have been left out o f upward mobility. The interest i n t h o s e w h o w o r k for low wages a n d t h o s e w h o cannot find patriotism,

work leads naturally t o welfare and t o prisons. Even as all those w h o are o n welfare o r i n prison are hardly people o f color, the structures o f racism disproportionately send impoverished p e o p l e o f color t o both. So this b o o k offers a general introduction t o the political economy o f

racism. For the urban poor in this country, all families, it seems, can fess u p t o a t least o n e person o n welfare o r i n p r i s o n : the contours o f

urban life for people o f color are therefore between debt, prison, and welfare. T o explore these three areas, then, is not arbitrary; i t both follows from the reality o f urban life and hews close t o m y o w n analysis

o f h o w neoliberalism guts the funds o f civilization, and enhances the budget o f repression.

“ I AM N O TA LEADER” A t the corner o f E a s t Broadway and Grand Street i n Manhattan sits

a new public school called Shuang Wen. Meaning “Two Languages,” the school teaches all subjects i n English and Mandarin. While most o f t h e pupils are children o f the Chinese Diaspora, a tenth o f the student

body is black. “People would ask me, “Why Chinese? Why n o t French? W h y n o t Spanish,” ” remembered o n e black parent. “ I would ask them,

‘Why n o t Chinese?” Mandarin is n o t what draws these black parents t o travel h o u r s each day t o bring their children t o lower Manhattan. They are called by the informal network o f friends who know that this 1s a quality public school that accepts children from all five boroughs o f N e w York. The language training forces the children to work hard, and, i n essence, teaches them work habits across the curriculum. Denise

Gamble, one o f the black parents, says that i t 1s worth the long journey because “ I just w a n t m y children t o have a good education.”!? I n the early 1990s, a group o f high s c h o o l students i n Providence,

Rhode Island

gathered together at t h e office o f D i r e c t A c t i o n

for

Rights and Equality (DARE) o n Lockwood Street across from

Classical High School. Angry a t the racism o f the police i n the vicinity o f the s c h o o l and o f t h e curriculum foisted u p o n them b y t h e i r

XXii

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

teachers, the students, mainly young women, wanted t o d o something. They k n e w that they wanted a g o o d education a n d they

knew it would n o t come t o them b y being idle. Over several

their situation, they started a campaign, they forced DARE’s staff and resources t o adopt their agenda, and they launched E=MC? (Education=Multi-Cultural

afternoons they developed a n analysis o f

Curriculum). T h e youth organized their parents and their classmates,

fought the school board, and finally, on October 5, 1996, introduced three n e w elective courses t o their curriculum: Science, History, and Literature, all from a n anti-racist perspective. F o r the youth the

point was to “reclaim their o w n educational path, and in doing so, their future.”!®

People k n o w what i s good i n education and what a good education is. T h e lengths t o which working-class parents and youth g o t o secure education and t o preserve schools are extraordinary.

Families undergo long commutes and harsh struggles t o ensure that children get the means t o understand a n d transform their

reality. T o o often, those o f u s w h o are ensconced i n our

middle-class habits fail t o see h o w important education is t o the working class. Among teachers like myself, w e comfortable

frequently say that a m o n g those w h o are driven t o learn, desperate t o learn, the working-class students are often a surprising majority.

The surprise 1s on our prejudices, n o t on the long traditions o f hunger for ideas hoarded i n the academies o f the rich. T h e gradual destruction o f public education i n the country

certainly leads many, even among the working class, t o hope for other solutions, perhaps places called charter schools, o r else t o

struggle t o make the schools more open, less racist. One reason for

the fight-back 1s that the working class recognizes that it needs t o preserve its resources t o exercise intellectual leadership i n both the

reproduction o f everyday life and in the struggles t o transform the world. Given the constraints o n life for the working class, it requires a n immense amount o f ingenuity t o keep it together, t o

ensure that things g o o n . Working class w o m e n most often face the challenge because state support t o maintain the family has

collapsed i n the last three decades, and the virtuoso efforts g f these

America

women enable life

to

xxiii

continue. The knowledge o f survival provides

these w o m e n with the tools o f resistance and transformation. They are,

then, n o t only the leaders in the art o f existence, but also, m o s t crucially, intellectual leaders t o change this America o f inequality and injustice. T h e y are our struggle intellectuals, o u r struggle leaders.

Keeping Up With the DowJoneses1s built o n the analysis o f women and children from the working class, many o f color, m o s t who live in polycultural neighborhoods. In 1988, Cecelia Rodriquez o f La Mujer Obrera, a garment workers’ organization in E l Paso, Texas, wrote t o

the US Urban Rural Mission and asked them t o fund a study o f what community organizing meant t o w o m e n o f color. M a n y discussions,

drafts, and reviews later, Rinku Sen o f the Center for Third World

Organizing in Oakland edited the final product, We Are the Ones We Are Waiting For. The 21 women whose words filled the final document underscore the role o f these women as intellectual and struggle leaders. Shirley Sherrod o f the Federation of Southern Cooperatives pointed o u t that even i f working class women appear isolated in their everyday struggles, they “are the ones i n their community always dreaming,

always thinking we can do more [to] make life better where we are.”? Ethel Long-Scott o f Oakland’s Women’s Economic Agenda Project i n t r o d u c e s u s t o 2a movement intellectual:

One o f our strongest leaders, she’s a mother o f six, she’s a

deep thinker. She’s been really trying

to

figure

out

what

does i t take t o get power and t o change a situation. A great deal

of t h i s work involves a

fairly intellectual pursuit. That

means the willingness to sit down and think through a

process. The other part is understanding how power is held in this country. Discipline is the other part of this plan t o obtain the kind o f information w e need. W e have all kinds o f buddy systems set up. We have a book exchange between o u r networks a n d if s o m e b o d y gets hold o f a g o o d historical piece, w e share it. We don’t back away from the fact t h a t there has t o be fundamental change. For us t h a t ’ s an ongoing effort, the whole community 1s a university for us. Everybody brings something t o the table and therc’s potential. H o w do we get to that talent, that light o f dignity? That’s different from saying we've got t o “rehabilitate” this person.?!

XXiv

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses draws upon the documents and reports prepared by the organizations o f mainly working class women as well as the work o f social scientists. While the latter provided useful data and historical information, the former, the work o f the women in struggle, provided sophisticated analyses o f our current conjuncture.

This book draws from that analysis and offers itself as a summary o f the hundreds of testimonies and reports that emerged from years o f struggle against the government. Keeping Up With the DowJonesesis heavy o n the numbers, but let these n o t stand in as a substitute for the

framework developed by the women in struggle. The numbers help us make the analysis #ue in the eyes o f those who are only swayed by governmental data and n o t by the everyday data o f social life. “Within the constrained choices that we make,” writes feminist

Elisabeth Armstrong, “there are libratory possibilities that are outside those constraints.”?2 We need t o recognize the parents who wake up early in the morning t o take their children far across t o w n so that they can get a good education, schooled in English and Mandarin (even as they have no historical tie t o China), or the students from a battered part o f America w h o struggle t o make their curriculum more inclusive,

find the funds t o get textbooks and t o generate interest among their peers for knowledge. These are stories o f people who w a n t education t o build the capacity for transformation. Within the constraints, they to

find the path t o liberation. I n this book, w e will also take this route,

searching for a better life while in Babylon. Alice Hicks, a venerated member o f the D A R E family, used t o say, “I am n o ta leader.” She led b y example in the fights against urban blight,

job flight, and police might. She was a strong leader whose maxim “You make a difference” ennobled those around her t o continue if the

circumstances turned bleak. She was a leader, but her statement stressed her insistence that everyone mattered in the struggle t o make democracy.

As she said, “I a m not a leader,” she meant, “ W e are 4/leaders”—in the

struggle, both mn body and in mind.

America

XXV

David Leonhardt, “ O u t o f a Job and No Longer Looking,” New York Limes, September 29, 2002.

Kimberly

Crenshaw,

“Mapping the

Margins: Intersectionality, Identity

Politics and Violence Against Women o f Color,” Critical Race Theory: The

Key Writings that FormedtheMovement, E d . Kimberly Crenshaw, et. al., N e w York: The N e w Press, 1990.

Robert Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble: The US in the World Economy, London: Verso, 2002; Walden Bello (with Shea Cunningham and Bill Raw),

Dark

Victory: The United States, Structural Adjustment and Global

Poverty, Penang: Third World Network, 1994. The point is elaborated i n the n e x t chapter. Structural adjustment is o f course the instrument used by organizations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) t o transform the world into a playground for global corporations. In 1981, the IMF’s director Jacques d e Lavosiere called for “sacrifices o n the p a r t o f all: international

financing will serve no purpose i f spent on consumption as i f there were n o tomorrow’ (IMF Survey, February 9, 1981). For a useful analysis, sce

Ron Phillips, “The Role o f the I M F i n the Post—Bretton Woods Era,” Review o fRadicalPolitical Economy, s u m m e r 1983. Reagan w e n t so far as t o argue that the problems o f developing countries stemmed from too much aid, that is, these countries used overextended credit for wasteful consumption

(IMF Survey,

October

12, 1981). T h e

working people, i t

turned out, had t o make all the sacrifices. Just so there 1s n o

misunderstanding, Clorox America is part o f the nation-state, but this phenomenon is both larger and smaller than the state. I t is larger in that elected US representatives seem t o work a t the service o f global corporations and put the US military a t their service. I t is smaller in that i t does n o t include all the people who live within the US, many o f whom are as m u c h survivors o f the system as their brethren around the world. 1

have argued this in detail elsewhere: War Against the Planet: The Fifth Afghan War, Imperialism and Other Assorted Fundamentalisms, New Delhi: Leftword, 2002 and Fal Cats and Running Dogs: The Enron Stage of Capitalism, Monroe, M E : Common Courage Press, 2002.

Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, The New Class IVar: Reagan's Attack on the Welfare State andIts Consequences, N e w Y o r k : P a n t h e o n , 1982. B o b Jessop, Kevin Bonnett, Simon Bromley and T o m Ling, 1hatcherism:

A Tale of Two Nations, Oxford: Polity Press, 1938. Elisabeth Skons, FEvamaria Loose-Weintraub, Wuyi Omitoogun and Petter Stilenheim, “Military Expenditure,” SIPRI Yearbook 2002: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2002. The heaviest per capita expense o n arms is i n the states o f West

while the greatest economic burden (in

terms

Asia,

o f the military’s share o f

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

XXVi

the gross domestic product) is in Africa. Neoliberal

states

around the

world spend enormous amounts o n the military, with expenditure o n the domestic police a n d o n p r i s o n s lagging n o t t o o far behind.

10

Seymour Hersh, “Overwhelming Force,” TheNew Yorker, May 22, 2000. I n the summer o f 1990, the Iraqi government accused the Kuwaitis o f

drilling laterally into the Iraqi oil fields o f this very spot, Rumaila. This was the provocation for the Iraqi invasion o f Kuwait. 11

in my b o o k Faz Cats and Running Dogs: The Enron Stage of Capitalism, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2002, pp. 162-78, b u t also see Alma Guillermoprieto’s lyrical book, Looking for History: Dispatches from Latin America, New York: Vintage, 2001, pp. 20-71.

12

H o u s e Ways and Means Committee, Report on H R 3838, The T a x Reform

13

A c tof 1985, Washington, DC: US Congress, 1985, pp. 145-46. Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel, Ending Corporate Welfare as We Know I,

I have summarized the tale

Washington, D C : Cato Institute, 1995.

14

General Accounting Office, Foreign and US-Controlled Corporations That

15

DidNot Pay US Taxes, 1989-95, Washington, D C : G A O , 1999. Leslie Wayne, “ A Guardian o f Jobs o r a ‘Reverse Robin H o o d ? ” New

16

York Times, September 1, 2002. More details in Faz Cats, pp. 34-30. Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker, The Many Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, Commoners and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic, Boston: Beacon Press, 2000, pp. 211-47.

17

O n the role o f slavery, see Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the

Quantitative History of American Negro Slavery, ed. Paul David, Herbert Gutman, Peter Temin and Gavin Wright, N e w York: Oxford University

Press, 1976, and Roger Ransom, Conflict and Compromise: The Political

of Slavery, Emancipation and the American Civil Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Economy

18

War, N e w

York:

Yilu Zhao, “New York School for Chinese Is a Magnet for Black Pupils,” N e w York Times, November 2, 2002. O l d e r Afro-Asian currents

can hardly b e ignored here. F o r m o r e o n this subject, see Vijay Prashad,

Everybody Was Kung F u Fighting: Afro-Asian Connections and the Myth of Cultural Purity, B o s t o n : Beacon Press, 2001.

19

“ D A R E Youth W i n Multi-Cultural Curriculum,” D A R E to Win, vol. V ,

20

issue I I , Winter 19906, p. 1. Rinku Sen, We Are the Ones We Are Waiting For: Women ofColor Organizing for Transformation, Durham, N C : United States Rural Missions for the World Council o f Churches, 1995, p . 8.

21 22

We Are the Ones We Are Waiting For, p. 32. Elisabeth Armstrong, unpublished manuscript on the All-India Democratic W o m e n ’ s Association (AIDWA).

DEBT Back on the streets I thought I wouldn’t survive So I ' m bustin’ m y ass o n this nine t o five.

Flippin’ patties all day when the place is hot

Gettin’ paid peanuts, in the burger shop. Now everybody wants t o know the deal, 1s this brother real Can I feed my family off o f a Happy Meal? I remember the time when I was six The American Dream was everybody gets rich But yo, a fact for all t o know F o u r hundred years has passed, and w e still p o ’

H e ain’t my Uncle, but Sam

know what he’s

talkin’ a b o u t

I f you wanna get paid, sell your people out.

—The Coup, “Kill M y Landlord,” 1993

I

1995, the members o f the AFL-CIO took decisive action t o renounce the heritage o f “business unionism,” o f “concessionary

bargaining,” o f a half century o f leadership by t w o men wedded t o the status quo (George Meany, head from 1954 t o 1979, and Lane Kirkland, head from 1979 t o 1995). Three sections o f organized labor, about 40 percent o f the union workforce, fought against the anointed successor o f

Kirkland: industrial unions (United Auto Workers (UAW), International Association o f Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Steelworkers, and

Mine Workers), service and public sector unions (American Federation o f County, State, a n d Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service

Employees International Union (SEIU)), and the newly revived International Brotherhood o f Teamsters. A reform slate made u p o f

John Sweeney (SEIU), Linda Chavez-Thompson (AFSCML), and

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

2

Richard Trumka (UMW) won the election t o the leadership o f the AFL-CIO and pledged the union t o organize with enthusiasm." O n the first day o f the AFL-CIO meeting, Sweeney promised t o “recreate a

[labor] movement that will improve the lives o f working people, n o t just protect them from current assaults. O u r members need t o see a labor movement that is a powerful voice on behalf o f their interests and unorganized workers need t o see a movement that can make their lives better”? Even t h o s e with a great deal o f suspicion about the AFL-CIO could not but feel as if change was afoot. A labor force made buoyant b y militant service workers (many o f whom were, and are, immigrants) pushed the leadership t o the Left. Sweeney, despite his own record steeped i n business

unionism, came

from the union o f the service

workers, and he knew o f the brave struggles o f immigrant workers in southern California from the decade-long Los Angeles Justice for Janitors campaign from 1988 t o the San Diego Drywall Strike o f 1992. With only a tenth of the workforce in unions and with wages stagnant since 1973, the AFL-CIO had t o make some moves. On January 24, 1995, before the AFL-CIO provided a measure o f

buoyancy

to

the progressive forces within the US, President Bill

Clinton offered his state o f the union address to the nation. Even as

Clinton boasted o f the six million jobs created under his watch, reality did not allow him t o forget the inequality that tore the union apart. People are being “left out,” he said, and “the rising tide is n o t lifting all boats.” [People are] working harder for less. They have less security, less income, less certainty that they can even afford a vacation, m u c h less college for their kids o r

retirement for themselves. We

let this continue. I f w e d o n ’ t act, our economy will probably keep doing what cannot

it’s b e e n doing since about 1978, when the income growth

began t o g o t o those at the very top o f our economic scale

and the people in the v a s t middle got very little growth, and people w h o worked like crazy b u t were o n the b o t t o m then

fell even further and further behind in the years afterward—no matter h o w hard they worked.

What did Clinton have in mind for the population? His recipe was uninspiring: “Work and responsibility over welfare and dependency.”

While he promised jobs instead o f government cheese and the bank instead o f Food Stamps, the Clinton administration failed t o provide a

Debt

3

road m a p for the impoverished toward the nirvana o f what h e called the “ N e w Covenant.” B u t even Clinton had t o recognize that the state o f t h e union’s workers d i d n o t merit applause.

Pushed by its militant membership and by the broad social m o v e m e n t s against capitalist globalization, the AFL-CIO under Sweeney/Chavez-Thompson/Trumka

made

gestures

toward

a

progressive agenda. T h e labor movement questioned “free trade” and

called for an amnesty for immigrants a t the same time as 1t called o u t its members t o oppose Third World debt and the debt of the working class within the U S . These small acts engendered a sense o f immense h o p e a m o n g the progressive sections o f the labor movement, a n d the

AFL-CIO’s participation in the massive anti-capitalist protests from the 1999 Battle of Seattle onward provided a greater sense that things might change for the better. O n April 9, 2000, during a week-long protest against the I M F ,

Sweeney noted of Third World debt, “We want debt relief and w e want i t now.” The IMF, he continued, must “stop pressuring countries to

reform their economies in the wrong direction. They

must

allow

countries t o p u r s u e different paths o f development. W e need a world

where the market lifts us up instead o f driving us down.” Sweeney also n o t e d , “Rich countries like the U n i t e d States m u s t provide m o n e y for

development, and make certain i t provides jobs and benefits and n o t more palaces and more tanks for the rulers.” T h e rhetoric marked a

departure for the AFL-CIO, particularly from its long history o f protectionism, o f overt assistance t o imperialism, and o f its concern for the wages o f U S workers above all other considerations.”

While Third World debt incensed Sweeney a t the protests t o shut down the I M F meetings, in November o f 2000, he w e n t t o Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore t o rail against the debt of US workers. After a brief overview o f the booming stock market, Sweeney pointed the figure a t A m e r i c a ’ s other side.

America’s workers are putting in longer hours, especially m a n d a t o r y overtime, a n d working second jobs for the gains

they've enjoyed. Families are paying a price for lost ime together. A record number o f workers are n o w employed in temp jobs, with l o w wages, few i f any benefits and n o job

security. All across our country, more households than ever before are getting by only by having both spouses away

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

4

from home and working, more workers are going into debt t o make ends m e e t and personal bankruptcy filings doubled over the last decade. Something fundamental and dangerous

i s at work i n our economy. T h e bright glow o f isn’t

lighting

Wall Street

every corner o f America. Even i n

this

extraordinary age o f prosperity, when the abundance o f riches all around u s should finally b e lifting all workers and all

families, millions o f Americans are not getting ahead.

N o progressive observer o f the US economy can fail t o be startled by the high level o f debt borne by the bulk o f the population. These are folk who borrow n o t for luxury, but for survival. These are folk who struggle t o find one job that sustains them, since they work in multiple jobs that offer few hours, low pay, and no benefits. Our general survey o f the US economy will n o t stay with the major indicators, but it will start with debt, deal with the sweatshop conditions for the bulk of the workforce, find o u t why the US is increasingly divided into t w o classes (the CEOs and the contingent), and what the contingent classes are doing t o change the system. I t is a tall order for a short chapter, but here goes...

ALL WE ARE WORTH While September 11 was a defining event for America, it was not a defining event for the economy o r the financial

markets. That role belongs t o the stock market bubble o f the

late 1990s that finally popped in March 2000. The equity bubble helped create other bubbles—most notably

in

the

in consumer spending. There is good reason t o believe that both the property and consumer bubbles will burst in the not-so-distant future. I f they do, there is a realistic possibility that the United States, like Japan i n the 1990s, will suffer a series o f recessionary relapses over the next several years. Y e t denial remains deep, just as it was housing market and

when the Nasdaq composite index was lurching toward

5,000. F e w want t o believe that this economic may be built on such a shaky foundation.

expansion

—Stephen S. Roach, Chief Economist, Morgan Stanley

O v e r the course o f the past century, the U S public has tolerated (and sometimes encouraged) the notion o f consumer peer pressure.

Debt

5

With the advent o f mass production a n d o f advertising, the citizen was converted into the consumer w h o s e entire destiny was t o b e governed

by the goods in one’s home. To capture this iron cage of consumerism, US slang produced the phrase ““T'o keep up with the Joneses,” those imaginary neighbors whose purchases ensured that the crisis o f overproduction not be u n d o n e by the phenomenon of underconsumption. Buy, buy, buy; go into debt, and buy, buy, buy. The v a s t US market, buyer o f the last resort, had t o prime the pump o f planetary capitalism.

Through the 1990s, as economies around the world felt the tsunami o f the IKondratiev Wave, the US seemed marooned o n its own island o f prosperity. B u t there was a n enigma that befuddled those w h o

looked a t the economy: while the financial indicators looked sound (despite some tumultuous fluctuation), income and wealth differentials increased t o record highs. T h e rich got richer, the p o o r got poorer, b u t the economy looked perfectly healthy. I f increased class division

precluded the “Keep up with the Joneses’ axiom, then the new slogan was “Keep up with the Dow Joneses,” the only reliable standard for the American D r e a m that kept its upward ascent regardless o f the reality o f

people’s lives. Invented in the 1890s by Charles Dow (the first editor o f the Wa// Street Journal), the Dow Jones Industrial Average is n o t the m o s t representative index for the stock market—it 1s a n average o f 3 0

top-flight industrial stocks, whereas the Standard and Poor’s 500 indexes 500 industrial, service, and financial stocks. Nevertheless, the D o w Jones, since the 1980s, has b e c o m e the index o f h u m a n reason. T h e ascent o f the D o w since i t s invention has b e e n extraordinary.

From the base or starting value o f 100 (in 1928), the index inched up t o 1,000 (by 1960). I n August 1982, investment in the stock market created a bull market—wvast sums o f money entered the N e w York Stock Exchange, astronomical numbers o f stocks exchanged hands,

and the index escalated upwards t o 10,000 (by March 1999). During this phase (from 1983 t o 1998), the Dow Jones rose by 1,333 percent. Optimists a m o n g s t o c k analysts e x p e c t that the D o w will triple its value

in the 21st Century, despite the decline below 10,000 in the year o f 9/11 and E n r o n / W o r l d C o m . By their account, the bulls will s o o n b e running down Wall Street again.

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

6

Wall Street’s stock market, inaugurated i n

1791, is

only o n e among

the world’s many exchanges. F r o m the Japanese Nikkei t o Kenya's

Nairobi Stock Exchange, the phenomenon o f stock markets has now come t o dominate the planet. I n 1996, a World Bank economist estimated that the total value o f stocks listed i n all the world’s stock

markets had reached $15.2 trillion (compared to $4.7 trillion in 1 9 8 6 ) . Banks, pension funds, those with wealth, and a few others, take their money t o the stock market, invest it i n this o r that share o f a firm, then

wait out a dividend payment, o r else freely trade the stock and make a profit based on the difference between their buying and selling price. O f course this is a highly simplified version o f what has become a thoroughly complex world o f financial transactions. The stock market universe has its own argot, filled with such phrases as “put options,” “capacity utilization,” “odd lot shorts,” and “stopped out.” The professionals at the market, who know the language o f the trading floor, follow long lists o f numbers and figures, indexes such as the Hang Seng o f Hong Kong, the NASDAQ and Dow Jones o f New York, the FI'SE o f London, the Nikkei 225 o f Tokyo, the Sensex (or either

2

¢¢

Sensitive Index) o f Mumbai, and the Straits Times Index o f Singapore.

They pore over these figures like medieval scholars, while the r e s t of the population holds onto their brokers t o help them make sense o f the upward or downward ticks o f the Big Board. These brokers and their bosses have constructed a bewildering series o f financial instruments, such as derivatives, t o draw i n m o r e money t o expand the scope o f the exchanges.’ A n astounding number o f shares trade hands each day. A t

the New York Stock Exchange alone, 307.5 billion shares traded in 2001, with a n average daily trade o f $42.3 billion. Brokers and professionals w h o are i n the k n o w easily dominate a system that has come t o b e thoroughly undemocratic i n its operation, even as it claims t o b e the bastion o f financial democracy.

in any publicly traded firm. F r o m its early days three centuries ago till our o w n time, the stock market has elicited its o w n brand o f ecstatic commentary that it is the instrument for democracy under capitalism.” Wall Street Certainly, the s t o c k market allows anyone t o invest

advertises its power t o democratize ownership without revolution and

forced redistribution. I n this climate, George Soros, Ross Perot, and Donald Trump sell themselves as men o f the people, simple businessmen w h o are n o t so very different from those small merchants

Debt

7

w h o toil u n d e r the yoke o f interventionist states. Until the collapse o f

the technology stocks and the slowdown i n Silicon Valley, the techno-gurus o f California took o n that role for o u r time. F i r s t among

them was Jim Clark, founder o f the mult-billion dollar empire o f Silicon Graphics, Netscape, and WebMD. “Somewhere in the process

o f equity sharing,” he said, “is the basis for a new economy that distributes wealth far more diversely than at any other time i n the history o f business.” Whereas the political system, namely the adult franchise, promised democracy at o n e time, n o w the s t o c k market has

taken on that role. As the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman p u t i t so indelicately t o the prime minister o f Thailand, “ O n e dollar,

One vote.”® I f the vote gives a citizen the same political rights as anyone else, much the same can be said o f investment. O f course, Friedman neglects t o tell u s that t h o s e with more dollars have a greater

command o f the system, even o f the shareholders meetings. During the

entire bull market from August 1982 till the end o f the 1990s, the top five p e r c e n t of stockowners (by household wealth) owned 94.5 percent o f all stock held by individuals. I n other words, the stock market boom p r o d u c e d the illusion o f equality w h e n in fact i t w a s a n o t h e r avenue for the maintenance (or even motor) o f inequality.

A Congressional inquiry in mid-September 2002 offered the public one example o f why the millions did n o t make the billions. Individual investors could n o t m a k e the same money as these tycoons, Pulitzer Prize-winning

business journalist Gretchen M o r g e n s o n reported,

because “ahead o f them i n line a t m o s t big firms were grasping executives w h o h a d a far greater chance o f bagging h o t stocks because

their companies were paying investment banking fees t o the firms

doing the doling.”” How does the boondoggle work? The investment research firm, Sanford C . B e r n s t e i n & Co., published a r e p o r t i n 1999

on how initial public offerings (IPOs) are priced far below what they are worth. An IPO is the first sale o f stock from a concern on the open market, what is also called “going public.” I n the early 1990s, private firms offered s t o c k o n the market as I P O s a t about five percent below value. That i s , whereas analysts expected the s t o c k t o trade at a certain price, the firm offered a below value price t o b o o s t demand

for

the

stock. I f the “aftermarket performance” o r the first day’s sale is good,

then the stock analysts will talk up the firm and its share price will rise. By 1999, the IPOs began t o come t o the block a full 30 percent below

8S

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

value, m u c h m o r e than the five percent o f

only a

f e w years before.

Morgenson offers the Telecom world as a n example o f this scam.

Between January 1999 and January 2001, the first day gain o f Telecom shares was about $9.6 billion, which meant that the brokerage firms h a d this m u c h “free money” t o give out t o their b e s t c u s t o m e r s . ' ” T h o s e customers w h o h a d the benefit o f “private placement” could get access to

the immediate 30 percent discount with little attendant risk. They

were also privy t o the “whisper numbers,” the w o r d o n the Street that 1s

unavailable t o the bulk o f the small players who use their local brokers o r w h o trade via the Internet. Reports such as Morgenson’s study o n

IPOs validate the statistical data. While almost half o f US households own some stocks (whether through a retirement plan or otherwise), tor 60 percent o f households, their stocks amounted t o only $4,000. The top one percent, those people who are given “free money,” hold almost halt o f all stocks (47.7 percent), while the bottom 80 percent hold a

minuscule 4 percent o f all stock holdings." To keep up with the Joneses, the US public quixotically went into massive consumer debt. I n January 2000, the Federal Reserve Board otfered a look at the state o f debt within US households. The authors o f the Survey o f Consumer Finances for 1998 wrote in their understated manner, “The median amount o f debt increased for most o f the

demographic groups [classes], and many o f the changes were large.” As debt increased among the population, the authors pointed out that while households seemed t o borrow less for home purchases, they made u p for it with “an increase in borrowing for investment purposes;

in light o f the rising stock market and strong business conditions, some o f this borrowing may include borrowing to invest in equities o r start a

new business.”’> Few doubt the existence o f debt among the US population, but what d o e s n o t often get noticed is that the debt is borne disproportionately by the working class (among whom I include both the waged workers a n d those w h o are unemployed— the potential

workers whose various labors keep the waged workers physically and spiritually afloat). Those households that made less than $10,000 carried the highest debt, while those who earned between $25,000 and $49,999 had the next highest debt rates. Once you move beyond the $100,000 range, the debt burden lifts enormously.'* F o r those whose income i s above $50,000 and w h o o w n property, the early years o f the household mortgage are mainly paid off with tax-free money, s o that

Debt

9

this 1s a n incentive and n o t a liability for them, whereas the rent paid b y those w h o earn a t the lower end i s entirely a n expense.'”> T h e report from

the Federal Reserve also notes the increase i n personal

bankruptcy filing (particularly among those who earn a t the low end o f the i n c o m e t o t e m ) . D e b t i s a genuine concern w h e n i t p u t s a burden o n the family’s finances. T h e Federal Reserve concludes that the “ d e b t

burden” (the ratio o f family debt payments t o total family income) was 15.9 percent in 1989, but it rose t o 17.6 percent in 1998. Again, “the m o s t striking i n c r e a s e s were a m o n g families with incomes o f less than

$10,000 and those i n the 75-or-older group.”'® Like the countries o f the global S o u t h , U S households i n 1 9 9 5 s p e n t a total o f a l m o s t 1 7 percent

o f their after tax incomes on debt payment ($3903 billion), an enormous upward redistribution o f income.'’ Analysis o f the data i n the Survey o f Consumer Finances

public

borrowed

shows us

that the poorest

40 p e r c e n t

of

the US

m o n e y t o c o m p e n s a t e for stagnant o r battered

incomes rather than t o expend m o n e y o n indulgences.'® O n l y the richest

20 p e r c e n t

borrowed m o n e y principally t o invest

in

the s t o c k

market, t o suffer the occult movements o f the Big B o a r d as part o f the

small, but influential, investor class. The p o o r gained in one statistic, d e b t , which r o s e for

the b o t t o m 90 p e r c e n t by over 11 p e r c e n t while i t

fell for the richest o n e percent b y 1 9 percent. This d e b t went toward the

maintenance o f some modicum o f the American D r e a m amongst

households long mortgaged t o the will of the banks. There is n o government plan t o help shoulder the debt o f the yacht-less. Neither i s there any government plan t o regulate credit

agencies so that they n o t prey on the desires o f the multitude. Nor is there a plan t o increase the financial literacy o f students to replace, o r else t o supplement, the education they get i n h o w t o m a k e m o n e y o n stocks.

Instead, w e hear the rich disrespect hard workers, and blame them for their lack o f “personal responsibility” and for their lack o f “incentive.”

I n 1995, Pete D u Pont, heir to the vast D u Pont family fortune and Delaware’s former congressman and governor, wrote, “The m i n i m u m

wage turns

out to

be one o f our leading killers—a killer o f economic

growth a n d opportunity a m o n g the young, the poor, a n d the minority community. I t ’ s time t o s t o p it before i t kills again.”'? This fulmination

c a m e just as the U S government raised the m i n i m u m wage for the first

time i n over two decades, a rise i n pay that was marginal and has not d o n e n e a r enough t o overcome the inequities that tear the nation apart.

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

10

F r o m then President Clinton t o n o w President Bush, there 1s a consensus that things have never been better, despite 9 / 1 1 , a n d

that

the brief recessions (under the watch o f B u s h ’ s father, a n d then again i n the immediate aftermath o f 9 / 1 1 ) are over. F o r

almost a third

o f the

population w h o live under o r near the poverty line, this provides little solace.”’ T h e previously unemployed m a y n o w b e at work, b u t f e w ask

their conditions a t “work,” about the number o f part-time jobs they m u s t hold t o maintain a household, or about their lack o f

t h e m about

medical insurance. “Economic segregation i n this country i s so rigid

that we literally don’t know one another anymore,” columnist Molly Ivins complained.?! I f w e did, perhaps the hoopla about the return t o prosperity would n o t b e made so cavalierly.

For those who watch the US from afar (or during brief, well orchestrated holidays), it is hard t o imagine the poverty within this haven o f capital. Sated by Hollywood movies and by the smooth talk o f US politicians, the world imagines that each US citizen m u s t bear some title to the wealth o f the nation. Within the US, however, there are few

that have illusions about the nature o f the economic miracle, o f the Second Gilded Age whose Rockefellers and Carnegies are named Gates and Waltons. I f D u Pont worried about the lack o f incentive t o the working people, he did n o t have t o worry about the ample incentives provided t o the CEOs and the one percent from which they hail. In the 1990s, corporate profits rose by 108 percent. Someone seems t o be doing quite well, as indeed the pay o f Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) rose during this decade by 481 percent. With the collapse o f Enron and WorldCom, the business pages o f the major newspapers began t o resemble tabloids—rather than deal with the structural problems o f Enron-type capitalism, they told u s that the

problem was C E O compensation.”

Nevertheless, news o f C E O

excesses provides a useful window into the general inequality that pervades U S corporations and U S

society. C E O s

o f the major

corporations earned a n average o f $274 million as salaries (with stock options and other perks) i n 2000, according t o calculations done b y

Fortune magazine.”

N o longer do CEOs simply take home a salary. The real bonus comes t o them i n s t o c k options. W h e n a corporation gives o n e o f i t s employees the right t o b u y a given amount o f its shares at a particular

price within a specific

time, that right i s a s t o c k option. T h e income tax

Debt

11

c o d e o f 1 9 5 0 allowed companies t o pay their employees i n s t o c k

options, b u t from the late 1950s t o 1982, when the stock market

produced unspectacular results, this was n o t a major line item in the

CEO pay package. When the stock market began its boom, and when Congress created section 162 (m) o f the tax c o d e in 1993, t o prevent a firm from taking a tax exemption for CEO salaries that exceed $1 million, corporations began t o lace their compensation packages with

stock options and other juicy perks. I n 2000, Apple Computer’s Steve J o b s walked away with $ 3 8 1 million, b y far the largest compensation

package, but this pales in comparison t o the $872 million options grant that Apple gave him. In 2001, the top five executives o f the 1,500 largest U S firms earned a total o f $18 billion i n option profits, more than a fivefold increase since the early 1990s. Over the 1990s, the heads

o f these firms made a total o f $58 billion. Another untaxed incentive t o the C E O class comes i n kind. General Electric’s former C E O J a c k Welch got his former

firm t o

pay for tree

lifetime use o f the company jet, use o f a n office and secretary, a large salary as consultant, courtside seats at the

T V at his Central Park West mn

US Open,

four homes, use o f a GE-owned apartment o n

satellite

Manhattan, laundry, wine, newspapers, meals, and other such basi n e e d s . ” Tyco International’s former C E O Dennis Kozlowski not only

gave 51 o f his chosen employees $56 million in bonuses (and then, $39 million t o pay for the taxes o n those bonuses), but h e flinched m o r e than

$60 million i n personal expenses o f his own. That amount included a $30

million house in Boca Raton, Florida, a $16.8 million apartment in Manhattan, a $1.32 million rental for a second apartment and $7 million

in Manhattan, $3 million t o renovate the apartment that h e bought in the City, and $11 million t o furnish it. The furnishings include o n a co-op

such choice items as a traveling toilet box ($17,000), a dog umbrella stand ($15,000), shower curtains ($6,000), a gilt metal wastebasket ($2,200) and

a pincushion (8445).2° The pincushion itself c o s t more than the weekly take-home pay o f a minimum wage worker.

D o these incentives t o the CEO class deliver rewards t o the firms and, eventually, the shareholders? According t o a major study by Harvard Business School’s Rakesh Khurana, the compensation given t o C E O s far outweighs their contribution t o the firm: the rate o f return

for

them

is extraordinary.’ Two studies o f

s t o c k options,

in addition,

found that “the companies w h o s e executives t o o k m o r e h a d n o better

12

returns in the

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

following three years than t h o s e that took less. Worse, the

firms whose corporate chieftains were most likely t o take a bigger share

had sub-par performance t o begin with.” Thus, “it seems clear that options have been seriously misused as a tool for motivating

executives.”*® Despite the excellent work of United for a Fair Economy and its Responsible Wealth Project, despite the general anger at C E O compensation, a n d despite the economic insecurity o f the multitude,

little seems t o be done t o reform the system.” When the Welch scandal hit the public in September 2002, Robert J. Stucker, a lawyer a t Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammbholz who represents executives in contract negotiations, told the press, “I don’t think there are any changes in the negotiations over severance packages. They’re pretty much the same.” Reforms that shake the foundation o f neoliberal capitalism do not come, because the one percent works hard to lobby the US government

who pass laws t o their tune and n o t t o the democratic sirens that occasionally emanate from the rest o f America. Fortune magazine’s Power 25 list o f the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, D C , in

2000, 1s filled with the agents o f the CEO class: American Association o f Independent Business (no. 3), Chamber o f Commerce o f the United States o f America (no. 7), National Beer Wholesalers Association (no. 8), National Association o f Realtors (no. 9), National Association o f Manufacturers (no. 10), National Association of Home Builders o f the USA (no. 11), American Hospital Association (no. 13), Motion Picture Association o f America (no. 16), National Association o f Broadcasters (no. 17), Health Insurance Association o f America (no. 19), National Restaurant Association (no. 20), Recording Industry Association o f America (no. 22), American Bankers Association (no. 23), and the Pharmaceutical Research &

Manufacturers o f America (no. 24).

Organs o f the radical Right are strong i n the Power 25 list, led b y the

National Rifle Association (no. 1), the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (no. 4), and the National Right t o Life Committee (no. 18). Only t w o organizations from the side o f labor make the list, the AFL-CIO (no. 6) and the International Brotherhood o f Teamsters (no. 25).”! Following journalist Ken Silverstein, it is important t o point out that Washington, D C , 1s a cheap city, as small campaign finance

donations from the lobbyists buy immense boondoggles for corporations and the one percent. Silverstein offers as an example the

behemoth Lockheed who paid a measly $5 million t o lobby Congress in

Debt

13

1996, but “won approval for the creation o f a new $15 billion government fund that will underwrite foreign weapons sales.””* The government's tax codes that allowed, for example, firms t o hide money

in offshore havens like the Cayman Islands—these giveaways enabled the one percent t o reap more benefits from their wealth, whereas the rest of the population found themselves a t a loss. To create discipline among the population, President Clinton, in 1996, ended social welfare and asked those without work t o find their o w n w a y in the thicket o f a market already geared t o benefit the rich. Obviously, a n incensed U S population

took refuge i n the populist anger o f the 2000 presidential campaigns o f J o h n McCain and Ralph Nader a n d despaired b y the Milquetoast o f A l

Gore in the face o f the CEO onslaught. I n the three decades before 1900, US “robber barons’ created the Gilded Age in which a few families (Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, a n d Vanderbilts) m a d e massive fortunes a n d enjoyed a n era o f “conspicuous consumption”

(as sociologist Thorstein

Veblen p u t

it).>

Most o f this wealth was built b y the rapacious use o f resources, and b y the withdrawal of the state from the affairs o f the wealthy. President Abraham Lincoln levied the first tax o n income i n the United States i n

1861 as a means t o finance the U n i o n ’ s w a r against the Confederacy. That tax, and the inheritance tax, ended in the early 1870s after the United States a b a n d o n e d Reconstruction (which w a s the August

reason President Grant offered the continuation o f the income tax).

When the state abandoned a progressive income tax, despite the clamor from the farmer-backed Populist Party, the benefits accrued t o those who had become or would become the robber barons.** Finally, these same robber barons used monopoly methods t o secure their fortunes.

public against these “trusts” (such as J o h n D . Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust) was considerable. Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 t o regulate mergers o f firms and T h e outcry from the

ensure that business combinations did n o t restrain commerce. The bill, long a bugbear o f the bosses, did not, however, do its job. N o t only did

it lack an independent enforcement mechanism, i t was also drafted in a

vague manner. I n 1940, Chief Justice Harlan Stone wrote o f the Act, “The prohibitions o f the Sherman Act were n o t stated in terms of precision or o f crystal clarity and the Act itself does n o t define them. In consequence of the vagueness o f its language, perhaps n o t uncalculated, the courts have b e e n left t o give content t o the statute.”

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

14

I f the novelist Edith Wharton worried about the “monstrous vulgarity”

o f the rich, the 1892 Populist Party complained that “the fruits o f the toil o f millions are boldly stolen t o build u p colossal fortunes for a few,

unprecedented in the history o f mankind, and the possessor o f these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty.”’® The close relationship between money a n d government was tempered b y the rise o f organized labor and the socialists, a n d b y the creation o f a civic consciousness b y a n activist media (led b y I d a Tarbells, U p t o n

Sinclair,

and Lincoln Stetfens). Ronald Reagan inaugurated the Second Gilded A g e with his 1 9 8 1 tax cut, which p r o m p t e d a rise i n unemployment a n d a polarization o f

wealth (when challenged on the figures in 1982, Reagan explained that “the statisticians in Washington have funny ways o f counting”).’’ According t o historian Robert Brenner, the manufacturing capacity in the US had stagnated in the decades before Reaganism, battered by a failure t o invest in the productive capacity due t o a desire t o recoup expensive investments in the 1950s and by the emergence o f lean export-driven manufacturing from Japan and Germany. To reinvigorate U S manufacturing, the U S government relied upon the volume o f credit

released into the market t o do the job, what in economic theory is called monetarism. The monetarists, led by Paul Volcker a t the Federal Reserve Bank, tightened the availability o f credit and forced unproductive firms

go

o f business. In 18 months o f 1981-82, the Reagan administration conducted an “industrial shakedown”—they pioneered the process that the IMF would export t o the Third World, the to

out

Structural Adjustment Program.”® T h e United States a n d sections o f

Europe became a “factory desert,” as industrial units closed d o w n a n d abandoned a workforce embittered.” O n c e

once

disciplined

the process weeded out

a n d loyal, but

now

the unproductive firms (at

great human cost), “the Reagan administration, which h a d c o m e t o office o n a programme o f balancing the budget, launched what turned o u t t o be the greatest experiment i n Keynesianism i n the history o f the

world. The supply-side program which accompanied monetarism in the US,” Brenner continues, “highlighted by record tax cuts, did succeed 1n transferring enormous sums o f money into the hands o f capitalists a n d the rich from the pockets o f a l m o s t everyone else.””*

I f unions claimed 35 percent o f US workers in 1954, by jhe end o f Reagan’s tenure they could vouch for only 1 4 percent. A s Reaganism

Debt

15

pulled the rug from under the US worker, the strategy o f business unionism followed b y U S unions m e a n t that they offered i m m e n s e concessions t o corporations i n the 1980s rather than act i n antagonism to

them. From Reagan’s first election

to

the present, the bottom 60

percent o f the US population saw their income drop, while only the top o n e percent (that same o n e percent), saw their income explode over 8 0

percent. I n 1965, the wage gap between the highest and lowest paid workers was 44 t o one, but by 2000, it stood a t over 200 t o one. The wage gap exploded n o t only because o f the immense increase in CEO compensation, but also because o f the stagnation o f wages for the bulk o f the population. In August 2002, the Commerce Department released figures that indicated that the wages o f more than 100 million U S workers h a d stagnated, and that as unemployment rises i n a weak

economy, “the bargaining power o f the nation’s wage earners has diminished.” Reporting this development, the New York Times noted, “ T h e stagnation i n t h e n a t i o n ’ s t o t a l wages a n d salaries, a d j u s t e d for

inflation, affects 110 million workers, most o f them below

management rank. I t results n o t only from meager raises, but also from cutbacks in hours, the disappearance o f nearly 1.7 million jobs since March 2001, and the rise in the unemployment rate, which now stands a t 5.9 percent.”®! Hours have been c u t for workers in each workplace, but with many workers holding down t w o jobs, parents in two-parent middle-income families added more than twelve weeks or

600 hours of work per year between them between 1979 and 1998.4 N o t only did wages stagnate, b u t unfair tax laws a n d the rigged s t o c k market protected a n d increased the wealth o f t h o s e o n the top o f

the pyramid. I n the 1980s, the top tax rate was 68 percent, but the

revised tax law decreased this t o 28 percent in 1988. While corporations in the early 1950s paid 33 cents o f every dollar toward tax, today they pay less than ten

c e n t s . Monies

that might have been taxed for socially

useful w o r k were used i n a speculation binge that, i n real estate, for example, raised rents t o render h o m e s unaffordable t o m u c h o f the

population. The speculation fever increased activity in the stock markets a n d a l l o w e d t h e o n e p e r c e n t t o gradually c l a i m the saved

income o f t h e many i n t o

their

coffers. S o m e o f

t h o s e untaxed monies

that were s u p p o s e d t o e n t e r t h e p o c k e t s o f venture capitalists, find their w a y into productive enterprises, and trickle down i n t o the p o c k e t s o f the

American worker,

got d i v e r t e d t o t h e great h a v e n s o f free

16

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

In 1999, Microsoft C E O Bill Gates, Berkshire Hathaway C E O Warren Buffett, and ex-Microsoft executive Paul Allen enjoyed a combined wealth of enterprise, the tax-free Cayman

Islands, for

instance.

$156 billion, an amount more than the Gross National Product o f the poorest 43 nations combined. The wealth o f the world’s 475

billionaires ($1.7 trillion) 1s well above the gross wealth o f the poorest half o f humanity. Inequality within the U S 1s also stark, with the richest

one percent in possession o f 40 percent o f the nation’s household wealth, while the entire b o t t o m 9 5 percent c o u l d call o n less than that

share. In the Second Gilded Age, wealth trickles upwards as the r e s t o f humanity takes its chances a t the lottery, the casino, o r the stock exchange. B u t even stocks, as we've seen, are rigged against the

ordinary folk. The last year o f the Christian Millennium was not, however, good for the investor class, since the Dow Jones lost just above 6 percent o f its value, while the S&P 500 lost just above 10 percent, and the Nasdaq composite index (mainly o f technology stocks) fell by m o r e than 39 percent. A n investor class unused t o the woes o f capitalism turned

immediately t o the fourth chamber o f the US government (after the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary): the Federal Reserve (the “central bank” o f the U S created i n the aftermath o f the Panic o f 1 9 0 7 t o

bail out the blunders of the robber barons and their ilk). Rather than admit t o the contradictions o f overproduction a t the core o f the system, the captains o f finance and industry blamed b a d state policy for their

socioeconomic troubles. The managers o f the Fed have, since the late

1970s, adopted the posture o f “neutrality o f money” (monetarism) and tended t o use their power t o set interest rates toward the management o f

inflation. The Fed, especially under the Ayn Randian Alan Greenspan, has labored t o act according t o the principles of the Phillip’s Curve: economist Milton Friedman took a rather innocuous formula t o argue

that if the unemployment rate fell, then workers would have more strength at the bargaining table, a n d s o prices would rise t o create

inflation; i f the Federal Reserve worked to maintain a basic rate o f unemployment, then those with wealth would b e saved from a n assault o n the value o f their saving b y inflation. T h e canard o f a n “overheated”

economy i s used t o reproach those w h o call for full employment, and

the specter o f inflation and a contracted stock market scare the US

public into submission.* After all, w e may n o t invest as individuals in

Debt

the m a r k e t s , b u t o u r

17

pension money is wrapped up in m o n e y

market

accounts; w e m a y n o t understand the complex neoclassical alchemy o f inflation, b u t w e k n o w that p r i c e s have already started t o inch

up.

what i t s analysts call the “fundamentals,” the indices o f production that are m e a n t t o T h e s t o c k m a r k e t is, therefore, a p o o r indicator o f

guide the i n v e s t m e n t s o f t h e consumers ( o f course “analysts” have long

since ceased t o d o any analysis, because they are n o w essentially sales

persons for glamorized investments*?). Far

too

many o f the US

government’s Indicators are unreliable, being based o n spurious

statistical analysis. Take the unemployment rate from the Bureau o f Labor Statistics (BLS) that w a s (in S e p t e m b e r 2002) at 5.9 p e r c e n t . T h e poll c o n d u c t e d b y the B L S ignores all those workers discouraged from

the j o b market as well as those w h o work only part-time. A n analysis that includes these workers provides u s with a rate o f close t o 9 percent.

But even this rate does n o t fully grasp the underbelly o f the US economy. Out o f a population o f 200 and 80 million, just over six million people languish in the judicial system and i n the prison complex (with a l m o s t t w o million i n p r i s o n a n d the r e s t o n probation o r

parole).*> A t a rate o f 690 per 100,000 the United States has the highest rate o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n in the world. D u e t o racist drug laws a n d a racist police force, the weight o f incarceration falls o n the shoulders o f

African Americans and Latinos. Almost a third o f the young African American male population and o n e i n eight young Latino males are 1n the w e b o f the p r i s o n complex, and the rate o f incarceration for w o m e n o f color i s o n a dramatic increase.*® W e are at the p o i n t n o w w h e n

almost t w o million people, a t a c o s t o f $40 billion, sit behind bars. Their potential to work is uncounted, as they join those off the j o b rolls

(including those who get disability payments) as the reserve army o f labor. The desolate c a n n o t be found i n the lines for work, those whose heads come before the surveyors o f the BLS. W h e n there 1s even a

marginal downturn i n the US economy, the grief is exaggerated i n those zones that are already i n distress, such as among the working class and

the working class o f color. As Langston Hughes wrote i n The Big Sea, “The depression brought everybody down a peg or two. And the Negro had but few pegs t o fall.” Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s three s t a t e m e n t s on the Bush economic plan from 2001 t o 2003 alert us t o the class bias o f the Fed i n particular, b u t also public policy i n general. I n carly 2 0 0 1 , Greenspan

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

18

testified before Congress in favor o f President Bush’s enormous $1.34

trillion tax cut, arguing for supply-side stimulation t o the economy. O n September 12, 2002, Greenspan reassured the legislators that “to date, the economy appears t o have withstood [the p o s t - 9 / 1 1 economic

downturn], although the depressing effects still linger and continue t o influence, in particular, the federal budget outlook.” Then, following the

tired, but still respectable,

logic that once things are b a d because o f

giveaways t o the rich, suck more from the working class, Greenspan warned against “the built-in bias in favor of budget deficits.” “History suggests that an abandonment o f fiscal discipline will eventually push u p interest rates, crowd out capital spending, lower productivity growth, and

force harder choices on us in the future.” In February 2003, Greenspan chided the administration’s m o v e t o a more than $300 billion budget deficit, but h e accepted the increase in military spending. The events of September 11 have placed demands on our budgetary resources that were unanticipated a few years ago. In addition, with defense outlays having fallen in recent

years t o their smallest share o f G D P since before

World War I I , the restraint on overall spending from the downtrend in military outlays has surely run its course—and likely would have done so even without the tragedy o f September 11.

While the media felt that his speech was critical o f the Bush tax cuts,* Greenspan did n o t single o u t the tax cuts as much as worry about deficits because o f both governmental programs (spending) and tax cuts (revenue): “We are all t o o aware that government spending programs a n d tax preferences c a n be easy t o initiate o r expand b u t extraordinarily difficult t o trim o r shut d o w n once constituencies develop that have a stake in maintaining the status q u o . ” O u t o f the verbiage, a f e w salient

points emerged: the rich m u s t get their tax breaks (even i f not t o the Bush extent), they are under no obligation t o spend them o n the productive capacity o f the economy, and when the price o f those tax cuts strikes the heart o f the government’s ability t o function, the government

must balance its budget and make the working class and working p o o r

pay with fewer services. The logic laid

by Greenspan is the US version o f neoliberalism and it is the framework that sets the terms for all out

discussions a b o u t governmental responsibility and the nature o f social life i n the U S .

Debt

19

GROWTH O FASWEATSHOP ECONOMY “All the executives agreed that “zero training’ [for workers] was the fast food industry’s ideal, though it might never be

attained.”

I n 2001, the World Bank estimated that almost a quarter o f the

planet’s industrial capacity declined in the previous decade. In the US, however, the industrial plant was regenerated by greater mechanization and by a streamlined production process.” However, the current industrial concerns do n o t hire people in large numbers t o work on the assembly lines. Being largely automated, the plants require a much smaller workforce than older factories, and those workers w h o are o n

the job are now organized in scientific ways so that their expended energy provides the maximum o u t p u t . Furthermore, surveillance o n the factory floor ensures that labor purchased by capital for eight hours 1s committed t o capital and n o t t o leisure. I n the 1990s, these n e w concerns raised equal parts o f fear and hope a t “jobless growth.” High rates o f productivity a n d l o w rates o f employment i n these

firms missed the fact that those who once held solid blue collar jobs now find themselves in need of several jobs for survival. The debt trap for the American worker i s a result n o t o f p o o r management o f desire

and the checkbook, but o f the global sweatshop economy. The term “sweatshop” derives from the practice o f “sweating,” or the subcontracting o f work either done in the supervised and regulated factory complex o r else given t o contractors. T o save money, the factory would accept the cheapest contracts and leave the regulation o f labor t o the wiles o f the contractor. T h e factories o f these contractors

came t o be known as the “sweatshops,” as a way t o distinguish its almost pre-capitalist form o f labor discipline from the discipline o f the factory s h o p floor. I n o u r day, the logic o f the “ s w e a t s h o p ” has t a k e n

hold i n most work-sites, whether in the classic field o f textile

in the z o n e s o f the New E c o n o m y (from c o m p u t e r hardware production t o computer software design). I n the early 1970s,

production o r

as the economy t o o k a nosedive, organized subcontracting i n advanced capitalist c o u n t r i e s p r o d u c e d n e w forms o f l a b o r organization, s u c h as

homework, outwork, and piecework.’? Feminist economist Maria Mies calls these forms “housewifization,” or, “labor that bears the characteristics o f housework,” o r nonunion, unregulated, and isolated

K e e p i n g U p w i t h t h e D o w Joneses

20

labor which is seen n o t as “labor” itself, but as simply “activity”; women largely enter the workforce in these zones (in maquiladoras, export-processing zones, sweatshops, outwork), but soon, m e n also get “housewifed.””> These procedures enable small businesses t o thrive at

the interstices o f monopoly firms; their survival is premised on mutual competition t o sell their products t o a few firms, which i n economic theory is called a condition o f monopsony. The competition amongst these small firms drives them t o “renegotiate” their compact with their

workforce; in order t o cut costs, the firms drive wages down and cease t o provide the sorts o f benefits previously offered by capital as a concession t o the concerted drive by workers from the 1880s. I n the 1970s, what appeared a t first hand t o be feudal relics, reappeared as capitalist forms in the production process.” The US General Accounting Office (GAO) defines a “sweatshop” as a work-site whose “employer violates more than one federal or state labor law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor,

industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers compensation or industry regulation.” In 1996, the US Department o f Labor reported that there were about

13,000 sweatshops

in

o f the US, a n d that these employed about 300,000 people.”® O n June 1, 1996, Secretary o f Labor Robert Reich offered the administration’s view o f the problem: “All o f us must demand that the industry accept the moral responsibility for ending Third World conditions in the m o s t prosperous nation on earth.” The state planned t o eradicate sweatshops by investigation and by the enforcement o f labor laws. These initiatives are limited for at least four reasons. First, the government takes an overly nationalist view o f a shift in global relations o f production. To insist that sweatshops be eradicated within the U S has simply meant that firms m o v e their operation within the borders

production t o offshore locations. Second, t o target producers without any

sense

of

the

implication

of

the

entire

ensemble

of

retailers-wholesalers-producers i n the process, o r any policy that can strangle the determinant

o f cutthroat

competition

among the various

producers, 1s disingenuous. Sweatshops exist t o maximize profit for

each o f the enterprises along the chain and n o t just for the producers. Third, without a recognition that monopoly corporations, such as Wal-Mart, not only profit b y sweatshops, but w i n customer satisfaction

by

their l o w prices (as a result o f the sweatshop conditions o f labor), the

Debt

21

government will b e unable t o p u r s u e the core o f the crisis. Finally, i t p i n s t h e blame for sweatshops o n a f e w concerns without care that t h e

l a b o r process tor the b u l k o f the workforce 1s n o w steeped i n the logic o f sweatshops—whether y o u work i n a “ n o collar” high-tech firm o r as

a “ p i n k collar” secretary.’ T h e workplace regime that dominated U S a n d (to a lesser extent) E u r o p e a n factories for m u c h o f the 20th Century goes b y the n a m e o f

Fordism. Here, large companies mechanized t h e w o r k p l a c e and set u p a highly regulated a n d disciplined form o f l a b o r that i s named

Taylorism (the scientific management o f the work-site, with managers eager t o create the m o s t efficient u s e o f the h u m a n

body at the desk o r

o n the assembly line). A t the same time, t h e workers earned d e c e n t salaries that enabled them t o b e c o m e consumers o f the products

that

they produced o n a n increasingly sped-up assembly line. I n the 1970s,

Fordism moved from its base in the US and Europe into the periphery—into the heartland o f Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

“Fordism has shifted t o

the

periphery,” wrote

the economic historian

Robert C o x . “ I t 1s developing there alongside a revival o f m o r e archaic

has colonized some o f the service industries, for example, fast foods, and

production methods—sweatshops—and putting o u t . Fordism

also the production with standardized technology o f consumer goods

in Third World countries, destined both for domestic and world markets.”>® What Cox describes has actually also occurred within the US, as its

domestic economy 1s n o t immune from the tide o f sweatshops. What Lipietz describes seems t o b e quite appropriate as a rendition o f the

type o f labor regime i n place within the United States these days. While many commentators concentrate o n the garment industry when they write o f sweatshop labor, the logic o f sweatshop work can be found in

various forms of assembly work (toys, fake jewelry, electronics, etc.) and i n the Taylorist process o f assembly installed i n fast food outlets a n d other

facilities that provide

(oil change, etc.). O n the the multitude m a y lead us t o

instant service

surface, the existence o f these jobs for

believe that the U S economy i s i t s e l f i n a condition o f what accumulation

theorist Alain Lipietz calls “peripheral Fordism,”” or a Fordism stripped o f its high value sector and reduced t o the service industry. Such a n analysis would, o f course, b e incorrect because i t w o u l d neglect the hoarded knowledge industries that are protected b y the Trade-Related

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

22

International Property Rights regime, the array o f agro-business and software concerns whose executive a n d engineering branches are

high-value

sectors

o f a generally low-wage industry (that is, for

agricultural workers a n d for those w h o produce the actual computers).

So, while the vast low-wage sector resembles the peripheral Fordism o f

the Third World, its workers live in an ocean o f poverty that laps occasionally o n the shores o f the small islands o f affluence.

Sweatshops in the Third World are, o f course, a crucial part o f the

work of global corporations and the stabilization o f the US dollar. The industrial sectors in many o f these countries are in an extended process o f mechanization and intensive accumulation as well as a gradual process of domestic market creation for consumer durables—these are the attributes of Fordism. Skilled manufacture and engineering do n o t dominate these industries, which are mostly assembly units for export

the overdeveloped states. The Third World imports electronics, heavy machinery, and many consumer goods that are produced in the overdeveloped states’ skilled and mechanized sector (or else by subcontract, in China) and ott the drafting board of their conceptual to

engineers. Sweatshops in the Third World operate along a different, i f

related, logic than their counterparts within the US and in Europe. The First World sweatshop 1s n o t under national compulsion t o generate foreign exchange, mainly US dollars. Third World sweatshops are a crucial part of their nations’ economic strategies t o export goods in exchange for dollars t o cover the import bills (dominated as they are by the import o f such expensive items as oil, weaponry, technology, or consumer durables). First World sweatshops operate in a regime o f mutual competition, where one such shop competes with another t o produce cheaper goods t o supply the calculated manipulations o f the

monopoly retail outfits (such as the Old Navy—Gap chain). In the Third World, the sweatshops negotiate a t a national level with global corporations who move from state t o state t o bargain for less oversight o f labor and environmental regulations and fewer tariffs. The main contradiction i n this case i s n o t

only between

one sweatshop and

another, it i s also between nations a n d global corporations. Sweatshops

in the Third World are, o f course, under compulsion t o produce cheaper goods (mainly by reducing the c o s t o f labor ) , principally because one nation’s sweatshop will compete with another nation’s sweatshop t o w i n low-priced contracts whose merit is that they pay i n

Debt

23

dollars. F o r workers, these differences are n o t consequential: The workers i n b o t h cases comprise vulnerable populations, mostly w o m e n and children w h o c o m e t o these infernos t o m a k e a cruel subsistence.

The question o f “choice” is irrelevant in their lives, as they are structurally constrained t o work in whatever jobs are available. Choice, the leitmotiv o f individualism, is only an option for the privileged w h o are e n s c o n c e d i n conditions o f relative surfeit; for the

sweatshop workers the issue o f c h o i c e 1s obfuscated b y m o r e pressing material conditions.

What are some o f these conditions? The history o f the US sweatshop begins with a tragedy, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire o f March 24, 1911, where workers perished in a n inferno fueled by greed. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire returned t o the US working class once again in 1991 when a fire broke o u t in the Imperial Foods Chicken Processing P l a n t in Hamlet, N o r t h Carolina. The management locked the doors o f the plant t o prevent, in their opinion, theft o f the chicken, so that when the hot-oll fryers (at 400 degrees) exploded, 25 workers died and 00 suffered horrible injuries. One worker reported, “I pluck ninety wings a minute. Sometimes I can’t bend my wrist. Then when we get

hurt, w e can’t b e n d our wrists, w e can’t get n o medical care, and they fire us cause w e crippled.” Another, “ I ’ m seven months pregnant. W e stand in t w o inches o f water with t w o five-minute bathroom breaks a day. Sometimes w e can’t hold our water and then our bowels break and then w e faint.”® Conessta Williams, another worker, reports, “The doors

were kept locked and the plant had boarded-up windows so we couldn’t steal the chicken. They never put u p a fence o r hired a security guard. B u t n o o n e would want t o steal that chicken. W h e n y o u eat chicken, you

don’t know what you're eating.” On the fateful day, in these terrible work conditions, the workers tried t o break o u t o f the plant, and one recalled,

“ I t was like being locked in hell.”®" Fven i f most o f us d o n o t work i n such horrendous conditions, the formal aspects o f t h e s w e a t s h o p e c o n o m y d r i v e o u r workplaces:

unskilled work, deskilled labor, low wages, poor working conditions, and a n intensified supervision regime t o extract the m a x i m u m l a b o r for

the minimum expenditure. T h o s e w h o l i v e i n relative deprivation, i n the s h a d o w o f t h e American D r e a m , c a n n o t b e found easily. T h e i r n e i g h b o r h o o d s are often segregated b y racism as m u c h as b y class inequality, o r else b y the

24

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

urban disregard o f the full-time rural dwellers (as opposed t o those who go t o the “country” for the weekend). Their existence 1s frequently denied, or else if they are acknowledged, it is only t o be criticized for one or another personal failing of those who cannot make it in this country o f opportunity. In 1962, socialist leader Michael Harrington published The Other America, a book that challenged a society eager t o see itself as above the fray o f history’s contradictions. “I'he millions w h o are poor i n the United States,” he wrote, “tend t o become

increasingly invisible. Here is a great mass of people, yet it takes an effort o f the intellect and will even t o see them.”®® T h e impress o f Harrington’s

book gave sustenance t o the anti-poverty movement from below, but it also embarrassed President John F. Kennedy enough for him t o call for an “unconditional war against poverty in America.” In January 1964, Congress adopted the Economic Opportunities Act, but the measure fell far short o f what was necessary. I n essence, as sociologists Frances F o x

Piven and Richard Cloward show us, the government’s anti-poverty program provided relief t o the poor n o t so much t o overthrow poverty

as to-dull the anger o f the impoverished.®* With p o o r health, tenuous shelter, and unreasonable access to transport, the U S public still finds the means t o survive. H o w is this possible? Unemployment 1s high, but the working class ekes out the

means t o a livelthood through the burgeoning illegal narcotics trade, working outside the tax system for cash, and other such sundry and creative means.® Since centuries o f gender construction has placed the

role o f care in the hands o f women, women o f the contingent class

struggle hard t o keep families and people together.®® From the 1970s, the buying power o f workers has declined quite dramatically , s o that

even the corporate-do minated press had to acknowledge, “The share o f worket’s compensatio n has decreased t o the lowest proportion since 1 9 6 8 . ” T h e reason for this decline i s quite plain, since corporate profits

“are taking a n ever-rising share o f national income,” and “companie s

are boosting their profits more by squeezing labor costs t o lift

productivity.”®’ A n incredible 98 percent o f the gain in total household income between 1980 and 2000 went t o the richest fifth o f the country!®® Those with legal employment, like their brethren without legal work, could not find their way o u t o f the Other America: almost a

third o f all full-time workers in 1997 earned poverty-level wages, with African Americans and Latinos bearing the brunt more than white

Debt

25

workers. The annual earnings o f a minimum-wage full-time worker (310,300) was still $2,500 less than the three-person family poverty line, and $6,000 below the line for a four-person family.®” In 1999, a third o f working w o m e n earned wages at o r below the poverty level, significantly

more than the share o f men (almost 21 percent) a t that level.”” Those a t and around the minimum wage typically work more than one full-time job,

mainly i n

the service sector where advancement i s relatively

unknown. W e are

in the Purgatory o f the Service Economy, where

“temporary work” is the n e w euphemism for indentureship i n the

workforce. These women and m e n are often without union power, suffering under the burdens o f the ideology o f self-advancement, and with all the pressures o f a collapsed infrastructure (shelter, transport, and

medical care)

for the poor.

T h e structural adjustment o f the U S created a sweatshop economy. Machines allowed each worker t o b e more productive. B u t the workers

in the factory and the office also became more automated, as ergonomic modes o f work and a more efficient use o f the worker’s time allowed firms t o increase productivity quite dramatically. O n the latter point,

workers i n fast-food restaurants, for instance, have t o get ready for work

before they can clock

in (rather than clocking i n and then using work

time t o p u t o n their uniforms), they cannot d o any personal things o n the clock, and i n m a n y firms, workers have t o clock o u t t o take a bathroom

break.”! T h e better use o f the workforce allowed firms t o release a large

number of surplus workers into the world o f the unemployed, the underemployed, the contingent, and the two-job crew.

THE CONTINGENT CLASS I n 1991, before h e joined the Clinton cabinet as secretary o f labor,

Robert Reich published his bestseller, The Work of Nations. In 1t Reich offered a view o f the “three jobs o f the future”: routine production

services, in-person services and symbolic-analytical services.” Factory jobs are emblematic o f routine production services, b u t Reich also

that is “tedious and repetitive.” A b o u t a quarter o f the jobs in the US economy, in 1990, fit in this category. While the products

included any j o b

o f routine production can b e sold worldwide, those o f in-person service cannot

be shipped elsewhere.

Otherwise, that

30

percent

of

the

US

workforce that conducts in-person service has a workday as “tedious and repetitive” as routine production. Finally, symbolic-analytical services

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

26

include “all the problem-solving, problem-identifying, and strategic brokering activities,” whose services can be traded worldwide and whose work is not at all “tedious and repetitive.” About a fifth o f the U S workforce i n 1 9 9 0 worked i n this sector. T h e rest, about five percent, were employed as farmers, miners, and “ o t h e r extractors o f natural resources.” Reich i s concerned about the decline o f wages i n the first

two sectors, and h e is eager t o turn all American workers into

but well worth it in the service o f his “positive economic nationalism.” In symbolic-analytical professionals, a task h e admits 1s “daunting,”

other words, w e should strive t o make the U S population into the

thinkers o f the planet and let the rest o f the world be our drones. The problem for the US workforce is n o t the sweatshop economy, but its own lack o f useful skills.” Such is the proposal from the m o s t liberal wing o f the Democratic Party. Most of those who work in the routine production and the in-person service sectors experience similar work patterns: they are frequently in temporary positions with n o benefits, and while they may spend a

lifetime in an occupation, they do n o t spend more than a few years a t a particular firm. In 2000, the National Alliance for Fair Employment (NAFE) released a major study on such “contingent workers.” Who are contingent workers? NAFE offered the following list: * Part-timers: those who work less than full-time workers. * On-call workers: those w h o are o n a n “as-needed” basis. * Short-term hires: those w h o w o r k o n short p r o j e c t s o r i n peak seasons.

* Workfare workers: those who are on the “welfare t o work” rolls.

* Temp workers: those who work for a temp agency like Manpower, Inc. * Permatemp workers: those w h o work permanent ly for a firm, b u t with a renewed temporary contract.

* Day laborers: those who work on a “day-to-day” basis. * Contract employees: those w h o work for companies that provide services (cleaning, security).

* Independent contracto rs: those who legally work for themselves.

* Leased workers: those who work for a leasing comhpany

(often called a “body shop”).

Debt

27

* Prison labor: those who work within the penal system. * Guest workers and immigrant workers: those who work i n the U S under s h o r t - t e r m employment visas (H1B,

H2A, H2B). I n N A F E ’ s survey, three o u t o f ten Americans worked i n the

contingent sector, b u t the most crucial number is that three out o f five Americans either worked 1n this sector o r k n e w s o m e o n e w h o did. T h o s e w h o k n o w someone w h o works i n the contingent sector also k n o w the generally abhorrent nature o f the working conditions, a n d

would be loath t o enter these jobs without compulsion. W e also k n o w that just short o f a third o f firms that “downsized” or fired their waged workers in the 1990s replaced them with contingent workers. As the N A F E survey noted: W h e n employers expand contingent work as a staffing

strategy, regular employees have cause to worry that they too

may be replaced by cheaper contingent workers, and

they hesitate before asking for raises o r better working

conditions. T h e result i s a downward spiral i n which

permanent full-time workers are, i n effect, made t o c o m p e t e with lower-paid workers in contingent

who

will work

jobs t o

see

for the lowest wages a n d the fewest benefits.

In this way, the growth o f contingent work is a significant reason for stagnant o r falling wages during the current :

economic boom.’

4

Following from this analysis, I refer both

to

those who work in

temporary jobs and those with full-time employment, but in fear o f becoming temporary, as part o f the contingent class. B o t h t h o s e with

jobs and those without pressure each other and face a similar condition in the face o f capital. D a t a from 1995 shows u s that the typical contingent worker 1s black, female, young, and enrolled in school. The highest use o f contingent w o r k i s i n the service sector as

well as i n

the c o n s t r u c t i o n

trade.”” A b o u t t e n percent o f the contingent workers that year were

1995, the contingent workforce totaled between 2.7 and 6 million workers (depending upon whether the totals included those whose jobs were limited t o one year by choice), but the government adds another 6.5 million because o f workers who toil a t teachers. I n February

multiple j o b s a n d are therefore n o t counted i n the Current Population

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

28

Survey as “contingent workers.” O f the latter, the multiple-job holders, the m o s t c o m m o n characteristic i s that they are young, mainly

women.’® While the literature is divided o n the reasons for such an extensive turn t o part-time work, the m o s t compelling argument i s that

“the use o f contingent work has arisen because o f the decline in unionism, which permits firms t o take advantage o f the c o s t savings embodied in more flexible staffing arrangements.”’’ While this is accurate, the statement fails t o engage with the broad shifts in the economy, with the deterioration o f manufacturing within the US, and with a general tendency toward making the productive process efficient for capital generation and n o t for social welfare. How is the contingent class t o survive in cities and small towns whose bureaucracies have made it impossible t o build shantytowns, beg on the streets, and be fed by the charity o f restaurants? Who will pay for the upkeep o f this reserve army, this unemployed and shiftless population? Families can no longer absorb the costs, as more and more members o f the household take up less and less lucrative jobs. Furthermore, decline in municipal expenditure has meant a lack o f

basic services, such as cheap transportation. This makes life onerous, i f

impossible, since families m u s t go v a s t distances t o buy their necessities from chain supermarkets (where goods are reasonably inexpensive) o r else fall prey t o the small shopkeepers (who do n o t enjoy the supermarkets’ economy of scale). Welfare, or state funded not

financial support, has slowly dried u p as the government cuts social

spending, but leaves intact, indeed increases, expenditure for the military, for subsidies t o agro-businesses, and for tax breaks t o corporations.” Who, then, is t o feed, clothe, and shelter the contingent class? Let u s take t w o basic needs, housing a n d healthcare, t o put some

flesh t o the general complaint. Housing

With the stock market in turbulence from the late 1990s, real estate markets absorbed much o f the capital and produced a boom in property.

While the link between the real estate market and rental property is n o t direct, there has been a cotrelative rise in rents across the country.” With high rents, landlords are very strict about how many people camp o u t in a n apartment. Small motels and courageous families become the homes o f those w h o once held steady jobs. I n a n unusually reflective article,

Debt

29

Ime magazine reported on “the dearth o f working class jobs that pay enough t o support a life with even the bare necessities.” Stagnating wages and escalating real estate prices have raised the problem t o “crisis proportions.” A local journalist in Telluride, Colorado, pointed o u t that homelessness “brings instability and a surly work force. W e can’t expect nice worker attitudes when people come t o work

begging a shower.” I n

the same town, a worker 1n a shop w h o sleeps in a sleeping bag during -40 degree Fahrenheit nights h a d a very different perspective: “The town doesn’t realize that the people w h o d o their dishes and clean u p after them have t o live someplace t00.”®! During the Clinton years, the Department o f H o u s i n g a n d U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t admitted that ten million p e o p l e s p e n t s o m e time o n the

streets or In overcrowded shelters, while 15 million homes and apartments (and 1 . 4 million

hotel r o o m s ) remained u n o c c u p i e d

(1999).%% T h e implication i s clear, that homeless p e o p l e s h o u l d b e

allowed to move into unpeopled homes, but Clintonian liberalism did n o t allow i t t o a c c e p t the full implications

o f i t s grief o r t o create a

program o f action t o tackle the problem. When the Bush

team

took

over, i t revised the methodology for data collection, so that the

D e p a r t m e n t o f Health and H u m a n Services reported i n their overview

document, “ H H S Programs and Initiatives t o C o m b a t Homelessness,” that the n u m b e r o f t h o s e without h o m e s i s a b o u t t w o o r three

million less than the Clinton assessments o f years previous. The HHS claimed that only 200,000 people are

million—seven t o eight

only t w o

“chronically homeless.” I a m reminded o f Ronald Reagan’s statement

on GoodMorning America (January 31, 1984): “One problem that we’ve had, even in the best o f times, 1s the people w h o are sleeping o n the grates, the homeless w h o are homeless you might say, b y choice.” These rugged pioneers o f free market America should, therefore, n o t

be c o u n t e d as

be in the rejected this

t h e indigent because they exercise their choice t o

o u t d o o r s . Incidentally, the U S Conference o f Mayors

assessment. I t s T a s k Force o n Hunger and Homelessness reported a n overwhelming increase i n d e m a n d for shelter a n d food i n 8 0 p e r c e n t o f the

27 cities

surveyed i n

2001.

Lack o f affordable housing leads the list o f causes o f

homelessness identified by the city officials. Other causes cited, i n order o f frequency, include low paying jobs, substance abuse and the lack o f needed services, mental

30

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

illness and the lack o f needed services, domestic violence, unemployment, poverty, prison release, a n d change and

cuts in public assistance programs. I n late 2002, N e w York City, the touchstone o f homelessness i n the nation, reported a n increase i n the population that does n o t have a permanent h o m e . A l m o s t 80,000 people sleep i n the city shelters each

night, the highest number since 1991. With the emphasis on “law and order” i n the city, the police ruthlessly enforce the “public nuisance

laws,” when those without a home must take refuge in whatever warmth i s available. T h e police report that their arrests o f the homeless o n these charges increased b y 3 0 0 percent between 2 0 0 1 and 2002. T o n y Harrigan, executive director o f the Center for Urban Community

Services, said i n reference to the n e w faces that come t o the shelters, “Cleatly something i s happening o u t there.”®’ Indeed.

Healthcare

I n 1999, after the collapse o f a nationwide attempt t o remedy the medical insurance program, the number o f t h o s e within the U S without

health insurance numbered 44.3 million.** T h e annual Current Population Survey i n 1 9 9 8 a n d 1 9 9 9 showed that t h o s e without health

insurance had two attributes in common: they were people o f color with relatively little access t o education. T h o s e w h o did n o t enjoy the privileges o f class and race, then, could n o t count o n medical care even i n times o f a general economic b o o m . T h e rate o f w o m e n without

health insurance increased i n the 1990s, bolstered b y the cuts i n welfare

supports and therefore the use o f Medicaid (the government’s insurance program for the destitute). I f the government decided n o t t o

care for adults, and particularly for the health o f mothers, i t started a meager program in 1997 called Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) t o cover eleven million children w h o lacked coverage. Without the social capital t o k n o w about C H I P , with innumerable bureaucratic

roadblocks t o the use o f the program, and with the disregard for the health o f the family i n total, the program has n o t succeeded i n the

maintenance o f the health o f the population.®> In 2000, 17 percent o f children o f uninsured parents remained without coverage, compared

with 12 percent o f all children. I n late 2001, the American Medical Association reported that the numbers o f those without insurance would

rise dramatically in the decade t o come.®® Since a n average o f one i n three

Debt

31

workers who lose their jobs lose nealth insurance, those 17 million who lost their jobs in 2001-2002 will add t o the rolls o f the uninsured. The 2001 figure for those uninsured i n the U S (under age 65) is 1 6 percent, b u t b y this analysis the fraction m a y rise t o 2 1 percent. Meanwhile, hospitals conduct corporate mergers, close “surplus”

hospitals, a n d

retrench medical facilities.

From the 1960s, the United States provided a safety net for those without income (such as welfare or Aid t o Families with Dependent Children), but in 1996 the so-called Welfare Reform laws erased the state’s liberalism. N o w those who had found shelter in a social system m o v e d from welfare t o worktare, t o a punitive strategy t o make p e o p l e

work 1n menial jobs for low wages and remain trained elements o f the unemployed reserve. As recipients of cash assistance these people did n o t pose the kind o f disciplinary threat t o an active labor movement that they will n o w p o s e , trained a n d desperate, t o take any w o r k

whatsoever. I t is often these people who now sit behind cash registers or clean corporate buildings a t night, the s o r t s o f service s e c t o r jobs that are the main engine for “job growth” in the US. As the government announces that i t has helped h u s b a n d m o r e jobs, o n e can a l m o s t hear

people a t the nether end o f the economy say, and several o f those jobs are mine; i t 1s n o t u n c o m m o n n o w t o find people work a t least t w o full-time jobs, t o wear o u t their bodies and souls t o pursue the American D r e a m , o r at least survival. T h e reserve army o f l a b o r i n the contemporary

US is maintained at high levels o f readiness in the p r i s o n s

(where incarcerated workers toil for private corporations, such as the Corrections Corporation o f America) and i n the low-end service sector (either in desperation, as part o f the workfare packet o r else as legal a n d

illegal immigrants unable t o find better occupations). Capitalism, in its current US configuration maintains this reserve army through the coercive mechanisms o f incarceration,®’ the fear o f being illegal, and o f being without dignity (as the state a n d media stigmatize welfare o r cash

did n o t come from fiscal motives only, because (as New York City’s Supportive H o u s i n g Network estimates) i n 1998 the state s p e n t $40,000 t o assistance). The illiberal thrust against t h o s e within the safety net

incarcerate a p e r s o n , whereas i t would have t o s p e n d only $12,500 t o

provide that same person with affordable housing and other supportive services. T h e state’s riposte against social services comes, therefore, as

32

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

part o f its class war against organized labor, t o discipline workers away from any ambition t o challenge the structure o f the system.

THEY MAKE THE BULL SEE RED I commend today’s “street warriors” for standing up for what they believe in, and knowing that civic engagement 1s the American way. Let us all d o our part t o engage and

create positive and progressive, social, economic, and environmental change. W e need global justice o r else

“Workers o f the World Unite!” will become more than just a hackneyed slogan; it'll become the only way t o survive. —Representative Cynthia McKinney, Georgia, in the

midst o f the Battle o f Seattle, 1999

To combat debt is n o t simply t o demand its forgiveness, but principally t o change the conditions that produce inequality. To fight inequality 1s n o t simply t o bargain for higher wages, but principally t o change the way power 1s held in our society, t o fight t o radically alter the institutions and attitudes that shape accumulation and dignity. One o f the m o s t barren disputes that took place in the sheltered ranks o f the US Left came from intellectuals such as sociologist Todd Gitlin and philosopher Richard Rorty. Annoyed by social and cultural assertions o f what they termed the “cultural Left,” Rorty called for the “reformist Left” t o put forth a “People’s Charter” o f mainly economic

reforms t o “achieve our country” t o live up t o its constitutional ideals.® The intervention from such figures missed what 1s arguably the most dynamic achievement o f the labor insurgency i n recent years: the eruption o f the social a n d the cultural into the world o f labor unions t o

both disrupt the corporate culture o f business unionism and t o insist that the full world o f the rank a n d file m u s t be under the purview o f the union movement. I t is n o t enough for a union bureaucracy t o bargain behind closed doors for a better contract (which means generally better

wages, and perhaps protected seniority). The union m u s t now work t o liberate the workers in all aspects o f their lives, and union actions must harness the collective energy o f all the workers, n o t just those w h o are

its paid members. Without the dynamism o f the social movements, such as the anti-racist struggle, feminism, the gay and lesbian movement, the disability movement, the basic needs struggles jand the

Debt

33

human rights campaigns, among others, the unions will slump back

into the politically ineffective strategy o f the bottom line. I f unions do n o t take up the issues o f the people, they will be unable t o fight beyond the narrow confines o f the workplace a n d they will n o t b e able t o

fashion a program for widespread social change. L e t u s l o o k at a f e w examples o f this strike o f the social i n t o

business unionism, illustrations o f the work that has energized workers t o m a k e sociocultural demands within the corridors o f what was o n c e the

world’s m o s t retrogressive l a b o r i n s t i t u t i o n . Free Mumia

L a b o r locals across the country s u p p o r t e d the “ F r e e M u m i a ” call i n

1999, o n behalf o f the black militant o n death row in Philadelphia, and,

on April 24; 1999, International Longshore and Warehouse Union members closed down the ports o f the w e s t e r n c o a s t o f the US for the day. A s Larry Adams, president o f L o c a l 3 0 0 o f the National Postal

Mail Handlers Union put it, “Mumia is us. We are Mumia. Trade unions exist for the right t o defend democratic rights o f working class people,

due process, fair treatment, freedom from police brutality—all o f

which is being denied Mumia in this effort a t a legal lynching.” Free Labor

L a b o r u n i o n s have, since the early 1990s, b e e n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the growth o f penal l a b o r , partly as a defensive strategy against i t s

degradation o f wages i n general, b u t also because o f i t s degradation o f

the working class. Failed legal attempts t o end government contracts with correctional industries such as UNICOR are one indication, but a n o t h e r 1s the reminder that i f US workers get t o o w o r k e d up about penal labor in China, they may forget what happens in the US (Sharon C o r n u o f the California L a b o r Federation n o t e d , “Every politician w h o decries the use o f p r i s o n l a b o r i n o t h e r countries [should] l o o k a t what’s

happening in California”).”!

Free Childcare I n 1 9 9 4 , H o t e l E m p l o y e e s a n d Restaurant E m p l o y e e s (HERE) International L o c a l 2 conducted a study a m o n g its 7,000 m e m b e r s w h o

work i n San Francisco’s hotel industry.”* One o f the main priorities for the workers was childcare, and i n c o n t r a c t negotiations the union forced the m a n a g e m e n t t o recognize that w o r k e r absenteeism was

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

34

often related t o a lack o f childcare. After a struggle, the union w o n the Local 2/Hospitality Industry Child and Elder Care Plan—management paid

5

cents

worker

per

into

a

fund

managed

by

a

joint

worker/ management committee. I n 1996, management agreed t o increase their contribution t o 15 cents per worker. That provided benefits such as contributions toward childcare ($60-$100 per worker

per month), newborn expenses ($125), youth programs, and summer camps, as well as a resource and referral service in multiple languages. “This 1s a terrific benefit,” said Local 2 president Michael Casey. “The

line is respect for members. These benefits address workers’ needs beyond health and welfare and working conditions. They address people’s family needs.” Local 2 is n o t alone. Local 1000 o f the California State Employees Association/SEIU has a Labor Management Child Care Committee t o encourage the formation of a nonprofit foundation t o provide childcare for its members. In April 1999, United Auto Workers pushed the Big Three automakers t o create the Alliance for Children and Working Families, with a $6 million down payment.” Finally, AFSCME Council 6 organized childcare workers a t the Minneapolis Community College Child Care Center as a first step toward the recognition o f the importance o f childcare t o the labor movement. bottom

The workers a t the center now have Civil Service classification, receive between $8.42 and $12 per hour, fully paid health, dental and life

insurance, ten paid annual holidays, and paid vacation and sick time. Free AIDS Care

H E R E Local 2 i n San Francisco negotiated the first A I D S

disability benefit plan in the country for its workers. The benefit comes o u t o f a health a n d welfare fund set

up b y

the union, b u t with funds

from the hotels, i t pays $1,000 p e r month and covers expenses such as medical co-payments. There are also provisions for licensed h o m e care, hospice, medical equipment, non-covered prescriptions and rent assistance. T h e extensive plan generated enthusiasm from the A I D S

movement toward the labor union, so that when Local 2 began t o organize Park 55 Hotel, AIDS activists came out in force. “ W e have a pretty extensive community support plan,” reports Lisa Jaicks o f Local 2.

We go o u t with the workers and speak t o local organizations a b o u t our campaign and h o w i t fits i n with ’ o u r community struggles. W e c o m m i t t o joining o t h e r :

Co.

Debt

35

people’s e v e n t s . We can’t just expect people t o show up for our e v e n t s without us contributing t o the larger struggle.” Free Housing

I n the 1920s and 1930s, the Union o f Needletrades, Industrial and

Textile Employees (UNITE) created housing cooperatives in New York City and offered apartments t o workers a t very reasonable rates. In 1934, the Full Fashion Hosiery Workers’ Union built a housing development, the Carl Mackley Apartments, in Philadelphia, drawing o n federal aid and union funds t o do so. The 5.4 acre apartment

complex was the first housing development o f Roosevelt’s New Deal a n d 1t offers a n early example o f the International Style o f architecture.

With 184 rental units in the property in four separate buildings, the c o m p l e x provides a necessary space for low-income families t o this

day. The Mackley complex returned

to

the news in 1999, when the

A F L - C I O ’ s Housing Investment Trust spent $20 million o f a $123

million spree t o use pension funds toward the renovation o f workers’ housing. The AFL-CIO re-entered the fray after much good work had b e e n (and continues t o be) d o n e b y o n e o f the United States’s great

social m o v e m e n t s o f the impoverished, the tenants’ rights movement.”’® In 2002, this same t r u s t (founded in 1965, but rather dormant until recently) started a $100 million home-ownership program for union families and municipal workers in Los Angeles. “The need is so great,” said the trust’s public finance director Carol Miriam Nixon. “ O u r unions are very strong in the city o f L A [800,000 families i n the L A area]. I t ’ s i m p o r t a n t that w e s h o w o u r u n i o n

members we're willing t o invest in the community.’ As Stephen Coyle, the head o f the t r u s t wrote in late 1999: I n 1995, more t h a n a quarter o f the 5.3 million households

with what housing experts call worst casc needs had earnings a t least equivalent t o t h a t o f a full-time worker a t minimum wage. A household with worst case needs has a very low income, and either pays more than half o f its income for rent or lives i n severely substandard housing, and nonetheless receives no government housing assistance. There are nearly 10 million minimum wage workers in our country, and i t takes 86 hours o f work for a m i n i m u m wage w o r k e r t o afford m e d i a n r e n t . I n some cities t h e number o f h o u r s jumps t o more t h a n 1 6 0 . ”

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

36

These examples offer a taste of the complex world o f ‘labor organizing. The rest o f the chapter will trace four more examples, in greater depth. O n e o f them i s from the world o f formal unions, the 1 9 9 7 Teamsters strike against contract labor. T h e next example highlights the

1998 taxi workers strike in New York City, an example o f immigrant worker formations that are chary o f the AFL-CIO bureaucracy, but welcome unions. Then w e visit with a workers’ center o f sorts, the Asian

Immigrant Women Advocates (AIWA), where the purpose 1s n o t only t o organize workers but also t o generate massive community support via

moral campaigns against corporate entities. Finally, we end with De-Bug,

a collective o f young workers who are eager t o use various forms o f expression t o dog the bosses and t o energize the classes. These four examples are varied, but they share one salient characteristic: They all reject the world o f debt and envision something more powerful, something that comes t o u s in that banal word—freedom. Strike Against t h e Temporary Angry a t the economy o f the temporary, workers w h o dominated

the United Parcel Service (UPS) and w h o were frustrated with the

reliance u p o n outsourced workers, struck o n August 4, 1997.°° A new generation o f workers took on the old accommodation o f the craft unions under the leadership o f a then rejuvenated International Brotherhood o f Teamsters. By August 19, the union ended the strike with a clear verdict: the company conceded t o each o f the workers’ demands. The victory was very significant, since it shows that “American workers can stand up t o corporate greed,” Teamsters President Ron Carey declared. “After fifteen years o f taking i t in the company’s

chin, working families are telling big corporations that w e will fight for

the American Dream. This 1s n o t just a Teamster victory—this i s a

victory for all working people.” The US state’s attack on the air traffic controllers’ 1981 strike inaugurated the 15-year period mentioned by Carey. In 1997, the tide turned just a little bit. U P S i s the U S ’ s largest parcel transportation service with control

over about 80 percent o f the market. With a net worth o f $21 billion

and with posted profits o f $1 billion in 1996, UPS is a n important component o f U S infrastructure, although it i s a private company (it i s

also n o t traded on the stock exchange). The Teamsters understood that their strike was n o t just for their o w n demands, b u t was a test’case for

Debt

37

the newly militant union movement. O n March 1 1 , Carey n o t e d

that

the negotiations “will

h e l p d e t e r m i n e whether o u r children a n d

grandchildren can look forward

to

good, safe, full-time jobs with

decent health care and p e n s i o n s . ” T h e strike was significant n o t just for

the issues, but also for a shift in the political climate and for the main agent in this shift, the rejuvenated trade union movement. T h e Teamsters made four demands: higher wages and retirement

payments, conversion of part-time t o full-time jobs, enhanced job security, and finally, improved job safety. UPS, a t that time, employed 308,030 people, o f whom 43 percent were full-time (with an average wage o f $19.95 p e r hour) and the rest were part-time (with a n average

wage of $11.07). Since 1993, o f those hired by UPS, 83 percent had only part-time jobs at a starting salary o f $8 per hour (unchanged since 1982). The turn t o contract and part-time work in US enterprises has b e e n steady since the 1970s, with m o s t corporations opting t o use

employment a n d temporary work agencies t o supply t h e m with a n

endless list o f those fired from full-time clerical, service, and, increasingly, manual l a b o r positions. I n this way, corporations have displaced many o f their costs onto a society unable t o handle a situation

in which one in four children are born in poverty. Part-time, contingent w o r k changed the character o f the workplace a n d m a d e i t hard for

unions t o organize workers (nevertheless, in the late 1990s, the T e a m s t e r s included 8 4 p e r c e n t o f t h e part-time U P S workers).

T h e weakness o f the workers enables corporations t o cut b a c k o n

health and safety standards and also use p e n s i o n funds for their o w n

purposes. O n the first score, UPS refused t o invest $55 per truck t o fit rearview mirrors; due t o this and other malfeasance, about one driver is killed p e r m o n t h . O n the s e c o n d p o i n t , workers contribute a significant

s u m o f their wages toward a p e n s i o n fund. Corporations hold these funds i n trust a n d they use t h e m i n the organized usury o f the s t o c k market. T h e unions want t o control these funds i n order, perhaps, t o

use them i n the people’s interest rather than t o b o t h

fuel the b u b b l e at

Wall Street and pay corporate executives e n o r m o u s salaries with

inflated s t o c k options. I f the unions controlled these funds and began

banks for their workers, some wealth might go toward the creation o f opportunities for the working class. T h e Teamsters, o n August 1 9 , w o n

the gradual conversion o f 20,000 part-time t o full-time jobs, an increase i n pensions controlled b y t h e Teamsters, a limit t o subcontract usage,

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

38

an increase in wages, safety protection, and a new five-year contract.

These gains were significant. I n 1981, Reagan’s action against the air traffic controllers was the

o f the pudding that the state operates a t the b e h e s t o f capital. Reagan gave striking workers t w o weeks t o return t o work. When they proof

did not, he fired 12,000 controllers without discharge allowance, right t o pension, o r right t o seek public service. H e levied huge tines o n 72

union leaders, imprisoned five o f them, and deprived the union o f its representative status. Between 1 9 7 9 and 1 9 8 9 , the hourly wages o f 8 0

percent o f the workers declined and the National Labor Relations Board

(the arbitration body

o f the

US

government) began t o

rule in

favor o f management more than labor. Hit with deregulation o f major sectors and with “downsizing,” the workforce was unable t o confront

a n aggressive and class-conscious management. M o s t strikes ended with a whimper; for example, i n 1 9 9 4 , the Teamsters went o n a one-day strike against UPS that w o n nothing. Stephen R o a c h ,

chief economist a t the brokerage firm Morgan Stanley, noted at the start o f the 1997 strike, “The pendulum could be shifting back.” I n other words, renewed labor militancy m a y transform U S politics. Since the Teamsters prepared the ground well for their

strike,

President Clinton was unable t o intervene with ease. T h e instrument

available t o Clinton, the Taft-Hartley A c t o f 1947, did not make i t easy for to

him t o act (the president can only act i f there i s “significant damage” the country by the strike)! Under pressure from the National

Association o f Manufacturers, the US Chamber o f Commerce, and the National Retail Federation, and from the national media, Clinton was only able t o apologize for this inaction. T h e U S public supported the Teamsters’ firm stand o n the issues and their disregard for all talk o f

profits and market shares in the face of the future o f their workers. When Steven Trossman o f the Teamsters noted, “This strike is n o t going t o be

decided by the finances o f the Teamsters. It will be decided on the issues,” his sactificial militancy was m e t with a rise in fellowship for the union (most polls found that support for the strike increased as it went

along). O n August 15, Ron Carey announced, “In my 40 years as a UPS driver and union leader, I have never seen so much public support for workers who are fighting corporate greed.” Support for the union also came from the a l m o s t 4 0 percent o f U P S employees outside the union; with 99 percent o f the workers o n strike, this support was unambigu ous.

Debt

39

W h e n the Teamsters appeared t o run o u t o f strike funds, the

AFL-CIO provided $11 million per week for the strike fund. This was in stark c o n t r a s t t o the formerly opportunist and bureaucratic AFL-CIO whose leadership was called, in 1972, a bunch o f

“businessmen engaged in the business o f unions.” Even the right-wing sociologist Daniel Bell noted in 1970, “[M]any union leaders have b e c o m e money-hungry, taking o n the grossest features o f business

society.” The leadership o f the AFL-CIO from Samuel Gompers t o Lane Kirkland followed a policy o f “businesslike unionism,” what we generally call class collaboration.!”! T h e renewed union pledged itself

frontal combat with corporations and its support for ongoing strike activity and the organization of workers was a notable illustration of its new policy. However, this strike and the AFL-CIO’s new position did n o t imply a n increase in class consciousness and organization; it was as to

yet a defensive challenge t o capitalist aggression. T h e Teamsters enjoined

UPS t o hire more full-time workers, since part-time work “has negative consequences for the company’s productivity.”!’*

There was still a

tendency to appear businesslike and t o argue for increased productivity

rather than for the social good. Nevertheless, the strike sent a tremor

through the heart of corporations and 1t warmed the working class and many o f their allies. The power o f the 1997 strike held in July 2002, when UPS negotiated a relatively strong contract with the T e a m s t e r s . T h e workers w o n a 22 percent pay increase over six years and the company agreed t o

10,000 nonunion jobs t o full-time work with union membership. The new c o n t r a c t came despite the concessionary tone o f convert

the Teamsters’ new leadership, especially from its new president, James P. Hoffa, son o f the old Teamsters’ mobbed-up b o s s . ” Even with

tepid leadership, the rank and file militancy held the line against a management n o t known for conceding t o w o r k e r s ’ demands. Strike i n the Yellow Four-Wheeled Sweatshop

If

the T e a m s t e r s p u t the l a b o r m o v e m e n t o n notice a b o u t

temporary w o r k , militant immigrant workers transformed the character

o f the labor m o v e m e n t from the ground upward. I n 1990, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 399’s Justice for Janitors campaign run b y m a i n l y immigrant workers w o n a substantial victory after a vigorous struggle. Conventional l a b o r w i s d o m suggested that

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

40

immigrant workers are quiescent, but the composition o f the militant Justice for Janitors put an end t o that theory (the share o f Latino

workers in the service field rose from 28 percent in 1980 t o 61 percent in 1990). Eight years later, in New York City, almost all o f the 24,000 taxi drivers w e n t on a day-long strike against municipal regulations and the brokerage system. O n M a y 13, 1998, N e w York City woke u p t o a historic strike.'”® O n a call given by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance NYTWA), 98 percent o f the city’s yellow cab drivers had struck work. Mayor Rudy Giuliani blamed the strike on a handful o f reckless cab drivers and predicted an early end t o the strike. But the strike held. One conservative estimate put the decline in street traffic a t 75 percent. Subways and buses were crammed. The personal schedules o f thousands o f travelers descended into chaos. The NYTWA, an

immigrant-led organization with t w o years o f experience under its belt, had brought one o f the world’s biggest cities t o a grinding halt. The immediate cause o f the strike was a set o f 17 new rules that the

Mayor’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) had proposed for a “public hearing” and vote o n May 28, part o f Giuliani’s “quality o f life”

program

t o restore

“civility”

to

New York. The proposed rules

included an increase in fines, some up t o $1,000, for rude behavior, smoking, and speeding as well as an increase in pressure t o suspend

drivers’ licenses (through a points system). This was the proverbial last straw for drivers who had been facing deteriorating working conditions for the past several years. Louis, a Haitian driver, explained patiently t o a smug television reporter that the TLC’s n e w rule packet was a sham, that none o f the rules really dealt with safety, that

all they intended w a s

to

extract more money off dnvers and force them out o f work. “This

said deliberately, “is about economic conditions, about working conditions, about our demand for dignity and justice.” strike,” h e

our

Taxi driving has b e c o m e a sweatshop o n wheels. Taxi drivers are

kept in a vise by a troika that enjoys the fruits o f this $1.5 billion business: the garage owners, the brokers, and the TLC that regulates the taxi industry. Assisting them1s the New York City police force, long famous for its acts o f harassment against the mainly immigrant drivers. Beatings a n d routine citations for trivial infringements o f traffic rules

appear t o be the norm in the drivers’ lives. The industry 1s tightly controlled through the city’s system o f medallions that gives one the

Debt

41

right t o put a cab o n the road. B y strictly limiting their availability, the

city has inflated the price o f a medallion t o between $260,000 and $300,000, far o u t o f the range o f individual drivers. A driver thus leases a medallion and car from a garage for an average o f a little more than $100 per shift. Since drivers m u s t pay for their own gas, they are $120 in the hole before they even start. O n a good day, a driver may meter a b o u t $180-3200, leaving $ 6 0 - $ 8 0 t o take h o m e . F r o m this m u s t b e

deducted c o s t s that are invariably associated with spending twelve hours a day on the road—tickets, sick days, car breakdowns, and T L C

fines. Since they are seen as “independent contractors,” the drivers are n o t entitled to health benefits, vacation time, o r retirement benefits. B y

the TLC reported earnings o f $70 million in the last six months o f 1996 alone. Forty million dollars of this came from fines, contrast,

hack license renewal fees, and inspection fees—in other words, money out

o f the drivers’ pockets. A small garage with control over ten

to

15

medallions reports revenues o f close to $100,000 a month—again,

money o u t o f the drivers’ pockets. In opposition t o the “taxi terrorists’ and the “lawless immigrants,” Giullant portrayed himself as a champion of the “concerned consumer” and the “responsible citizen.” “There has been a c o n s t a n t bashing of the taxi driver by the media and the politicians,”b/ said Bhairavi Desai, staff organizer

at

NY TWA, “until the public feels that

the taxi driver is a bad person who can be punished and punished.” As per a T L C survey o f 1992, 89 percent o f N Y C yellow cab drivers are

recent immigrants, with nearly 50 percent of them South Asian (Bangladeshi, Indian, or Pakistani) followed b y Haitians, immigrants

from the ex-Soviet Union, Africans, white and black Americans, Arabs, and Latinos, in that order. Drivers are, in a sense, people without a

home. While capital and commodities flow freely around the world, t o the v a s t majority o f the world’s population—whether a Malaysian worker a t Nike or a New York City taxi driver—the world 1s peculiarly circumscribed, as they spend longer and harder hours a t work. Taxi drivers are working here because they have been driven o u t of their home economies, and while they are here a significant number o f them lead a precarious life on the edge o f deportation. And they know that they c a n n o t afford t o leave—in the home country, elderly parents, indigent siblings, and children are dependent

on the $200 that arrives by mail each month. They are suited therefore

42

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

for a profession such as this, where all you need is a hack license, where there are n o wages to report, n o social security numbers, and n o single

employer. The garages and the TLC understand this vulnerability better than anybody else. I n this context, NYTWA’s successful organizing effort is remarkable: the popular wisdom that ethnically diverse, independent taxi drivers are isolated, without power, and beyond organization has been shattered. In 1992, the South Asian drivers organized themselves t o the Lease Drivers’ Coalition (LDC) through the eftorts of the late driver Saleem Osman and the sponsoring Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV). The next year, the South Asian drivers conducted a major demonstration against police brutality (partly organized by LDC). In 1997, LDC decided t o leave CAAAV and the drivers and organizers re-established themselves as NYWTA in order t o broaden their base t o non-South Asians and to take full control o f their o w n efforts. I n 1998,

the N Y W T A had a base o f 1,500 drivers. With a handful o f volunteers

and a shared office, the NYTWA seemed an unlikely foe for Giuliani. Yet Giuliani’s new rules struck a nerve. Drivers took NYWTA flyers and made copies with their own resources, sometimes adding their own notes and drawings t o the posters. One driver happily declared that he handed out 4,000 flyers in the week preceding the strike. The drivers also used C B radio t o communicate about the strike. Organizers stood at the locations where drivers changed shifts, handing o u t flyers and talking t o the drivers. Opposition t o Giuliant’s rules created immediate solidarity, which held even as India and Pakistan locked into an escalating nuclear arms race that threatened to inflame nationalist passions. “The Pakistani and

Indian drivers didn’t blink. They kept going n o t for a m o m e n t allowing nationalisms t o interfere with the organizing” Mathew reported. “And, unlike in the past, drivers from other communities [Haitians, West Africans, Iranians] have come forward t o take o n leadership positions.”

Mathew added, “We have found the most successful strategy in dealing with ethnicity and nationalism is t o talk m o s t explicitly about it,

constantly reminding people that problems can come u p . ” ! ? In fact, the richness o f national heritages actually worked in favor o f the drivers. Bangladeshis brought skills honed in their liberation movement, Haitians imported their métier trom the Lavalas struggle, and others drew from their experiences of resistance t o tyranny in their home countries.

Debt

43

F r o m the start, Giuliani threatened t o call i n the IRS and the INS.

“I don’t negotiate with people who want t o close the city down,” the mayor said. “Never have, never will.” He signed an executive order that allowed vans a n d livery cabs that normally serve encroach

upon

the outer boroughs

to

the Manhattan taxi industry, effectively authorizing

only h a d the NYTWA call o f May 13 united a n ethnically diverse workforce of scabs. B u t n o livery cabs entered Manhattan. N o t

24,000 workers, but also another 30,000 drivers from the

outer

boroughs extended their solidarity. Their message was clear—“We

stand by our yellow cab brothers and sisters.” O n May 21, 80 percent o f the cabbies

supported a second strike i n

spite o f

the city’s

misinformation campaign. Seven days later, NYTWA held a rally in front of City Hall, a snub a t Giuliani who forbade such an event. A t both events, the garage owners, large medallion owners, and brokers organized as the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade broke ranks and circulated a flyer calling off the strike. Small medallion owners were in a quandary. But the unity and morale o f the ordinary drivers held. “We c a n n o t back down,” said Bhairavi Desai, “the stronger we get the harder [the city and owners] will fight.” A t the TLC hearing on May 28, drivers, owners, a n d industry experts testified that the n e w rules would

destroy the industry. And yet a t the end o f the day, the TL.C voted in favor of implementing 15 of the 17 new rules. B u t sometimes the struggle is victory enough. That s e e m e d t o be the mood among taxi workers and their supporters in New York City. After t w o taxi strikes, the 24,000 taxi workers rode a buoyant tide despite the harsh response from City Hall and m o s t of the media. T h o s e w h o k n o w l a b o r politics i n the city recognize that this has b e e n

of the l a s t three decades. I n late M a y 1998, it appeared that a new day was dawning in New York City, with the New Directions slate a t Local 100 a t work on the leadership of the o n e o f the m o s t significant events

Transit Workers U n i o n , with the homeless and the street vendors o n b o a r d t o c o m b a t Giuliani’s draconian “quality o f life” program, and,

notably, as the city’s construction workers closed down midtown Manhattan o n June 30, 1998. Forty t h o u s a n d construction workers organized b y Local 7 9 proved for a day that the Laborer’s International

Union was n o t still steeped in its long history o f corruption and business unionism (in 1996, ten former locals of the Laborer’s Union i n New York formed Local 79).

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

44

The jolt o f radicalism from these immigrant workers pushed senior AFL-CIO organizers like Warren Mar

to

argue, “Basically we feel

immigration laws should be broken. We should protect undocumented workers, w e should harbor them, w e should n o t cooperate with the I N S . ” M a r understood that the labor movement h a d begun t o rely

upon the militancy o f immigrant workers. I f the movement did n o t put immigration issues front and center, it would fail t o represent the hopes

and

desires

of

its

militant

base.

AFL-CIO

vice

president

Chavez-Thompson p u t Mar’s strong words into institutional focus

with her February 16, 2000, pronouncement that “the current system of immigration enforcement in the US 1s broken. I f we are t o have an immigration system that works, it m u s t be orderly, responsible, and

fair.” The AFL-CIO called upon the government t o restructure its immigration policy mainly t o protect the rights o f all workers and t o hold employers accountable for the exploitation o f immigrants. “Employers often knowingly hire workers who are undocumented,” Chavez-Thompson noted, “and then when workers seek t o improve working conditions employers use the law t o fire or intimidate workers.” Certainly, the n e t result of this policy is that the immigration law 1s used t o discipline the workforce. “The law should criminalize employer behavior,” the AFL-CIO noted, “not punish workers.””!% I n the immediate aftermath o f

9/11, the unions seemed t o g o silent

in their call for amnesty. Since the unions are made up of so many radical immigrant workers, the silence can only last a short time. When the US Supreme Court declared in Hoffman Plastic Compounds v. National Labor Review Board (INLLRB) that undocumented workers do n o t have the right t o back pay remedy if they are illegally fired, the General Vice President o f H E R E Local 11, Maria Elena Durazo, told the press on May 17, 2002, that the union “denounces the U S Supreme Court decision.” “ I t is very

hypocritical,” she continued, “for the U S t o take advantage o f the hard

work of millions o f immigrant workers while at the same time trying t o deny a basic worker right—the right t o organize for a better life.” T h e

programmatic goals for HERE, she said, remained the same: 1. Complete and immediate citizenship for all immigrants

who currently work in the US; 2. The right of immigrant workers t o organize into unions as well as have complete labor rights; 3. Whistleblower protections; 4. Removing the power and responsibility o f employers t o enforce I N S laws.

Debt

45

I n August 2002, a coalition o f unions, immigrants’ rights groups, and religious organizations announced that i n the spring o f 2003, there

would be a new freedom ride on behalf o f immigrants within the US. “ A freedom ride is a great idea t o make our land live up t o the ideal o f equality of all,” said Reverend James Lawson, a freedom rider from the 1960s. “Our business 1s n o t primarily i n Afghanistan or the Middle East b u t t o secure equality and justice h e r e . ” T h e Reverend Lawson, a

comrade o f Martin Luther King, Jr., noted that the freedom rides o f the 1960s showed t h e country the character o f the oppression against

blacks. “We have something o f the same thing going on with the matter o f immigrants,” he said.!? Finally, House minority leader Dick Gephardt declared in mid-2002 that he would fight t o put a bill before Congress t o give amnesty t o undocumented workers.'%® With the rout

o f the Democrats in November 2002, such measures seem unlikely t o c o m e t o pass.

The AIWA Affliction

Formed in 1983, Asian Immigrant Women Advocates (AIWA) is neither a community organization n o r a trade u n i o n . ”

AIWA’s

founders, however, came from these t w o w o r l d s : Y o u n g Shin a n d

Elaine K i m from the Korean Community Center o f the East Bay and Patricia Lee from HERE, Local 2 in San Francisco. A I W A 1s somewhat

like the many workers’ centers that provide services t o immigrant workers from Long Island t o Seattle. Yet, AIWA provides services t o its many members: one o f the first tasks o f the organization was t o teach “survival English” t o the immigrant Korean workers a t the newly organized Fairmont H o t e l i n San Francisco. Local 2 d i d n o t have

anyone o n i t s staff w h o could speak Korean, so A I W A came i n t o the picture t o provide this auxiliary function. A I W A 1s also m o r e than this,

because i t functions as a strategy center for organizing among

immigrant workers in the Bay Area. I n many ways, then, A I W A 1s the hub o f a social movement, one spoke in the wheel o f Bay Area

progressivism, and indeed an important cause o f the upsurge o f immigrant workers that has transformed the AFL-CIO. Its m o s t famous campaign was the Garment Workers Justice Campaign (from 1992) t h a t will get the m o s t attention in this s e c t i o n . ’ A I W A emerges in a political space pioneered b y those immigrant w o m e n w h o fought against the sweatshops i n San Francisco's

46

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

Chinatown, to form, in time, the Chinese Progressive Association, and those who, i n the 1960s, struck at a Farah factory i n E l Paso, Texas, t o

form the vibrant organization, La Mujer Obrera. These t w o organizations and four others (New York City’s Chinese Staff and Workers Association, Los Angeles’s Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates, the Bay Area’s Mujeres Unidas y Activas, and San Jose’s

Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network or SIREN) joined together in late August o f 2001 for an Asian and Latina immigrant workers’ National Leadership Gathering. Cecilia Rodriquez o f La Mujer Obrera told the gathering, “Immigrant women, 1n particular, bear the triple stigma o f racism, sexism, and classism and have n o t had the opportunity t o tell our stories.” A t the gathering, the groups told their stories o f struggle and they underscored the importance o f organization. One New York immigrant leader pointed o u t the importance o f “raising awareness so [immigrant women] can help

themselves and receive justice.”'!! I n May 1993, twelve Chinese seamstresses from the Lucky Sewing Company in San Francisco came to the A I W A office o n Eighth Street in Oakland. For their work during ten t o twelve hour days over six or seven days a week from April 1991 to February 1992, the workers had been given a series o f bad checks that totaled $15,000. “They were

really upset,” AIWA executive director Young Shin told the Los Angeles Times. “They felt c h e a t e d . ” ! ' * ATWA took u p the cudgel, went t o the owners o f Lucky and found out that the firm had filed for bankruptcy.

By law, the company should have sold its assets t o pay back wagesfrst. However, as with m o s t sweatshops, the Lucky Sewing Company was a bare operation, with few assets whose real beneficiary was protected by the law through a simple move: it had n o formal relationship with Lucky even thought i t w a s the principal recipient o f the factory’s

goods.'!® That firm was Jessica McClintock, Inc., and it had been the main beneficiary o f the production relations a t Lucky’s for a t least six years. As 200 people rallied before the headquarters o f Jessica McClintock, Young Shin laid o u t the strategy for the campaign: “Jessica McClintock 1s one o f the many clothing manufacturers who abdicated all responsibility for their workers’ health, safety, and just compensation by using independent contractors.”'!* Referring t o a chart, Shin noted that for each $120 dress, $10 went t o labor, $10 t o material, and $ 1 0 t o the contractors: the r e s t went t o Jessica ?

Debt

47

McClintock who made $145 milion that year. While Jessica McClintock complained that the attention was “unfair and totally

unjustified” because i t required its contractors t o follow federal and state l a b o r laws, Lora J o F o o o f the A s i a n L a w Caucus argued,

“Subcontractors really d o n ’ t have a choice. Contract prices are set b y manufacturers a n d it’s a take it o r leave i t situation. W h e n y o u l o o k at

the contract price, 90 times out o f 100 that price will not guarantee even minimum wage, and it’s n o t going t o cover overtime.”! ! ? Young Shin

explains the strategy: W e reached out t o

the

subcontractors

through this

campaign. A I W A is more a n ally rather than trying t o crack

down on them for the poor working conditions and wages. The connection we made with the contractors gave us more

power, because they brought hard evidence of how much they get paid from the manufacturer and that they don’t have any power a t pricing the goods. We can really tell the consumers, Americans, the public, that manufacturers need

be responsible. We shouldn’t be excusing the contractor and subcontractor who have made the profits in the past and didn’t pay the women, but people need t o be educated about to

the whole injustice o f the economic structure. ©

I n 1992-93, A I W A inaugurated a host o f innovative campaign techniques t o humiliate Jessica McClintock and t o p u t the i d e a o f

the center o f US culture. I n O c t o b e r 1992, ATIWA ran a full-page advertisement in many national papers, including the New York Times, with the heading “Let Them Eat Lace.” “It’s rags t o riches forJessica McClintock,” the ad said, “but the women who sew

corporate accountability a t

in the sweatshops have still n o t been paid.” McClintock responded o n November 2 with her o w n broadside entitled, “ I Will N o t Tolerate

Intimidation or a Blatant Shakedown!” Then, on December 2, A I W A came b a c k with a piece called “Fantasy vs. Reality,” that quoted from

Eleanor Dugan, a former McClintock production supervisor, “I hope

your efforts will be

the wedge that starts p e o p l e re-evaluating

their

basic assumptions, like Rosa Parks refusing t o move t o the back o f the b u s . ” I n February, A I W A

organized the “Jessie H a v e a Heart”

in the exclusive Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco. Support came in from across the Valentine’s D a y p i c k e t a t her h o m e

country, as individuals and organizations sent money and conducted

48

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

solidarity rallies at shopping malls and before McClintock offices. From the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (Phoenix, Arizona) t o the Division o f Public Ministries o f the American Baptist Churches, from the

Social Justice Resource Center o f

Catholic Charities (Oakland) t o Native Americans for a Clean

Environment (Tahlequah, Oklahoma), from Direct Action for Rights and Equality (Providence, Rhode Island) t o the National Organization for Women—the movement grew apace. I n March, A I W A organized

the “Shopping District Protest Tour” for allies and friends who had come t o the Bay Area under the auspices o f a Center for Third World Organizing (CTWO) convention for women organizers. Asian Pacifica Sisters picketed the McClintock Sutter Street boutique in May with the slogan, “We're queer, we're Asian, we’re n o t going shopping!” In June, AIWA held a “Weve Got the Unpaid/Wedding Day Blues” mock wedding ceremony/ street theater a t the McClintock boutique, and in July, students and youth created the “Summer Vacation Protest” from the boutique t o a picnic a t Baker’s Beach. A s these innovative events unfolded across the country, people felt

a sense o f revulsion at corporate greed and a t the wage slavery o f capitalism. California state assembly member (and now member o f the US House o f Representatives) Barbara Lee attended a hearing a t the Oakland Museum on May 1, 1993, heard the workers testify t o the barbarism o f the system and offer their recommendations, and then she said: M y ancestors were brought here i n chains from Africa as

slaves. This country was built on the basis and on the use o f slave labor. It’s only been one hundred thirty years since African Americans have been emancipated from that horror

o f slavery and. . . w e really haven’t begun to recuperate from that devastating experience. W e understand very plight that your struggle i s about. I want t o say t o

well the y o u that

along with the recommendations that you have laid o u t here for me which I commit myself to, I'm also going t o go back and talk t o the NAACP and some o f the

African American

organizations t o ask them t o embrace this struggle. 1 join y o u

i n your struggle. Thank you again for being so brave.

After the hearing, Young Shin said, “We are building national awareness o f the situation o f the seamstresses.”!!’” I n 1996, the main 1

Debt

49

corporations reached a n agreement with the workers t o pay back pay and t o reform themselves. This was n o t perfection, b u t it was certainly a model for the campaigns o f corporate accountability that are n o w

legion across the labor movement. As Miriam Ching Yoon Louie points o u t i n Sweatshop Warriors: Eventually, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union/UNITE, the National Labor Committee, and Global Exchange used what they observed o f AIWA’s campaign in their anti-corporate campaigns against Gap, N i k e , and Guess, and i n organizing students through Union Summer and United Students Against Sweatshops.

Drawing from the McClintock campaign energy, AIWA created the Youth Build Immigrant Power (YBIP) project in 1997 t o organize many o f the young people who walked the line on behalf o f their mothers, aunts, sisters, and friends. I n December 2000, the YBIP youth

joined with the National Mobilization Against Sweatshops (NMASS—housed a t the Chinese Staff and Workers Association in New York City) t o conduct a “Girl”cott

against DIKNY’s

exploitative

sweatshop conditions. NMASS held a rally in New York on December 17, t o remind Donna Karan of DKINY that the $600 million gross profit from 2000 was made off the backs o f the garment workers. YBIP, according t o member K a m Sung, saw “that there were many similarities between what garment workers here i n San Francisco faced and what the

workers in New York City faced.” Therefore, YBIP decided t o hold a solidarity rally at the San Francisco Shopping Center. O n e hundred

youth came t o the rally, performed skits, chanted, and “demonstrated that youths have

the power

t o make a change i n the garment industry.

United, w e can fight the injustices brought onto our immigrant

community b y the big corporations.”''® N o w with a summer youth

internship, the YBIP program creates a long-term legacy and organizes the entire family rather than simply the worker.!'” Finally, when the labor movement failed t o address issues o f environmental a n d l a b o r injustice

in the sweatshops of Silicon Valley, where electronic assembly workers inhale toxic fumes, work long hours, and experience the injustice o f a

misogynist and anti-immigrant workplace, AIWA opened a branch office in San Jose in 1991 and, with the University o f California, San Francisco, formed the Asian Immigrant Women Workers Clinic in 2001.

50

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

There is nothing automatically good about community o r advocacy

organizations like AIWA. They perform a role in the movement for justice that helps push the labor m o v e m e n t on several fronts and enjoins i t to enter these areas o n pain o f extinction. However, there are moments when the labor movement enters the life o f a

community organization and enables it t o be true t o its own ideals. One such example was when the workers a t the 24-year-old Asian Health Services in Oakland, California, went t o Local 790 o t SEIU

and formed a union a t the organization in May 1997. Local 790 has a long history o f anti-racist activism, with its key role in the anti-apartheid struggle, and it now entered this unique zone t o push a community organization forward. “We don’t want t o slip into a service model now that we have been organized,” warned Ray Otake, a worker a t the Asian Health Service and a member o f the organizing committee for unionization. T h e workers here have seen h o w they could effect change

and associate the union with the tools t o organize, solve

problems, and empower ourselves. W e need t o continue using the creative tactics w e had during the campaign t o orient n e w

members with

self-empowerment so our

internal base will have a n activist foundation.’

The De-Bug Virus

I f AIWA mainly organized among the immigrant workers, what about the children o f the immigrants, those who are now in their twenties and who are the main workforce in the software and hardware industries o f Silicon Valley? A t a 2001 gathering called by the AFL-CIO a t the Paris Hotel in Las Vegas, organizer Raj Jayadev saw that the younger unionists spent a considerable a m o u n t o f their

time in the parking l o t , rapping with e a c h other, rather than in the ballroom hearing speeches from the leadership. One o f these young folk told him that “the union newsletter goes from the mailbox t o the trash can,” because, as Jayadev notes, “young workers don’t want t o simply hear the union line—they want t o create it. The younger generation does n o t like t o receive messages passively. Just look a t the e x p l o s i o n o f youth-created media i n r e c e n t years.”'?! O f course, the

older generations did n o t want t o be given media either, and there is evidence o f the way people told their own stories. Now, what is

Debt

51

strikingly different 1s the access among young workers in the First World t o technology that enables them t o tell their own story in print or on the web. A cursory search o n the web, for example, leads us t o any number o f young worker created w e b ’zines and materials, and there are a slew

o f anarchist and other left-wing periodicals such as Clamor magazine available around the country that c o m e from young workers and

address the complex framework within which they work and organize. As Jayadev notes: Young working people are already organizing against the prison-industrial complex, environmental racism and racial

profiling and hate crimes. These movements may have little t o do with workplace issues, but they have everything t o do with the labor movement. Regardless o f the struggle, they are giving young people an experiential point o f reference that confirm that collective action is a way t o change oppressive realities. This 1s fundamentally what unionism 1s p

about. !??

T o introduce us

to

this new wave o f unionism, I

want t o

offer a

profile o f the author of these words, Raj Jayadev. While my story 1s about only one person, I hope that you can find in him an example o f the many

active young people whose multiple labors have n o t only restarted a Left dynamic in the US, but they have done so around the Labor movement. There are also people just a little older than Jayadev, such as Amy Dean who 1s now almost 40 and 1s the head o f the AFL-CIO’s Silicon Valley office, w h o are also playing a crucial role i n the struggle t o kick-start a

progressive dynamic in the country. “The labor movement was strongest when we were the moral voice in the community,” Dean says. “That’s when people were attracted t o us, wanted t o b e part o f us, wanted t o b e

mobilized into action with us.”'*> Dean is right about the moral voice part o f i t , b u t Jayadev would perhaps insist that the voice should b e fashioned b y the workers, not simply given t o them from above so

that

people get “attracted t o u s . ” This story is also not just about Jayadev, b u t also about the collective h e founded with others called De-Bug.

word computer specialists use t o describe the process o f finding a malfunction and fixing it. This De-Bug 1s the name o f a collective o f young workers, writers, and artists who are organizing t o improve Silicon Valley. The story is about De-Bug as much as Jayadev. “Debug” 1s the

52

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

I'm sitting with Raj Jayadev in a café off Valencia in San Francisco. “In San Francisco y o u can’t spit and not hit a n activist o n the head,” h e

tells me. And Raj is one o f those activists, shaved head, earrings, young, dynamic, full o f intellectual and moral energy, a veteran o f the anti-WTO

blowout in Seattle. I force his biography out o f him. Activists like Raj are not happy t o talk about themselves, always eager t o talk about the struggles at hand. He tells me that his family comes from Karnataka, India. That they came t o California t o make it, but like m o s t South Asians, uncovered the trials o f life in the US. Raj went t o UCLA angry a t the world, but unsure h o w t o direct that anger. “ I didn’t k n o w what 1t was that I was so pissed about.” Being in Los Angeles clarified things about race, color, and class. “I started t o get involved in the movement down there, with labor,” he says. Thanks t o UCLA’s liberal interest in workers’ rights, Raj got course credit for his shenanigans with the working class o f Los

Angeles. Hard work with virtuoso labor organizations like Los Angeles Manufacturing Action Project (LAMAP), under the direction o f Peter Olney, allowed Raj t o get “out o f the UCLA bubble.” LAMAP’s idea was t o organize industry-wide and be culturally particular.!*® Every immigrant community will n o t join the labor movement in the same way, so the labor organizers need t o b e cognizant o f the differences between

workers. Raj was radicalized by other youth o f color and by this innovative labor organization. He got a grant t o travel t o India and was moved by the experience. “It was a whole different thing,” Raj said. “I didn’t even know Indians when I was growing up. T o step o n the bus and n o t be the only Indian b r o t h e r o n the

bus, that was somethingI

bus, t o l o o k

like everyone else o n

the

didn’t even k n o w I missed. Until the second 1

stepped on that bus.” The idea o f the bund), the total strike, blew his mind, and introduced him t o that side o f India so rarely talked about in Indian America.

Raj moved back t o the Valley, t o live with his family and t o organize workers. H e went t o work at Hewlett-Packard o n the assembly line and

see if justice can be served in this heart o f the new America where 13 billionaires make their homes (combined wealth o f $45 billion), with to

several hundred more residents worth $25 million or more. “There’s n o

place else like Silicon Valley in the world,” says Morgan White (a Menlo Park investment counselor). “You've got the biggest wealth creation machine m a n has ever seen.” 3

Debt

53

Workers a t all levels o f the industry come from among immigrants, whether from Latin America (mainly Mexico), Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Ethiopia, or Somalia. Seventy percent o f the high-tech manufacturing workers in the Valley are people o f color.

Elizabeth Gonzalez, a 24-year-old native o f Santa Clara, California, a former assembly worker a t Pemstar and now an undergraduate a t Evergreen State College, wrote:

Recent immigrants were [in the factory] because it was one o f the few jobs they could get with their limited English. A lot o f them wanted t o take courses in school t o become certified technicians and get higher pay. They played the weekly lottery and said every time, “If I win tonight, you won't see m e tomorrow.”

B u t o f c o u r s e they are there the next day a n d the next. I f the workers are

divided b y language, they are united b y their conditions. “ Y o u k n o w h o w t o communicate around certain issues,” Raj says o f

his interaction

with

the workers. “ A universal language develops, particular words o r phrases

like ‘overtime pay’ or gestures like coughing (an indication o f common respiratory p r o b l e m s ) . ” T h e conditions bring these disparate workers

together, something as deep as the links forged b y a common diet o r

dress. Divided b y language, but united b y their conditions, these workers

258,000 workers in Silicon Valley (a third o f the workforce) make only between

make our computers a n d other electronic goods. B u t these

six and eight dollars per hour. M a n y o f these workers live i n homeless

shelters or else ride the bus all night. Women, who keep the clean industry clean, c o m e into buildings a t night and feel threatened b y sexual violence. Marina Vargas, a 26-year-old migrant from Mexico City, works

as a janitor

at

Semina Corporation, a major PC board maker in the

Valley. She reports, “ M y boss likes the w o m e n t o ask h i m ‘ C o m o estas

papito? Y como t e va? (How are you, Daddy? How’s it going?). I don’t say this, so h e treats m e differently. H e d o e s n ’ t work the w o m e n w h o say this

as hard.”!#®

Software workers d o n ’ t necessarily enjoy better work conditions. M a n y young workers w h o are U S nationals g o into the dot.com world with e n t h u s i a s m a n d find themselves within “ a volunteer l o w wage

army.” Here is cultural critic Andrew Ross’s description o f the software

workers in New York’s Silicon Alley:

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

54

Deeply caffeinated 85-hour work w e e k s without overtime pay ate a way o f life for Webshop workers on flexible contracts, w h o invest a massive share o f sweat equity in the

mostly futile hope that their stock options will pay oft. Even the lowliest employee feels like a n entrepreneurial investor as a result. I n m o s t cases, the stock options turn

into pink slips when the company goes belly-up, or, i n some cases, employees are fired before their stock options are due t o mature.

In

Seattle, another

home o f software starving

artists, the

workers

created WashTech, an affiliate o f the Communication Workers o f

America (CWA). The goal o f WashTech is t o struggle with the problem o f temporary work within the industry—a sign that labor is aware o f

the shifts in the economy. The concept o f “flexibility” and management’s creative use o f technology has recreated the work structure i n certain fields. T h e challenge for unions i s h o w t o craft

militancy in the age o f “flexibility,” and that is just what the CWA, among others, 1s u p t o .

Most o f the immigrants who work in the software end o f things are here o n H 1 B visas, a n entry document that compels the worker t o b e

obsequious t o the management (who holds the right t o fire the worker, and, therefore, deport the worker without recourse) a n d t o b e without the right t o organize i n a union. Labor contractors w h o bring the H 1 B

workers t o the US are known as “body-shoppers™ and many o f them charge u p to 70 percent o f the worker’s wage as a commission.'?’ Seventy-five percent

of

the

workers

are

from India, many o f

them

brought by Indian firms such as Tata Consultancy Services. Until 9/11,

the rate o f complaints about labor violations from H1B workers t o the Department o f L a b o r was o n the rise: from a steady 5 0 complaints a

year, the number jumped t o over 100 1n 2001. I f the situation is bad for the p o o l o f H 1 B workers, their spouses w h o c o m e o n H 4 visas are even

worse off. “If an H 1 divorces an H4,” says Sandhya Puranic who works o n cases o f domestic violence, “ s h e 1s immediately considered deportable.” N e w Y o r k City’s Sakhi for South Asian W o m e n reported

150 cases o f H 4 abuse in six months o f 2000.'%* The exports o f the high-tech industry have doubled

to

about

$40 billion from 1991 to 1998. Vinita Gupta o f Digital Link Corp. says, “ W e were i m m i g r a n t s because w e w e r e r i s k takers. W e left o u r

Debt

55

safe land behind and came t o this place looking for something bigger a n d b e t t e r . ” I n d i a n e n t r e p r e n e u r s m a k e it, M s . Gupta implies,

because o f the hard work o f the migrants. Obviously the entrepreneurs work hard and are dynamic, but this is hardly the reason why the firms make such thumping profits. A 1999 study b y

the Public Policy Institute o f California well because o f “ e t h n i c r e s o u r c e s . ”

notes

that the migrants do

'* T h e y m e a n professional a n d

social networks that make possible exchange of information and that help access t o capital. B u t t h e o t h e r “ e t h n i c r e s o u r c e ” i s t h e

exploitation o f migrants; many o f who are disciplined in much the same way as New York Chinatown’s r e s t a u r a t e u r s discipline their workers. We are Asian. This 1s a white country. D o n o t protest. W o r k

hard t o make Asians successful. The anti-union dynamic o f Silicon Valley runs along the same grain o f the distorted nationalism o f the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. I n the

nation, 2.3 million workers toil in the high-tech manufacturing

industry, the largest number o f workers in any one sector. Yet, only 27 percent o f these workers are in unions (in steel the number 1s 56.2 percent). Raj tells m e that B o b N o y c e , founder o f I n t e l , wrote that t o

remain “non-union is essential for survival. I f we had work rules that unionized companies have,” Noyce wrote i n 1984, “we’d all go o u t of business.” Profits accrue from the toil o f the workers. And can you imagine in our Alice in Wonderland world, w e think that computers beget c o m p u t e r s , that ideas m a k e profits. W e also believe that computers are a clean industry, that

they are

sleek

and n o t

environmentally as ghastly as the smokestack industry. S o m e o n e

should tell this t o the family of Rodrigo Cruz, who died o f grievous brain damage a t work i n the Valley.” There are enormous barriers to overcome, such as the weight o f

being

the international

labor

aristocracy and

o f being

part

of

the

“American exceptionalist” universe (where, the theory runs, socialism 1s n o t possible because o f t h e close r e l a t i o n s h i p between

workers and their overlords). The US Census o f 2000 shows that the foreign b o r n n o w a c c o u n t for almost a t e n t h o f t h e population, and

among the working class this is a higher figure. Such a fact leads us t o a n t i c i p a t e a r e v o l t against A m e r i c a n e x c e p t i o n a l i s m , s i n c e m a n y o f

these workers only come t o the US after being displaced i n their homelands by the will o f US imperialism. The lie o f the capitalist core

56

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

is already unmasked in their previous lives, since many o f them have deep connections with the workers overseas. The workers o f the world enjoy a fragile unity; the point is t o strengthen it.

Debt

57

Harold Meyerson, “ A Second Chance: The New AFL-CIO and the Prospective Revival o f American Labor,” Not Your Father's Union Movement: Inside the AFL-CIO, E d . J o - A n n Mort, London: V e r s o , 1998.

Fred Garboury, “Kirkland dumped from AFL-CIO office,” People’s Weekly World, August 4, 1995.

Ruth Milkman and Kent Wong, “Organizing the Wicked City: The 1992 Southern California Drywall Strike,” Organizing Immigrants. The Challenge Jor Unions in Contemporary California, Ed. Ruth Milkman, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000. The AFL-CIO, however, still bears vestiges o f protectionism in its policy claims (as well as a tendency t o believe in the inevitability o f the market). I t fights against sweatshops in Mexico, but it is n o t clear i f this 1s toward the growth o f union and worker power there or t o end wage competition between the Mexican and US worker (or indeed t o fight for socialism). The main AFL-CIO agency against sweatshops is UNITE (the garment workers union), but this union does little t o combat sweatshops within the US that are frequently union shops, mainly t o prevent job loss: the logic o f job preservation 1s a relic o f business unionism and it often curtails the m o v e m e n t . T o be wary o f these changes is healthy because Sweeney's o w n account o f U S labor history suggests that the 1950s was

the heyday o f the movement, when in fact that decade set the stage for the racist business unionism o f the Cold War era. A clear indication o f the protectionism in the AFL-CIO is in its anti-China campaign. Kent Wong and Elaine Bernard’s “Labor’s Mistaken Anti-China Campaign” offers the arguments against the AFL-CIO anti-China position, while

Mark Levinson and Thea Lee’s “Why Labor Made the Right Decision” defends the AFL-CIO. Both articles appeared i n N e w Labor Forum, n o . 7,

Fall/Winter 2000. Ross Levine, “Stock Markets: A Spur t o Economic Growth,” Finance & Development, vol. 33, no. 1, March 1996, p. 7.

There is a long-standing debate over whether the stock market contributes t o genuine economic growth and whether there are socially

better ways t o raise funds for economic activity. I n a survey o f twelve papers presented to a World Bank conference o n “ S t o c k

Markets,

Corporate Finance and Economic Growth,” Ross Levine n o t e s that while banks do provide a crucial service, stock markets do provide some

value as well. “Stock markets offer opportunities primarily for trading risk and boosting liquidity; i n contrast, banks focus on establishing long-term relationships with firms because they seek t o acquire information

a b o u t p r o j e c t s a n d managers a n d enhance c o r p o r a t e

control.” Levine, “Stock Markets,” pp. 9-10.

Doug Henwood, author o f the m o s t useful summary o f the world o f stocks, points o u t that in the nineteenth Century, the s t o c k market became

58

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

a n instrument t o settle matters around the ownership o f the productive

capacity of the nation, recently bought up by monopoly firms from the hard working people o f Main Street. “Late 19% Century promoters,” he writes, “also thought o f the market as a way t o ease the burden o n small

producers who were being displaced or enveloped by corporatization: modest stock holdings were a compensation for the loss of real capital

ownership.” Henwood, WallStreet: How It Works andFor Whom, London: Verso Books, 1997, p. 14. T h e logic o f economic populism expounded i n our time has been thoroughly upended b y Thomas Frank, One Market Under God: Extreme

Capitalism, Market Populism and the End ofEconomic Democracy, New Y ork: Doubleday, 2000. Gretchen Morgenson, “Another Slap a t Democracy on Wall St.,”” New York Times, September 15, 2002. 10

11

12

13 14 15

“What the firms were really dispensing,” writes Motrgenson, “was free money.” Morgenson, “Another Slap a t Democracy on Wall Street.” For this and more I am indebted t o Gretchen Morgenson’s column “Market Watch” in the New York Times. This data and analysis 1s from Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and Heather Boushey, The State of Working America 2002/2003, Washington: Economic Policy Institute and Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003. “Recent Changes in US Family Finances: Results from the 1998 Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, January 2000, p. 22. “Recent Changes,” pp. 23-24.

“Recent Changes,” pp. 20-21 (Table 11). The racism in the home loan market continues. I n California, one seven-year study shows u s that while the number o f h o m e loans t o

nonwhites increased, African Americans continued t o have an enormously hard time securing the capital t o build their personal equity.

California Reinvestment Committee, Who Really Gets Home Loans? Year 16 17 18

Seven, San Francisco: CRC, 2000. “Recent Changes,” p. 26. Henwood, Wall Street, p . 65.

Since 1980, individual bankruptcies have skyrocketed, from about 1,500 i n 1980 t o close t o 7,000 i n 2000, and personal debt as a percentage o f

personal income has gone up enormously in the same period, from about 70 percent t o over 110 percent. M u c h o f the access t o credit c a n be via rapacious credit cards that charge enormously high interest rates. Karen Alexander, “Minefields Abound in Attempts t o Reduce Debt,” 19

New York Times, September 22, 2002. Vijay Prashad, “Another America,

20

November 6-19, 1999. O n September 24, 2002, the US Census Bureau announced that the

22

Frontline, vol. 16, issue 23,

number of people below the poverty line is now 32.9 million—about 3

Debt

59

11.7 percent. H o w d o we get t o 33 percent? F o r its poverty line threshold, the government takes the figure o f $18,104 (for a family o f

four) and $14,128 (for a family o f three). This is far t o o low. Living wage campaigns across the country take a standard that i s about 200 percent o f the poverty line, so that would make it about $36,208 (for a family o f four) and $28,256 (for a family o f three). Almost a third o f the population, then, lives below the livable wage poverty line. 21 22

Molly Ivins, “Hoping to Make 2 Americas into 1 , Abilene Reporter-News, June 26, 1997. For an extensive treatment o f the structural problem o f corporate

imperialism, see my Fat Cats. 23 24

Geofttrey Colvin, “The Great C E O Pay Heist,” Fortune, June 25, 2001.

David Leonhart, “Options Math: Why So Much t o So Few?” New York Times, February 1 6 , 2003.

25

Geraldine Fabrikant, “ G E Expenses for Ex-Chief Cited in Filing,” New York Times, September 6, 2002.

26

Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Tyco Details Lavish Lives o f Executives,” New York Times, September 18, 2002 and james B . Stewart, “Spend! Spend!

Spend! Where did Tyco’s Money Go?” New Yorker, February, 17 and 24,

2003. 27

28

29

30

Rakesh Khurana, Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Kevin Chauvin and Catherine Shenoy, “Stock Price Decreases Prior t o Executive Stock Options Grants,” JournalofCorporate Finance, no. 7, 2001 and Joseph Blasi, Douglas Kruse, and Aaron Bernstein, In the Company of Owners: The Truth About Stock Options (And Why Every Employee ShouldHave Them), New York: Basic Books, 2003.

CEO compensation, see Scott Klinger, The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall: High CEQ Pay and the Effect on F o r a n excellent overview o f

Long-Term Stock Prices, Boston: United for a Fair Economy, 2001. David Leonhardt and Geraldine Fabrikant, “Many Chiefs Are Retaining Extra Benefits in Retirement,” New York Times, September 11, 2002.

31

Jeffrey H. Birnbaum,

“Washington Power 2 5 : Fat a n d

Happy i n DC,”

Fortune, May 28, 2001. The list is available on-line a t “The Power 25: Top

Lobbying Groups,” www.fortune.com/lists/power25.index.html. 32

K e n Silverstein, Washington on $10 Million a Day: How Lobbyists Plunder the Nation, Monroe: Common Courage, 1998, p. 4.

33

Thorsten Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Harmondsworth:

34

Penguin, 1979, chapter 4. W . Elliot Brownlee, Federal Taxation in America: A Short History, Washington: W o o d r o w W i l s o n Center Press and N e w Y o r k : Cambridge

University Press, 1996. I t is important t o note that when the tax reappeared i n 1910, i t was pushed by the monopolies essentially t o garner sufficient funds t o set up a central bank that would work for the

60

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

interests o f the monopoly firms. T h e history o f the 16%" Amendment 1s

one that is studied b y all. 35 36

Apex Hosiery v. Leader, 310 US 469 (1940). The Edith Wharton quote is from chapter 8 of her Touchstone,New York: Scribner,

1900; the

Populist Party statement 1s known as the O m a h a

Platform and i t can b e found in A Populist Reader: Selectionsfrom the

Works

1aders, E d . George Tindall, N e w York: Harper & o f American Populist e

37

38

Row, 1966, pp. 90-96. Reagan made this great statement on April 15, 1982 before the students at St. Peter’s Catholic Elementary School in Geneva, Illinois. The entre conversation can be accessed at www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/ speeches /1982/41582b.htm. Robert Brenner, “The Economics o f Global Turbulence: A Special Report o n the Wotld Economy, 1950-98," New Left Review, no. 229, May/June

1998, p. 182. T h e

argument regarding the United States i s

elaborated in his The Boom and the Bubble: The US in the World Economy, London: Verso, 2002. I a m indebted t o Lisa Armstrong (Women’s Studies at Smith College) for a decade-long tuition o n this theme. Oliver

Stone’s Wall Street (1987) 1s the cinematic commentary on the culture o f the adjustment, while T o m Wolfe’s Bonfire o fthe Vanities (1987) offers u s the p r o s e o f

the counterrevolution

o f property.

39

The idea o f the “factory desert” is from Marco Revelli, Lavorare in FLAT, Milan: Garzanti, 1989.

40 41

Brenner, “The Economics o f Global Turbulence,” p . 182.

Louis Uchitelle, “Stagnant Wages Pose Added Risks t o Weak

42

Economy,” New York Times, August 11, 2002. Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt, The State of Working America,

43 44

2000/2001, Ithaca: Cornell University

Press a n d Economic

Policy Institute, 2001, p. 98. Gretchen Morgenson, “Missing the Mark in 2000: Stocks Look for a Steadying Hand Ahead,” New York Times, January 2, 2001. Gretchen Morgenson, “How Did So Many Get I t So Wrong? As they do little b u t shout ‘buy,’ analysts often send investors astray,” N e w

York

45

Times, December 31, 2000. Allen J. Beck, Prisoners in 1999, Washington, D C : Bureau o f Justice

46

Statistics, August 2000. Marc Mauer and Tracy Huling, Young Black Americans and the Criminal

Justice System: Five Years Later, Washington, D C : The Sentencing Project, October 1995. 47 48

Langston Hughes, The Big Sea, N e w York: Hill and Wang, 1963, p . 247.

For example, John Berry, “Greenspan: Restore Fiscal Discipline

to

Balance Budget,” Washington Post, February 1 1 , 2003.

49

Eric Schlosser, Fast FoodNation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, N e w York: Perennial, 2002, p . 72.

Debt

50

61

World B a n k , Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries 2001,

Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2001. Apart from the United States, the only other country t o record ceaseless industrial growth was, 51

o f course, the People’s Republic o f China. Early indications o f the “post-industrial” and “jobless growth” condition o f o u r present comes t o us from Alain Touraine, The Post Industrial Society, New York: Random House, 1971. Jeremy Rifkin believes that “jobless growth” means that the workers will now have more leisure as technological shifts will allow for greater productivity and less time o n the job. The End of Work: The Decline of the GlobalLabor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era, N e w York: Putnam, 1995.

Stanley Aronowitz and Willlam DeFazio argue that technological improvements do n o t increase leisure, rather they intensify exploitation and cast off a v a s t number o f people outside the workforce: The Jobless Future: Sci-Tech and the Dogma of Work, Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1994. Aronowitz and DeFazio argue that we should fight for a shorter work week in order t o create the leisure future that Ritkin suggests 1s our present. 52

Michael P i o r e argues t h a t the “ s w e a t s h o p ” i s defined by l o w fixed costs

and the mode o f labor organization. “The Economics o f the

53

Sweatshop,” N o Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers, Ed. Andrew Ross, London: Verso, 1997. Maria Mies, e t . al., Women: The Last Colony, N e w Delhi: Kali, 1988, p. 10

and Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division ofLabour, London: Zed Books, 1999. 54

Philip Corrigan, “Feudal Relics or Capitalist Monuments? Notes on the Sociology o f Unfree Labour,” Sociology, vol. 11, 1977.

55

Cited in Andrew Ross, N o Sweat, p. 12. I have omitted agricultural work

from this précis on the sweatshop. The G A O accepts that the field is as m u c h a sweatshop as t h e factory: G A O , Child Labor in Agriculture:

Characteristics and Legality of Work, Washington, D C : G A O , 1998

(GAO/HEHS-98-112R). For a n excellent ethnographic look a t sweatshops in the US, see Gregory Scott, “Sewing with Dignity: Class Struggle and Ethnic Conflict in the Los Angeles Garment Industry,” Santa Barbara: University o f California, Santa Barbara, Department o f Sociology, Ph. D.; 1998. S57 Andrew Ross, No-Collar: The Humane Workplace and Its Hidden Costs. Behind theMyth oftheNew Office Utopia, New York: Basic Books, 2003, and

56

L o u i s e Kapp H o w e , Pink Collar Workers: Inside the World of Women's Work,

N e w York: Putnam, 1977. 58

R o b e r t W. Cox, Production, Power and World Order: SocialForces in the Making

of History, N e w York: Columbia University Press, 1987, p. 344. 59

Alain Lipietz, Mirages and Miracles: The Crisis of Global Fordism, London: Verso, 1987, pp. 78-79.

62 60

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

Jesse Jackson, “You D o N o t Stand Alone,” speech in New York City, July 14, 1992.

61

T h e s e quotes

are

from

Robert Cotter

a n d Maureen Costello’s

documentary, Hamlet: The Untold Tragedy, screened a t Harvard University.

For more information, contact 02 Productions, P O B o x 16651, Chapel

Hill, N C 27514. 62

A n early analysis o f this condition i s i n Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capitalism: The Degradation o f Work in the Twentieth Century, N e w

York: Monthly Review Press, 1974. For an update, with a sense o f h o w even the m o s t computerized workplaces are p a r t o f the sweatshop

economy, see Barbara Garson, The Electronic Sweatshop: H o w Computers are

Transforming the Office o f the Future into the Factory of the Past, N e w York:

Penguin Books, 1988. 63 64 65

Michael Harrington, The Other America,N e w York: MacMillan, 1962, p . 191. Francis Fox Piven and Richard A . Cloward, Poor People’s Movements. Why They Succeed, How They Fail, N e w York: Vintage, 1979, pp. 267-70. F o r a shocking l o o k a t the poverty wages earned by m o s t o f the workers

i n a narcotics gang, see Steven D . Levitt and Sudhir Venkatesh, “ A n Economic Analysis o f a Drug-Selling Gang’s Finances,” The Quarterly

Journal ofEconomics, August 2000, pp. 755-89. 66

O n the economics o f care, I recommend Nancy Folbre, The Invisible

Heart: Economics andFamily Values, New York: The New Press, 2001, and (from a more philosophical standpoint) Elizabeth V . Spelman, Repair: The Impulse to Restore in a Fragile World, Boston: Beacon Press, 2002. 67 68

Business Week, August 25, 1997. For more data, see “Wealth News,” Left Business Observer, no. 94, May 5,

2000, p. 3 and p. 5. 69

70

Woodrow Ginsburg, Income andInequality: 8 Years o fProsperity, Millions Left Behind, Washington, D C : Americans for Democratic Action, January

1999. Jared Mishel, Lawrence Bernstein, and John Schmitt, The State of Working America, 2000/2001, Chapter 2, and Marlene Kim, “Women Paid Low

71

Wages,” Monthly Labor Review, vol. 123, no. 9, September 2000. Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, Nickle and Dimed, is the best current ethnography o f the w a r over time a n d space in the service workplace, b u t

for

72 73

details, see Schlosser, Fast Food Nation, p p . 59-88.

Robert B. Reich, The Work ofNations, New York: Vintage, 1992, p. 174. All citations 1n this paragraph c o m e from this book. T h e AFL-CIO divided the workforce into four categories: core, skilled workforce; skilled peripheral workforce; unskilled core workforce; and unskilled peripheral workforce. Skilled workers include professionals, technicians, a n d skilled craftspersons that have either full-time jobs with

benefits (core workers) or else they work as consultants, freelancers,

Debt

63

temporary employees, agency employees, or contingent workers. The latter do n o t have a stable workplace, but they have a stable occupation (the occupation will now be the focus o f union activity rather than the s h o p floor). Unskilled work includes t h e occupations that have n o w

been rendered deskilled, such as restaurant workers, hotel workers,

nursing aides, and garment workers. “These unskilled workers are completely vulnerable t o what has become an integral part o f the anti-union campaign: the permanent replacement threat.” AFL-CIO,

Union Survival Strategies for the Twenty-First Century, Washington, DC:

AFL-CIO, 1996. 74

National Alliance for Fair Employment, Contingent Workers Fight for

Fairness, Boston: NAFE, 2000, pp. 11-12. 75

A n n a E . Polivka, “ A Profile o f Contingent Workers,” Monthly Labor

Review, October 1990. 76

“ A Different Look

at

Part-Time Employment,” Issues in Labor Statistics,

Department o f Labor, Bureau o f Labor Statistics, April 1996, and Jackie

Chu, Sonya Smallets, and Jill Braunstein, The Econonzic Impact of Contingent Work on Women and Their Families, Washington, D C : Institute for

Women’s Policy Research, 1995. 77

78

Polivka, “ A Profile,” p. 19, summarizes Lonnie Goldstein and Eileen

Applebaum’s, “What Was Driving the 1982-1988 Boom in Temporary E m p l o y m e n t , ” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, O c t o b e r 1992, p. 473. In the c u r r e n t process o f stabilization, there are predominantly three components: Structural A d j u s t m e n t Programs i n the Third World a n d i n Eastern Europe, technological developments o f “smart weapons,” and downsizing i n businesses i n the overdeveloped world. F o r the purposes of

this s h o r t b o o k , I

a m n o t going t o c o n d u c t a n analysis o f the first t w o

components o f US stabilization since there 1s much good work o n that found elsewhere. I have covered s o m e o f this ground i n Fat Cats and

79

Running Dogs. David Talbot, “Sky-High Hub Rents Change Face o f City,” Boston

Herald, January 3, 1999; David Benda, “City’s Supply o f Affordable Housing is Drying Up,” Redding Record Searchhght, December 11, 2000; Hisham Aidi, “ A

‘Second Renaissance’ i n Harlem?” Africana. Com,

December 18, 2000; Brian J. Rogal, “Real Estate Boom Threatens Affordable H o u s i n g Options,” Chicago Reporter, November/December

80

2000. Gregory Jaynes, “Down and O u t in Telluride,” Tze, September 5, 1994,

81

pp. 60-61. Ibid.

64

82

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

U S Department o f H o u s i n g and Urban Development, Homelessness:

Programs and the People They Serve. Findings of the National Survey ofHomeless Assistance Providers and Clients, Washington, D C : H U D , December 1999. 83

Leslie Kaufman and Kevin Flynn, “ N e w Y o r k ’ s Homeless, B a c k O u t i n

the Open,” New York Times, October 13, 2002. 84

Robert

J. Mills (US

Census Bureau), “ C u r r e n t P o p u l a t o n Reports:

Health Insurance Coverage (1999),” Washington, DC: US Commerce Department, S e p t e m b e r

85

2000.

W h e n George B u s h was governor o f Texas, h e fought t o reduce the

number of children eligible for the CHIP program. The Bush people found that when low-income o r unemployed parents brought their children t o register for CHIP many found that they did not make enough money t o sign up for the program, but that they could qualify for Medicaid. “When Bush realized the legislators weren’t going t o deny 200,000 kids health insurance, his office began t o fight for separate applications for CHIP and Medicaid. In other words, i f CHIP applicants qualified for Medicaid, they would have t o make a n appointment at a Medicaid office and fill o u t another application. A n d that application is

difficult and complicated, requiring applicants t o prove they have less

$2,000 in total assets. ‘All the studies s h o w that 66 percent never return,” [State Representative Austin] Maxey said.” Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush, New than

York: Vintage, 2000, p . 95. 86

Amy Snow Landa, “Uninsured Ranks Are Predicted t o Jump,” A M A News, December 10, 2001.

87

Christian Parenti, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Criss,

London: Verso, 1999, pp. 238-42. 88

During periods o f stagnation the reserve army o f labor, Marx noted,

“weighs down the active army o f workers; during the periods o f overproduction and feverish activity, it puts a curb o n their pretensions.” T h e “ d e s p o t i s m o f capital” i s revealed as the demand/supply equation

shows that “capital acts o n b o t h

labor o n the o t h e r .

89

sides at

o n c e , ” n o t o n o n e side

with

“Les dés sont pipés,” M a r x wrote, the dice is loaded.

Karl Marx, Capztal. Volume I, London: Penguin, 1976, pp. 792-93. Richard Rotty, Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth Century America, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998, and Todd Gitlin,

Why America is Wracked by York: Metropolitan Books, 1995.

The Twilight o f Common Dreams: New

90 91

Culture

Wars,

Dave Roediger, “Mumia Time or Sweeney Time,” New Politics, vol. VII, no. 4, Winter 2000, pp. 11-15. Cynthia Young, “Punishing Labor: Why Labor Should Oppose the Prison Industrial Complex,” New Labor Forum, no. 7, Fall/Winter 2000,

p. 49.

Debt

92

65

For background o n Local 2, a feisty union, see Mariam J.

Wells,

“Immigration and Unionization in the San Francisco Hotel Industry,” Organizing Immigrants.

93

Lea Grundy and Netsy Firestein, “Bargaining for Families,” New Labor Forum, no. 2, Spring 1998, pp. 22-23.

94

95

Laureen Lazarovici, “How Can I Take Care o f M y Family and D o M y Job? Strategies for creating a family friendly workplace,” America @ Work, February 2000. While the volume does n o t delve into the role o f Local 2, I strongly recommend Kitty Krupat and Patrick McCreery’s edited b o o k , Out A ¢

Work: Building a Gay-Labor Alliance, Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota, 2001. 96

For the California story, see Allan Heskin’s Tenants and the American Dream: Ideology and the Tenant Movement, New York: Praeger, 1983.

97

Jocelyn Y. Stewart, “Union unveils $100 million plan t o help workers buy homes,” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2002.

98

Stephen Coyle, Out

of

Reach, Washington: National L o w I n c o m e

Housing Coalition, September 1999, “Preface.” 99

For an overview o f the struggle, written by t w o Teamsters, see Matt Witt and Rand Wilson, “Part-Time America Won’t Work: The Teamsters’

Fight for Good Jobs a t UPS,” Not Your Father's Union Movement:Inside the AFL-CIO, E d . Jo-Ann Mort, London: Verso, 1998.

100 Bush I I did use the Taft-Hartley Act in October 2002 t o break the lockout by p o r t owners

in their d i s p u t e with

the Longshoremen.

1 0 1 Paul Buhle, Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Lane

Kirkland and the Tragedy of American Labor, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1999. 102 “Half a Job 1s N o t Enough,” Teamsters’ handout, June 1997, also

analyzed in Witt and Wilson, “Part-Time America,” Not Your Father's

Union Movement, pp. 183-185. 1 0 3 I n d e e d , this was predicted by Thaddeus Russell, “Restore

Teamster

Power: Militancy, Democracy and the IBT,” New Labor Forum, no. 4, Spring/Summer 1999: “The evidence presented here indicates that even an ‘empty suit’ like Junior, facing a restive membership and unrelenting

opposition, would have no choice but t o take on UPS with the full force o f the union’s power,” p. 120. Russell, in his longer account, makes t o o m u c h o f t h e powerful leader and dismisses the importance o f

rank a n d

file militancy, o f union democracy. He also minimizes the role o f the new energy in the 1997 strike, arguing that it was really a victory for the long-dead Hoffa Senior. This is n o t viable. Thaddeus Russell, O u of 2he Jungle: Jimmy Hoffa and the Remaking of the American Working Class, New York: Random House, 2001. 1 0 4 M y analysis is significantly weaker than the major study by Biju Mathew,

Taxi! Cabs and Capitalism in New York City, New York: Verso, 2003. When

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

66

I first wrote o f the strike for Colorlines a n d Frontline, Biju Mathew guided

me into the material with patience and generosity. Parts o f this section

appeared in the final chapter o f my Karma of Brown Folk, Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 2000. 1 0 5 A t the other e n d o f the country, Margaret Z a m u d i o , i n a superb dissertation, found m u c h the same thing among the immigrant Latino

workers a t the Kajima Corporation (Japan) owned New Otani Hotel in Los Angeles. As immigrant labor and nonresident capital battled it o u t in the streets o f L A before a public routinely afraid o f both, the conversations about ethnicity did n o t allow 1t t o become the xenophobic subtext i n the struggle. Margaret Zamudio, “Organizing the N e w Otani

Hotel in Los Angeles: The Role o f Ethnicity, Race and Citizenship in Class Formation,” Los Angeles: University o f California, LA, Ph. D.,

1996. 106 M u c h o f this draws from m y article “The Hunt for Mexicans,” Frontline, J u n e 23; 2000, b u t for details o n immigrant organizing, see H e c t o r Figueroa, “Back t o the Forefront: U n i o n Organization o f Immigrant

Workers in the Nineties,” Not Your Father's Union Movement, and Rachel Sherman and K i m Voss, “Organize o r D i e : Labor’s N e w Tactics and

Immigrant Workers,” OrganizingImniigrants. 107 Duncan Campbell, “New Freedom Ride for America’s Illegal Workers,”

Guardian, August 12, 2002. 108 “Gephardt I s Preparing a Measure to Legalize Illegal Immigrants,” New

York Times, July 23, 2002, 109 F o r a n excellent overview, see Gary Delgado, “ H o w the Empress Gets

Her

Clothes:

Asian Immigrant

Women

Fight Fashion Designer Jessica

McClintock,” Beyond Identity Politics: Emerging Social Justice Movements in Communities of Color, E d . John Anner, Boston: South E n d Press, 1996. 110 Like many community organizations, AIWA produced a newsletter

(AIWA News), it

pursued a sophisticated media strategy

(and therefore

got into the local a n d national news), a n d one o f its pioneer workers a n d

program associates, Miriam Ching Yoon Louie, wrote an excellent book that placed AIWA on the map o f feminist immigrant organizations. See Miriam Ching Y o o n Louie, Sweatshop Warriors: Immigrant Women Workers Take on the Global Factory, Cambridge: South End Press, 2001, and her

earlier paper that provides the political economy o f the sweatshop, “Immigrant Asian Women in Bay Area Garment Sweatshops: ‘After Sewing, Laundry, Cleaning and Cooking, I Have N o Breath Left t o Sing,” Amerasia Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992. I n a brief history o f the

1996-founded United Students Against Sweatshops, AIWA appears as a pioneer in the anti-sweatshop struggle, alongside groups like New York City’s Chinese Staff and Workers Association, Texas’s La Mujer Obrera,

Debt

67

and New York City’s National Labor Committee. Liza Featherstone

(and USSA), Students Against Sweatshops, L o n d o n : Verso, 2002, p. 8. 1 1 1 “Asian and Latina Immigrant Women Come Together,” AIW.A News,

vol. 17, no. 2, December 2001, p. 3. 112 Sarah Henry, “Labor and Lace: Can an Upstart Women’s Group Press a n e w Wrinkle into the R a g Trade W a r s ? ”

Los Angeles Times Magazine,

August 1, 1993, p. 22. 1 1 3 AIWA did n o t pioneer this approach, because ant-sweatshop campaigns i n [LA had already gone after the manufacturers, as was the

case i n the campaign against E n Chante/Su Enterprises/Addison

Fashions i n 1990. See Sonni Efron, “Targets Get Bigger in Sweatshop

Los Angeles Times, February 5, 1990 and the analysis by Harry Bernstein, “Sweatshops a Complex Problem,” Los Angeles Times, July 10, War,”

1990. T h e legislature sent Governor Pete Wilson a bill t o make

manufacturers liable for the infractions o f subcontractors, but Wilson refused t o

sign i t into law. “ A

Fair and Square Deal,” Los Angeles Tunes,

February 21, 1992. 1 1 4 Kelly Gust, “ N o Frills Given,” Oagland Tribune, October 14, 1992. 1 1 5 Gust, “No Frills Given.” This problem is general across the industry, as

shown in an investigation by Susan Headden, “Made in the USA,” US

News and World Report, November 22, 1993, pp. 54-55 and by Sarah Henry, “Labor and Lace.” 1 1 6 We Are the Ones, p . 49. 117 Brenda Payton, “Meek N o More,” Oakland Tribune, May 6, 1993. 1 1 8 Kam Sung, “AIWA’s Youth Lead the ‘Girl’cott Against DKNY,”

AIW.A News, vol. 17, no. 1, May 2001, pp. 4-5. 1 1 9 F o r a description o f the 2001 program, “ A n o t h e r Successful S u m m e r Youth Internship at A I W A , ” A I W . A News, vol. 17, n o . 2 , December

2001. 1 2 0 Nancy Snyder, “Organizing Among Friends: Asian Health Services

Unionizes,” ThirdForce, vol. 5, no. 4, September/October 1997, pp. 28-29. 1 2 1 R a j Jayadev, “Learning t o Listen—Unions M u s t T a p Power o f Today’s

Young Workers,” Pacific News Service, December 16, 2001. 1 2 2 Jayadev, “Learning t o L i s t e n . ” 1 2 3 Steven Greenhouse, “The M o s t Innovative Figure i n Silicon Valley?

Maybe This Labor Organizer,” New York Times, November 14, 1999. 1 2 4 H é c t o r Delgado, “The Los Angeles Manufacturing Action Project: A n

Opportunity Squandered,” Organizing Inmigrants. 1 2 5 Elizabeth Gonzalez, “Mindless M o n o t o n y , ” De-Bug, February 2001. 1 2 6 Marina Vargas, “Cleaning t h e C l e a n Industry,” De-Bug, February 2001. 1 2 7 Sarah L u b m a n , “ M i d d l e m e n Thriving i n l u c r a t i v e I n d u s t r y While

Foreign Workers Complain o f Abuse,” SanJoseMercury News, November 19, 2000.

68

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

1 2 8 [Lakshmi Chaudhry, “Immigrant Wives o f Silicon Alley Seek Protection

from Battering,” "7/lage 1/ozce, October 2000, pp. 4-10. 129 The Silicon Valley Reader:Localizing the Effects ofthe GlobalEconomy, Edited b y

Raj Jayadev and Lisa Juachon. Available from JustAct: [email protected] or 415-431-4204. 130 For more information o n the environmental costs o f computers, visit

the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition’s website at www.svtc.org.

PRISON “See in the ghetto the sun i t barely shines But so many nags 1n jail and the welfare lines A n d all m y life I thought Bill Clinton ran the country

Until I found o u t Bill Gates had all the money.” —Mystikal, “Ghetto Child,” Unpredictable, 1997

“ A political e v e n t is reduced t o a criminal event in order t o affirm the absolute invulnerability o f the existing order.” —Angela Y . Davis’

0

n November 13, 1993, President Bill Clinton stood a t the pulpit o f

the Church o f God in Christ in Memphis, Tennessee, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his final address. After he thanked the largely black congregation for their support in the 1992 elections, Clinton touted his economic policy initiatives a n d his attempt t o bring

African Americans into the administration. King, said Clinton, would

be proud o f the developments since his death in 1968. But there was one thing that would rankle him i f he were here. Speaking in his voice,

Clinton told his audience: But he would say, I did n o t live and die t o see the American family destroyed. I did n o t live and die t o see 13-year-old boys get automatic weapons and gun down 9-year-olds just for the kick o f it. I did n o t live and die t o see young people destroy their o w n lives with drugs and then build fortunes

destroying the lives o f others. That is n o t what I came here t o do. I fought for freedom, he would say, but n o t for the freedom o f people t o kill each other

with reckless abandon;

for the freedom o f children t o have children and the fathers o f the children walk away from them and abandon

not

70

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

them as if they don’t amount t o anything. I t o have the right

to

work,

but

not

fought for people to

have whole

communities and people abandoned. This is n o t what I lived

and died for. M y fellow Americans, he would say,I fought t o stop white people from being so filled with hate that they would wreak violence o n black people. I did not fight for the

right of black people t o murder other black people with reckless abandon.

The problem in the US, Clinton emphasized, 1s n o t the dynamic of corporate power, nor the racism and sexism that defrauds millions of people from social and political power, nor yet the enormous sums o f public money that support an international military that does the

bidding o f global corporations. The problem, for Clinton, is the collapse o f the black family and the consequent “black o n black” violence. Clinton put these words in King’s mouth. O n April 4, 1967,

exactly one year before he was assassinated, King stood before a congregation a t the Riverside Church in New York City t o offer his own analysis o f the futility o f life among the black working class: As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry

young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried t o offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes m o s t meaningfully through

non-violent action.

But,

they asked, what

about

Vietnam? They asked i f o u r o w n nation wasn’t using

massive doses o f violence t o solve i t s problems t o bring about changes i t wanted. Their question hit home, and I

knew that

my voice against the violence o f the oppressed in the ghettos without having I could never again raise

first spoken clearly t o the greatest purveyor o f violence i n

the world today—my government.

Furthermore, King said, “Our only hope today lies in our ability t o recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility t o poverty, racism, and militarism.” This was the context o f King’s call for an “economic bill o f rights” and for a “poor people’s march” t o Washington, DC, in the summer o f 1968. Bill Clinton’s ventriloquism o f King transformed the civil rights leader into another neoconservative who believed that the problems of

Prison

71

racism are lodged n o t in the structures o f economics and political power, but in the imputed family dysfunction o f blacks themselves. When King read Daniel PP. Moynihan’s influential report on the black family (1965), he did n o t unequivocally condemn it as many o f his aides suggested. Rather, King felt that the report provided “dangers and opportunities.” King had already written o f the trials o f life in the working-class black neighborhoods 1n language that can only be called depressing: “The shattering blows on the Negro family have made 1t fragile, deprived and often psychopathic. Nothing1s so much needed as a secure family life for a people t o pull themselves out o f poverty and backwardness.” King saw

that the report provided the opportunity t o garner cash for his program o f renewal, for housing loans and health care, for jobs and parks, for recreation and reproduction. The danger, he felt, was that “problems will

be attributed t o innate Negro weakness and used t o justify, neglect, and rationalize oppression.” King’s optimism was unwarranted. Ten days after his appearance at the Memphis church, Clinton stood 1n a school playground in east Los Angeles t o address a mainly Latino audience. I f he forced words into King’s mouth at Memphis, here he did the same with Cesar Chavez. “Think how horrified he would be, God r e s t his soul, i f he were here today and could pick up the paper and read about the two-year-old child being killed [in a shootout between gangs],” said Clinton. Chavez, he continued, “was a devotee o f non-violence and self-sacrifice, n o t violence and self-indulgence.” Drawing from this legacy, Clinton told the Latino leadership, “We are doing everything we can t o try t o give you the tools you need t o try t o make your community safer. B u t w e have t o make up our minds that w e will n o longer tolerate children killing children; children having guns and

being better armed than police officers; neighborhoods unsafe. We can do better.” As he did with King, Clinton distorted the heritage o f Chavez, w h o told writer Peter Matthiessen, o n August 9, 1968, “The real problem w e have in America is whether o r n o t w e are becoming a police

And i f we do, the Negroes will get it first.” The danger King and Chavez warned us about came t o pass on November 19, 1993, when the US Senate passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (the “Crime Bill”) a t the initiative o f P r e s i d e n t Clinton a n d the Democratic Party. T h e act, formally signed state.

i n 1994, created a $30.2 billion C r i m e T r u s t Fund t o support the measures

that filled u p this long p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n . N o t

o n e i t e m in t h e

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

72

Crime Bill came from King’s agenda. Everything was about law and

order, about the mechanisms that the police use “to justify, neglect, and rationalize o p p r e s s i o n . ” T h e provisions o f the Bill are straightforward:

* More Police: $8.8 billion for 100,000 more officers to hit the streets and $1.2 billion for 4,000 new Border Patrol

officers t o hit the border. e

More Prisons: $7.9 billion for the states t o build more prisons and an additional $1.8 billion for the incarceration

o f “criminal aliens.” These “criminal aliens,” or a

subsection of them called “suspected alien terrorists,” could, by the Bill’s provisions, be tried with “secret evidence.” * More Prisoners: Longer sentences for those arrested for drug possession and sale, and less opportunity for parole. The Bill allowed children under 14 t o be tried in court as adults and, as such, block up the prisons. * More Capital Punishment: T h e number o f federal death penalty offenses increased from t w o t o 60. T h e press told u s that the

bill

responded t o the needs o f the

American people. However, in February 1993, only four percent of those surveyed b y Time magazine said “crime” was a primary concern. B y

January 1994, after the hoopla over the Crime Bill hit the newsstands in August 1993, the numbers jumped t o 19 percent. Even as criminal acts either decreased or leveled off, the moral panic engendered by the Crime Bill made “the criminal” the new enemy of the US “individual” and it was this “criminal” who became the replacement of the “communist” as the Cold War ended in 1991. The deliberations around “crime” and the Crime Bill allowed the US public t o believe that “crime” is a major problem and that they must support the extensions o f the law and order apparatus, even i f this means that everyday life becomes regimented b y

military order. As the bull market continued its ascent, and as inequality spiraled upwards, the US government, who subscribes t o neoliberal

principles, had a proposal t o deal with the unrest and anger o f the poor: jail them, or else, by the application o f racist standards, allow blacks t o bear the brunt o f the malevolent public policy while the white workers find some comfort in their “freedom.”

Prison

73

THE RACISM OF “CRIME” I n the fall o f 1994, as the Crime Bill came into operation, a white woman named Susan Smith w e n t t o the police in Union, South

Carolina, and told them that a black carjacker stopped her

at

an

intersection, brandished a gun, threw h e r o u t o f her car, and sped off

with her children. The country was transfixed. People across the country prayed for the Smiths and many people came around t o the wisdom o f the Crime Bill. Beverly Russell, a leader in the local Republican Party and the Christian Coalition, as well as the l o s t

children’s step-grandfather, asked the nation t o j o i n the Smiths in their prayers. Then, a few m o n t h s later, as the police interrogated Smith

about inconsistencies i n her story, she confessed t o the murder o f her

children and t o the fabrication. “What we see here,” wrote award-winning columnist Robert Scheer,

“1s the other side of the Norman Rockwell painting that was always there.”® I t turned out that Susan Smith’s father committed suicide during

a messy divorce, that Beverly Russell married her mother when she was 13, that Russell began t o sexually harass her when she was 15, that she attempted suicide at 1 7 because o f

this, that Russell repeatedly raped her

after her marriage t o David Smith, that she had an abortion during the marriage, that her marriage t o David Smith was n o t pleasant and that she

had started an affair with Tom Findlay and found her children t o be a hindrance in her life. N o one talked about dysfunction here, only o f the tragic circumstances o f this white woman’s life.

That she had initially blamed a black man for the crime reminded people o f Charles Stuart, a prominent white Bostonian who shot his wife, then blamed a black man for the crime. The Boston police, well-known for their racism,’ locked down the Roxbury area o f South Boston, harassed scores o f black men, until finally, thinking that the police would eventually get him, Charles Stuart jumped t o his d e a t h oft the Tobin Bridge.® I n both cases, the public initially accepted as normal that a b l a c k m a n would randomly kill whites o r else rob them with

excessive violence. Black m e n are dangerous, was the message, particularly w h e n they are young. Before Stuart’s suicide, the police

found a scapegoat for the murder. During their dragnet, the Boston police intimidated and harmed a 03-year-old woman, scoured her apartment, and then arrested her son, Willie Bennett, as the

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

74

perpetrator. A m o n t h later, Stuart picked Bennett o u t o f a lineup

and all

things seemed t o m o v e toward a conviction and then a n execution.

Until Stuart killed himself, that 1s, and then Bennett was released to a South B o s t o n torn

up by the racism o f

the entire affair. That the killers

here were a white w o m a n a n d a white m a n did n o t d o m u c h t o change

the basic framework within which crime i s seen in the country.

A t the same time as these murders, the country experienced a spate o f school shootings. T h e first such i n recent times took place i n

Olivehurst, California, o n M a y 1, 1992, when Eric Huston, age 20, entered his former high school, killed four people, and wounded ten more as a riposte for a b a d grade. L e s s than a year later, o n January 18,

1993, Scott Pennington, age 18, took a gun into his English class a t East Carter High School in Grayson, Kentucky, shot his teacher, Deanna McDavid in the head, and then shot the school’s janitor, Marvin Hicks. Shocked by the rise o f incidents such as these, in 1994, the US Congress passed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Three

years later, as these shootings continued, Educational Statistics reported that schools

the National Center for h a d sent t h e m notices o f

almost200,000 incidents o f violence (including 4,000 cases o f rape o r sexual assault). There are n o geographical areas m o r e prone t o frenzy, since 7 5 percent o f U S schools reported at least o n e incident.

The

most

spectacular case took place on April 20, 1999,

at

Littleton, Colorado. T w o teenagers walked through their school, shot 1 3 people, planted b o m b s across the campus a n d then, w h e n it l o o k e d like the game was up, t o o k their o w n lives. The horror was s o great that

President

Clinton

took

time

out

from

directing

the

NATO

bombardment o f Yugoslavia t o tell the public, “We m u s t do more t o reach out t o our children and teach them t o express their anger and resolve their conflicts with words, n o t weapons.” Littleton (population 35,000) sits a t the outskirts o f Denver a n d h o u s e s mainly white

college-degree holders who hold steady jobs (many a t a Lockheed Martin plant that builds rockets a n d satellites for telecommunication as

well as space exploration). With n o obvious psychological problems, the boys h a d turned t o neo-Nazism, built a v a s t arsenal o f weapons (thanks t o easy g u n laws: i n Colorado there are n o requirements that

guns b e licensed o r registered and there are n o age restrictions for the

possession o f rifles or shotguns), and took action on Adolf Hitler’s birthday t o celebrate the Nazi heritage. !

Prison

75

Despite this splurge o f violence, the image o f the petty criminal remained the black man. Indeed, that image helped elect a president.

In 1988, m o s t polls showed that Vice President George H. Bush (Republican) would n o t defeat M a s s a c h u s e t t s governor Michael Dukakis (Democrat) in the election. Then, following the lead o f the ruthless political consultant L e e Atwater (a friend o f George W . Bush), B u s h the Elder released a n advertisement a b o u t Willy Horton. Horton,

i t turned out, was a black m a n w h o had been released from a Massachusetts jail for a furlough under a humanitarian program started

by Dukakis, and while o n leave, he murdered another person. Using a picture o f Horton, Bush the Elder promised that he would n o t allow criminals t o roam the streets. The specter o f the black criminal haunted the campaign, drew support for B u s h the Elder from white fear, a n d

w o n h i m the election. T h e international b a d guy, the o n e w h o conducts spectacular acts

o f terror, 1s n o t the black man, but the Muslim. When a bomb exploded outside the Federal building i n Oklahoma City i n 1995, prominent commentators s p o k e

glibly

about the perpetrators

being

one

of

the

global Arab/Muslim gangs. O n CBS, commentator Connie Chung

summarized the views o f a State Department official, “This has Middle East written all over it,” and the New York Times offered an editorial view, “Whatever w e are doing t o destroy Mideast terrorism has n o t b e e n working.”

W h e n the actual killer turned o u t t o b e a white m a n

(Timothy McVeigh), it did little t o change the view that acts of are d o n e

by Muslim

hands. B u s h the Younger, after

terror

9/11, drives

the

specter o f the Muslim Terrorist t o obscure the political landscape as the establishment passes o n e bill after another i n its o w n i n t e r e s t . "

T h e international Muslim terrorist a n d the domestic black criminal

stand as alibis for revanchism. Race free criminals (read white) are free the from extra detection

or from the pious fulminations o f the political class. For example, take the case o f white-collar criminals, w h o defraud millions o f p e o p l e , rob their wages, a n d s e n d them into the cold without p e n s i o n s a n d

social

s e c u t i t y — w h y n o t classify them as criminals and l e t them d o hard?

“ H o w is i t that someone is more likely t o go to jail for robbing a liquor store than for defrauding the equivalent o f the population o f a mid-sized

city?” asks journalist Kurt Eichenwald. “The answer goes t o the nature o f business fraud and the demanding standards o f evidence in the

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

76

criminal justice system. Itis n o t enough t o prove there are victims, or that some people got rich from others’ suffering. Rules o f evidence require

the proof o f several elements o f the crime—some of which can look a lot like standard industry practice.”!! That's o n e p o i n t . T h e other i s that white-collar crime is abstract, it 1s n o t like rape or murder, and the

suicides and depression it leaves in its wake do n o t come with a murder weapon replete with fingerprints.'* This is white crime, clean and untouchable.

Clinton began t o sell the Crime Bill in August 1993, one year after the streets of Los Angeles exploded in a rebellion against police brutality and exploitation. On May 1, 1992, Bush the Elder w e n t on national television t o condemn the rebellion, a t the same time as he revealed the establishment’s defensiveness about injustice: W h a t w e saw last night and the night before i n L o s Angeles i s not about civil rights. I t ’ s n o t about the great cause o f

equality that all Americans m u s t uphold. It’s n o t a message o f protest. I t ’ s b e e n the brutality o f m o b , pure and simple.

A n d let me assure you, I will use whatever force 1s necessary t o restore order.

Bush the Elder’s logic after L A ’92 resembled the logic o f Bush the Younger after

9/11:

b o t h rendered their adversaries as

Evil,

and

therefore outside the b o u n d s o f explicability and political engagement. T h o s e w h o rose i n L A and looted the shops m a y have u s e d tactics that are n o t socially productive, b u t they did have a political grievance that

required attention. Similarly, the 1 9 terrorists w h o turned civil aircrafts into cruise missiles conducted a n unforgivable a n d heinous act, b u t they

did come from social forces in West Asia opposed t o the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and the US government’s support o f various undemocratic governments i n the region (Saudi, b u t also Egypt)."? I n the

aftermath o f LA, Bush the Elder felt that the criminal riffraff had t o be p u t i n their place. H i s verdict repeated the findings o f the Kerner

Commission o n the Watts riot in Los Angeles in 1965. Certainly, Bush the Elder was in line with his old comrade in arms, Ronald Reagan, who

told the press in 1968, “Nationwide experience has shown that prompt dealing with disturbances leads to peace, that hesitation, vacillation, and appeasement leads t o greater disorder.”'* “ P r o m p t dealing,” i n the

lexicon o f the Right, means repression, or as right-wing ideologue } William S. Buckley wrote in 1970:

Prison

What

1s n e e d e d

these

days, properly

17

understood,

is

very

solid doses o f repression: n o t i n the spirit o f vindictiveness,

but in the spirit o f teaching those who wonder, that the United States 1s very serious about surviving the c u r r e n t doubts about itself, and about the worthwhileness o f its essential institutions. >

I n 1 9 9 2 , the b l a c k community was n o t as organized as i t w a s i n

1965 t o defend itself from state racism and from the amnesia o f US liberalism (In March 1968, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders tendered its report on the uprisings o f the decade, and it offered a n indictment that covers this general sense o f amnesia: “What white Americans have never fully understood— b u t what the Negro can never forget—is that white society i s deeply implicated i n the

ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.”)'® In 1992, in the midst o f a recession and a n attempt a t stabilization o f capital, b l a c k America was the target o f

political rivalry: who can be tougher on (black) criminals, the Republicans o r the D e m o c r a t s ? When the Republican Party released i t s “Contract With America” in mid-1994, i t did so in order t o determine the legislative agenda. O n e o f the items i n the Contract was a direct

response t o the Crime Bill and i t was aptly named: “Taking Back Our Streets A c t . ” T h e p r o p o s a l was aimed t o assert the dominant classes’ full ownership a n d control o f m o r e than the streets through a further extension o f the p o l i c e and the system o f incarceration. I n order t o

keep “dangerous criminals ott the streets,” the p r o p o s e d act a s k e d that parole be denied, that the death penalty b e m a d e m o r e “effective,” a n d that the police b e securely funded. There was n o effective legislative opposition t o the targeting o f “criminals” and “immigrants” as be reasons for the enduring recession and restructuring o f capital. A s the agents o f capitalism attempted t o stabilize a floundering e c o n o m y b y

downsizing, the general population recklessly sought any p r o m i s e o f action that offered h o p e o f immediate relief (Government tax relief, aid for business, etc.) o r the prospect o f jobs (on the police force,

replacement o f immigrant workers).

There is no special criminal propensity among black males, so why d o e s the state arrest, sentence, a n d incarcerate s o m a n y b l a c k m e n ?

Poverty by itself is no explanation for the attack on black youth, because the white poor do n o t face such oppression from the police.

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

78

There i s n o substitute for a n analysis o f the systematic racism that

onaws a t the dignity o f the working class, o f all colors: the working class o f color become the special target o f the state, and as more youth o f color are arrested, the white working class can find, again, that the o n e thing that

holds it

apart

from utter

failure

is

that

the cells o n

the

skin

keep them o u t o f the cells o f the state. A l o o k at t w o separate moments

in the recent history o f racism and incarceration will help us see how racism structures social life so as t o regulate discontent.

Racial Profiling

The police system disproportionately conducts surveillance on young black youth, tailgating them until they do something, anything, that gets them into the system. I n 1988, California pioneered racial profiling

with its Street Terrorism Enforcement

a n d Prevention

(STEP) Act (California Penal Code, Section 186.22), where a “criminal street

gang” appeared as, “Any ongoing organization, association, or

group o f three o r more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one o f its primary activities the commission o f one or more o f the crimes listed below, having a common name o r common identifying symbol, and w h o s e members individually o r collectively engage i n o r

have engaged i n a pattern o f criminal gang activity.” The vagueness o f

STEP provided the police with immense discretion, and the war against youth o f c o l o r became so endemic i n the state that it should bear the

burden o f responsibility for the uprising in L A in 1992. Chicago followed California with its June 17, 1992, Gang Congregation Ordinance that read, “Whenever a police officer observes a person w h o m h e reasonably believes t o b e a criminal street gang m e m b e r

shall order all such persons t o disperse and remove themselves from the area. Any person who does n o t promptly obey such a n order is in

loitering i n any public place with o n e o r m o r e other persons, h e

violation o f this order,” and can therefore face arrest. After several legal challenges, the U S S u p r e m e C o u r t h e a r d the case i n late 1998,

and then declared on June 10 o f the n e x t year that the “gang loitering” ordinance was unconstitutional on due process grounds. While that case (Chicago v. Morales, 97-1121) returned the ordinance t o the city, Chicago responded with another ordinance that applies n o t t o the

entire city, but t o certain “hot spots,” the residential zones o f the black a n d Latino working c l a s s . " I n late 1 9 9 3 , after Chicago ». Morales, the

Prison

79

lists o f “ s u s p e c t e d gang members,” that only a small percentage o f those o n the list o f

D e n v e r p o l i c e department admitted that they k e p t

6 , 5 0 0 could b e considered “hard-core gang m e m b e r s ” a n d that m o s t o f

t h e m had n o t b e e n arrested. I n a town with only a five percent black

population, the list included 3,691 black males between the ages o f 12 a n d 24, t h a t 1s a b o u t two-thirds o f every b l a c k males i n that age bracket that live in Denver. Latinos, w h o m a k e u p 12 percent o f t h e population o f the city, take up a third o f the list, while whites, who cover 80 percent o f the city’s population, accounted for less than seven percent o f the

list.'® I n Providence, Rhode Island, the police have “ a public relations p r o b l e m i n minority neighborhoods. M a n y people o f color d o n ’ t trust the police, and describe them as thugs i n uniform w h o target minority males for harassment, pulling over their cars o r stopping them o n the street unnecessarily."

B y the early 1990s, this policy was known as “racial profiling.” The history o f otficial prejudice, o f course, i s n o t recent, because the legacy

o f the plantation society remained within US oftficialdom long after enslavement became illegal and after Jim C r o w began t o b e dismantled.

I n recent times, the courts heard about the prevalence o f police racism

in t w o landmark cases, the first being Papachristou v. City ofJackson (405 U S 156) i n 1972, where a Florida police officer followed a vagrancy law t o arrest t w o

black men for “nightwalking.” The

court

found the law

unconstitutional. Then, in 1983, the Supreme Court declared in Ko/ender v. Lawson (461 U S 352) that the police c o u l d n ’ t s t o p a p e r s o n t o ask them for “credible and reliable” identification w i t h o u t cause. T h e

police stopped the plaintiff, a black man, 15 times in one night while he walked through a white neighborhood. N o white man or woman had b e e n stopped following the same rule. After sustained pressure for

almost

two

decades, President Clinton, in mid-1999, admitted that

“racial profiling” occurs across the country:

We

cannot

tolerate officers who cross the line and abuse

their position by mistreating law-abiding individuals or who bring their o w n racial bias t o the job. N o person should b e subject to excessive force, and n o person should

his or her skin. Stopping or searching individuals o n the basis

b e targeted b y law enforcement because o f the c o l o r o f

o f race is n o t effective law enforcement policy, a n d 1s n o t

consistent with our democratic ideals, especially our

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

80

commitment t o equal protection under the law for all persons. I t 1s neither legitimate nor defensible as a strategy

for public protection. I t is simply wrong.”

The Clinton Memorandum forthrightly condemned “racial profiling,” even as its policy initiatives remained mainly a t the level o f data collection.”! Without the data it i s hard t o m a k e a case for

oppression, so this was a marked step forward. A few days later, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a report that established quite effectively the routine racism o f the nation’s police.” A year later, the US Government’s Office o f Civil Rights corroborated the ACLU’s report with a scathing indictment o f police practice.’ Despite the conclusive evidence o f the problem, the White House did

nothing. The entry o f the Republicans into the White House ended the official dithering over profiling...by shelving the problem. Bush the Younger’s own “Memorandum for the Attorney General on Racial Profiling,” released on February 28, 2001, retreated

to

the Clinton

position, but without the open condemnation o f the practice. The Presidential decrees did n o t do more than officially admit t o the racism o f the police forces across the country. That itself is

significant. The War o n Drugs

In 19638, as the world despaired over the US bombardment of Vietnam and Cambodia, President Richard Nixon declared war o n

drugs. “Within the last decade,” he told Congress, “the abuse o f drugs has grown from essentially a local police problem into a serious national threat t o the personal health and safety o f millions o f

Americans.... A national awareness o f the gravity o f the situation is needed: a new urgency and concerted national policy are needed a t the federal level t o begin t o cope with this growing menace t o the general welfare of the United States.”” Raising the problem o f drugs t o a “national threat” produced a national panic n o t over drugs, but over

the imputed criminality o f drug users. I f Nixon could n o t get his entire package o f anti-drug legislation passed, he s e t the ball rolling for future administrations t o lock the US government into a state o f warfare with its own people. These are not strong words. I n 1980, the number o f people under

the supervision o f the correctional system totaled 1,842,100. In 2001,

Prison

the number leapt

to

81

6,592,800. I n the same period the number o f

prisoners w e n t from 503,586 t o 1,962, 220.° The US now leads across

the globe in per capita incarceration. With nearly t w o million people behind bars and an additional five million under the surveillance o f the criminal justice system, the US far surpasses the rates o f incarceration elsewhere. I n 1994, the rate was 569 per 100,000 people—40 times the

in South Africa and 15 times the rate in Japan. Since then, the difference has only increased. I n the 1960s, the imprisoned population

rate

was b u t a n eighth o f its current size. M o s t o f t h o s e w h o study the

numbers argue that the explosion took place because o f the war on drugs, with more than half the federal inmates n o w i n jail specifically

for drug offenses, and with a fifth o f state prisoners hauled in for drug crimes as well.’ I n 1983, just short o f nine percent o f those in jail came

in for the offense o f drug possession; in ten years, more than a quarter o f those i n jail were drug offenders. B y early 1992, three quarters o f the

new inmates since 1987 were in for drug offenses. With the total number o f those in jail on the rise, the role o f drugs certainly helped inflate the incarcerated population.

The data o n prisoners shows the significance o f race t o any

discussion on incarceration. The black population in the US is just below 12 percent o f the total population. Yet, 45 percent o f those arrested and 50 percent o f those w h o do jail time are black. So blacks

are vastly overrepresented in the nation’s correctional system. Most studies show that only 13 percent o f drug users are black, yet 35 percent

o f those who are arrested for drug possession are black and almost three quarters o f those who do jail time for drug possession are black. Furthermore, 90 percent o f those whose assets are seized because o f

drug possession (following the policy of “asset forfeiture”) are people of color.”® One i n every 25 males i n the U S is under the direct supervision o f the prison industrial complex; for African American males, the percentage 1s o n e in every three. T h e figures for incarcerated black males

are remarkable: 2 3 percent o f all black males between the ages o f 2 0 and 29 are i n jail and there are more black m e n i n jail than in college.” Native

Americans are ten times more likely than whites t o be imprisoned. Latinos constitute the fastest growing group behind bars. Why is this so? I n 1973, New York state pioneered the use o f mandatory sentences for those caught with drugs, including a 15-year term

for possession o f drugs for personal use. The m o s t insidious part

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

82

o f mandatory minimum sentences 1s that they operate i n a racist

fashion. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act mandates that anyone with a first-time possession o f five grams o f crack must spend five years in jail, but if the same weight o f cocaine 1s found on a person, then the sentence is probation. One would have t o carry 100 times more cocaine (that is, 500 grams), and show intent t o distribute the drug, t o earn five years i n the tank. T h e average crack mandatory minimum sentence 1s 5 2 percent higher than the average cocaine mandatory minimum sentence.

This 1s plainly discriminatory, but it 1s perhaps n o t the r o o t cause o f the vast amount o f blacks in the penal system for drug possession. After all, while 85 percent o f those w h o are sentenced for crack possession are black, 80 percent o f those who are sentenced for cocaine possession are

also black. I n its war o n drugs, the police and the public seem t o have it that

the average domestic drug dealer is black. By the same token, the international drug dealer 1s seen as Latin American, generally Colombian. There is n o room in this stereotype for the white drug dealer, as well as the Wall Street banks and others who finance the

shipments.” In 1997, then drug czar Barry McCaffrey cited a 1995 survey of much significance t o our argument. The survey, published in theJournal ofAlcoholandDrugEducation, showed that 95 percent o f those asked about a drug user pictured the person as black.” Since the police, as various studies argue, are motivated b y m u c h the same sort o f

logic

as those w h o responded t o the survey, then it i s apparent that the w a r

o n drugs is really a war against people o f color. I n 1989, in N e w York City, for instance, 92 percent o f those arrested in drug busts were either black o r Latino, even as 8 0 percent o f drug users were white. O f those

arrested for drugs, only seven percent were white.”* Racism, then, m u s t play an extraordinary role in the formation o f the prison population. Atleast this is what Judge Lyle E. Strom of the United States Court o f Appeals for the Eighth Circuit thought in 1993. Faced with the case o f four black defendants in a drug possession case, the Judge declined the 30-year mandatory minimum and sentenced them t o 2 0 years each.

To justify his departure from the legislated minimum, Judge Strom wrote that blacks convicted i n crack cases “are being treated unfairly i n receiving substantially longer sentences than Caucasian males w h o

traditionally deal in powdered cocaine.” Even the Bureau o f Justice Statistics, the agency that keeps the data a n d from whom most of the

Prison

data

in

83

this chapter c o m e s , expressed i t s o w n guarded fear o f racist

discrimination i n a modest “discussion paper” from as early as 1 9 9 3 . 7 A s the nation h a s c o m e t o accept the systematic forms o f r a c i s m ,

such as racial profiling and the injudicious w a r o n drugs, and as the

forces o f justice moved forward t o gain this admission from the state, the courts had already undermined the use o f data o n systematic racism

i n the criminal justice system. T h e immediate background o f the

disavowal came with discussions o f the death penalty. A cursory look a t the data o n the death penalty shows the disproportionate executions o f people o f color. Dawid Baldus, Charles Pulaski, and George Woodworth l o o k e d at the data o n murder cases a n d o n d e a t h r o w i n

Georgia from 1973-1978, around the famous 1976 Gregg v. Georgia (428 U S 153) case i n which the Supreme C o u r t approved Georgia’s capital

punishment statute, but asked that it be administered with checks and with fairness. Baldus, Pulaski, and Woodworth found, in contrast, that

blacks who killed whites overwhelmingly received the death penalty, and that racism did operate across the spectrum i n the various jury

decisions.” Speaking a t the American Bar Association in 1990, the late justice Thurgood Marshall said, “When in Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court gave i t s seal o f approval t o capital punishment, this e n d o r s e m e n t

was premised on the promise that capital punishment would be administered with fairness and justice. Instead, the promise has b e c o m e a cruel a n d empty

mockery. W e

cannot l e t i t continue.”® A

h o s t o f studies from across the country came t o the same d e c i s i o n , a n d

Jettrey Pokorak and h i s co-researchers from St. Mary’s University L a w

(Texas) showed that o n e o f the reasons for this i s t h a t t h e k e y decision-makers in the judicial system are a l m o s t exclusively white

School

men, and in states with the death penalty, almost 98 percent o f the district attorneys are white.”’ I n the c o n t e x t o f the battle t o save former Black Panther Mumia Abu Jamal’s life, Baldus and Woodworth

returned with a study that showed that in Philadelphia (where Jamal is o n death row), the odds o f receiving a death sentence are almost four times as high i f the defendant i s black.”® B a s e d o n these studies (but

mainly the 1980s studies by Baldus and his colleagues), Warren M c C l e s k e y filed a defense against the death penalty i n Georgia.

McCleskey had been found guilty o f murdering a police officer, and the jury, with eleven whites a n d o n e black, s e n t e n c e d h i m t o death. McCleskey’s defense against t h e d e a t h penalty came a t the n e x t stage

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

84

w h e n h e argued (based o n Baldus) that the penalty i s exercised i n a discriminatory manner i n Georgia a n d that his Eighth a n d Fourteenth

Amendment rights h a d b e e n violated. T h e Supreme Court

(in

McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 US 279), in 1987, held that the defendant had t o prove that h e o r she h a d b e e npersonally discriminated against during the course o f prosecution.” T o “merely” demonstrate a pattern o f racist

disparity over a period o f time is now n o t seen as sufficient proof o f bias. In his powerful dissent, the liberal justice William Brennan wrote, “Defendants challenging their death sentences thus far never have had t o prove

that impermissible

considerations

have actually infected

sentencing decisions. We have required instead that they establish that the system under which they were sentenced posed a significant risk o f such an occurrence.” O n September 25, 1991, the state o f Georgia executed Warren McCleskey. The name McCleskey now refers t o both the recognition by the state that racism exists in the criminal justice system and the refusal o f the state t o allow it t o enter the clemency of the mandarins.*

THE ECONOMICS OF INCARCERATION I n the late 1980s, while in graduate school, a friend said t o me that

the only stable jobs in these times o f insecurity within the US seemed t o b e security guard, repo man, and correctional officer. The first person

protects the property o f the rich, the second makes sure that the poor only have what they can earn, and the third takes care o f anyone from

among the poor who doesn’t follow the rules. While many studies of late argue that the incarceration boom is about the political control of the poor, o r else o f irrational racism, I want t o argue that these are only

partial explanations. Incarceration, in these neoliberal times, is an economic solution t o the problem o f the contingent class as well as t o the

problem o f widespread dissatisfaction with the emergent social contract (the Republican’s Contract With

America, for example, that makes sure

the rich keep theirs, and the poor have none). Once the Crime Bill allowed the treasury t o write checks across the country for its many programs, n e w penitentiarie s began t o litter the landscape o f the American countryside and within the precincts o f

several major cities.

With $80 billion

already i n the hands o f law

enforcement before the Crime Bill, the addition o f another $30.2 billion made the punishment industry one o f the centerpieces o f the’ federal

stimulus for economic growth (what 1s otherwise called Keynesianism).

With the demise o f the Soviet Union, the population had come t o expect a peace dividend, a diversion o f funds from the military-industrial complex t o the creation o f socioeconomic equity. That was n o t t o be, because, as community activist Libero Della Piana wrote, the “merchants o f death” have produced a “new war budget—this time for police and prisons.” “Our society,” he writes, “is reaching the point where there are only t w o classes o f citizens: those in prisons and the police.” I f this is a n exaggeration from the Left, perhaps we might consider an exaggeration from the mainstream, this time from Morris Thigpen,

director o f the National Institute o f Corrections: “People joke [that] we seem t o be heading toward the day when you’re either going to be in

prison or working in some sort of way with corrections.”*2 What is remarkable about the explosion o f the correctional sector is that it occurred in a period when both the violent crime and the property crime rates dropped steadily. As far as murder is concerned, government data shows us that murder b y someone known t o the victim (an “intimate murder”) accounts for about 45 percent o f all murders, while murder b y a stranger covers 15 percent, and a full 40 percent are murders

with no established relationship between the killer and the victim. This is significant because it points t o the prevalence o f “domestic violence” (or, more correctly, violence against women—the greatest killer o f US women) rather than o f the random murders associated with the drug trade. Almost 35 percent o f those who commit violent crimes do so under the influence o f alcohol, whereas the percentage o f those who are o n drugs is negligible. Finally, from 1976 to 1988, the number o f black men murdered fell b y 74 percent, and so did the numbers o f murdered

black women: so much for the epidemic o f “black o n black” violence. Given this c o n t e x t o f a general decrease in criminality, why do we see a boom in the prison industry and in the correctional system in general? As the US economy’s productive s e c t o r reorganized in the 1970s and 1980s, the working class was forced t o radically readjust its position. Workers in manufacturing had previously earned a decent union wage with benefits, and white workers gained immeasurably from their racist access t o federal credit t o buy homes and other assets i n the 1950s and early 1960s (before the Equal Rights Act).*’ With the formal victories o f the Civil Rights Act, black workers and other w o r k e r s o f c o l o r , fought t o get jobs i n t h e protected sector just as

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

86

imperialist globalization devastated the very sectors that promised them freedom. First, the big plants began t o close down in the shakedown o f the Reagan-era Structural Adjustment o f the U S . Second, workers o f color thronged into

union

j o b s a t the m a n y municipalities a n d state

administrations (and then, into American Federation o f State, County, a n d Municipal Employees (AFSCME) ) , but at this very time, the government began t o shrink social services a n d cut back o n these jobs.

As the Civil Rights struggle won freedom in the horizon o f the state, that institution suffered from the blows o f imperialist globalization and cut

the dreams o f the millions ott a t the get-go. As the industrial devastation proceeded apace, those without

employment either turned t o “contingent”

w o r k o r else t o the

government for social welfare. The latter grew in name in the 1960s with the Great Society Programs, but it was always a small check for each household. Precious funds, but never anything t o b e too excited

about, so that even those eligible for welfare worked off the books t o supplement their household income. Everyone from the class that began t o go t o jail had some form o f contingent job or another. Contract labor, piece work (including housework, childcare, as

well as

manufacturing outwork) and temporary labor are n o t n e w forms o f

labor, but they are increasingly becoming the paradigm for the US workforce. F . W . Taylor and Henty Ford would n o t recognize today’s economy which relies less o n factory discipline than o n the discipline o f starvation: contractors o r jobbers offer a hard-pressed population w o r k

under unenviable conditions a n d the employers rely u p o n

the

desperation o f their “outworkers” t o produce the quotas. Quality

healthcare, vacation time, etc., are the responsibility o f the worker: the

employer takes the best products, rejects the bad ones, and does n o t hire the worker during lean times or i f the worker is ill. I n 1 9 9 4 , the Bureau o f Labor Statistics reported that temporary agencies accounted for 1 5 percent o f the n e w j o b s created i n 1 9 9 3 , a n d

2 6 percent o f the n e w j o b s created i n 1 9 9 2 . I n 1 9 8 9 , temporary agencies

accounted for less than three percent o f the n e w jobs. Reporting these

figures, the N e w York limes explained, “In the recession, m a n y employers, here and elsewhere, tried t o keep their costs l o w b y increasing their use o f part-timers and temporaries, w h o work only during busy periods and usually get n o benefits.”** College graduates

are confronted with a j o b market i n which they are forced t o work for

Prison

87

s h o r t periods doing data entry, conducting market surveys, going

door-to-door selling products, or driving trucks (the number of truck drivers with college degrees had increased from 99,000 in 1983 t o 166,000 in 1990).* A generation o f temporary workers is now moving into the workforce. Thirty millon Americans, or 25 percent of the workforce, are employed in such conditions and they c o s t 40 percent less than full-tme

permanent employees. “The mushrooming service

sector,” Richard Barnet argued, “turned out t o be vulnerable t o the same fierce competition that has shriveled factory payrolls in the United States

and caused real wages in manufacturing t o drop nine percent since 1975.

Indeed, there are by and large more low-wage jobs today in the service s e c t o r than i n manufacturing,”*

These ate terrible j o b s , a n d m o r e a n d

more people from among the jail-going class hold them. T h e class o f the contingent generally enters the vice economy n o t

for malevolent reasons, but typically t o supplement a major decline in household income. Boston University’s leading economist, Glenn Loury, on the other hand, argued, “The responsibility for the behavior o f

black youngsters lies squarely on the shoulders o f the black community itself.”*’ The only structural feature worthy o f analysis, according t o this view, 1s the lack o f community values that push individuals t o make bad choices, whereas one 1s asked t o abjure other structural features such as the economic a n d political dynamics that might constrain the will o f the

“community” i n general. M a n y studies show that urban blacks evince a

desire n o t just t o hold a job, but for worthwhile work and education, for a meaningful life. Significant numbers o f those who are in poverty, further, are

transients

between

meaningless

jobs.

There

1s widespread

recognition in the literature o f the distress and disaffection among urban (that 1s, working class) blacks and o f their desires and struggles t o fashion a destiny.*® Even Bill Clinton’s advisor on race, now Harvard professor William Wilson, argued in a popular book from 1996: A neighborhood in which people are poor but employed 1s different from a neighborhood in which people are poor and jobless. Many o f today’s problems in the inner-city ghetto neighborhoods—crime, family dissolution, welfare, low

levels o f social organization, and so on—are fundamentally a consequence o f the disappearance o f work." His advisee, President Clinton, did n o t pay much heed t o this argument.

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

88

I f the class o f the contingent m u s t be left outside the ken o f work, there is a high chance that they will demand collective power or your individual wallet. Both political rebellion and individual criminality become a problem o f the social order created b y the dominant classes.

As political scientist and co-founder o f the Black Radical Congress Manning Marable argues, “Prisons have become the method for keeping hundreds o f thousands o f potentially rebellious, dissatistied,

and alienated black youth off the streets.” The US government will continue the process o f controlling disgruntled and politically angry populations by the threat o f prison and by the politics o f “realism” that moves dissatisfied Americans t o discourage an analysis o f their

situation and t o immediately lay the blame for their ills on immigrants, on the poor, and on people o f color. As more people go t o jail each year, jail becomes the storehouse o f the redundant working population as well as its soup kitchen. The state prefers t o provide social services t o the unemployed i f they submit themselves t o total surveillance: the jail is the ultimate place for such debasement. As the contingent class grew in the early 1990s, the government slashed its social security n e t (welfare) and opted t o deal with the indigent via prisons. The state did n o t stop spending funds, it simply redirected its social welfare money toward incarceration. Instead o f priming the economic pump by cash disbursements t o the working class (demand-side growth generation), the government preferred to offer the taxes it collects toward its o w n state enterprises (prisons, etc.) or else t o

private businesses who either run prisons or else work in the construction and maintenance o f them (supply-side growth generation). Here is Angela Davis, former political prisoner, professor a t the University o f California—Santa Cruz, and founder o f Critical Resistance (a group committed t o the abolition o f prisons): Imprisonment has become the response o f first resort t o

far

too

many o f the social problems that burden people

w h o are ensconced i n poverty. These problems often are veiled b y being conveniently grouped together under the category “crime”

criminal behavior

and

to

by

the automatic attribution

of

people o f color. Homelessness,

unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few o f the problems that disappear from public ,

Prison

view w h e n

the h u m a n beings contending

89

with

them are

relegated t o cages.... Colored bodies constitute the main human raw material i n this vast experiment t o disappear the

major social problems o f our time. Once the aura of magic is stripped away from the imprisonment solution, what is revealed is racism, class bias, and the parasitic seduction o f

capitalist profit.’

I n 1993, the state spent more o n Aid t o Families with Dependent

Children (AFDC) than on corrections, but by 1996 (on the other side o f the Crime Bill) the priority was reversed. The government added more than $3 billion t o corrections in this period, while it slashed

AFDC by almost $2 billion. Gregory Winter, who works

at

the

Hamilton Family Center in San Francisco, notes, “When funds are

siphoned away from social programs t o prisons, communities ate drawn inexorably toward incarceration.” Furthermore if incarceration trumps social security at the same pace, “the criminal justice system will

b e c o m e the government’s primary interface with p o o r communities, particularly those o f color. Prisons will replace public entitlements,

subsidized housing, and perhaps even the schools as the principal place where p o o r people converge.”>* I n 1 9 9 5 , according t o surveys o f prisoners done b y the Department o t Corrections, almost half o f the state inmates h a d b e e n unemployed

when arrested, and the rest reported incomes o f under $10,000. Part o f the contingent class, these men and women are being swept u p from their neighborhoods t o do hard time, and then, because o f high

recidivism rates, many return

to

jail over and over again. Two of the

b e s t k e p t secrets o f the recent wave o f incarceration are the entry o f large numbers o f w o m e n a n d children into t h e correctional system,

whereas previously the jails had been mainly filled with men. By the mid-1990s, the number o f women in jail totaled 138,000, a n increase o f 432 percent over the population o f incarcerated w o m e n in 1985. W o m e n currently enter jail a t a rate faster t h a n m e n , m o s t c o m e jail because o f nonviolent crimes, and the main crime that sends women t o jail 1s possession or sale o f illegal narcotics. Black women are eight times more likely than white women t o be in jail, and Latino women are four times as likely as white women. O t the women 1n jail in 1999, over 2,000 came t o jail pregnant and about 1,300 babies saw their first light inside prison walls. Furthermore, 200,000 children under to

90

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

the age o f 18 watched their mothers go t o jail (80,000 o f the women in jail are parents, many single parents). In 1999, the Bureau o fJustice Statistics revealed that over 700,000 prisoners were parents o f almost 1.5 million children under the age o f 18. Twenty-two percent o f all minor children

with a parent in jail were under five years old. Less than half o f the fathers lived with their children before their arrest, while close to two-thirds o f

mothers raised their children before their incarceration. What happens t o those children once the mothers are in the pen? Amnesty International, from whose report I derive much o f this data, introduces us t o Minnie Caldwell, age 75, who is in charge o f her t w o grandchildren, Latisha, age 18, and Anthony, age 10, because her daughter, Elizabeth, age 36, is in an

Alabama state prison for theft. With money tight t o start with, women like Minnie Caldwell take on additional work, sometimes making food for sale or else going back into the contingent workforce. Sixty percent o f the million children live with their grandmothers, and the financial and the psychological strain on the eldetly needs no amplification.” I f there is n o grandparent available, the children enter the foster care system, and 90 percent o f the children in this service have parents behind bars or in and out o f jail”* Foster care, by all accounts, is an underfunded and mismanaged program that is itself a gateway t o petty crime. Which brings us t o the other big secret: the close t o 700,000 juveniles in correctional facilities, such as detention centers, training

schools, ranches, camps, and farms. Half o f the boys (average age o f entry 1s 16) w h o enter the juvenile correctional network come for first offenses o f drug possession o r else for property crimes. Only a fifth o f the boys committed serious, violent crimes. A m o n g

boys, blacks

(56

percent) and Latinos ( 2 1 percent) predominate. O f gitls, only half are o f color, most are younger (average age o f entry i s 15) and they commit

fewer violent crimes and m o r e violations o f court orders, among other

bureaucratic offenses.” According t o law professor Barry Feld, “The

daily reality o f juveniles confined in many ‘treatment’ facilities is one o f violence, predatory behavior, and punitive incarceration .””® F o r the kids w h o are n o t i n jail, the working class neighborho ods that they live

i n have become a vast prison. W e v e already encountere d the

ordinances against gangs, but we should also bear in mind the curfews i n place (in 1 9 9 7 , the number o f cities that reported a curfew at night,

and some during the day as well, amounted t o almost 300, according t o

the US Conference o f Mayors).”’

Prison

91

T h e devastation wrought b y imperialist globalization (when firms

fled the US for cheaper labor) and by Reagan’s response t o that via the structural adjustment policies o f the 1980s that further weakened the dignity among the working class, produced significant effects: the war on the poor and the contingent, the attempt t o discipline this population, turned many into “criminals” and resulted in the destruction o f family (however constructed) and o f the semblance of civic community engendered by the poor. From the side o f the white working class and o f the forgotten rural towns, prisons come as a saving grace. As less workers find permanent, well-paid j o b s with benefits, the U S working class (mainly white, but

exclusively so) is pleased t o find work o f any kind: building prisons is n o t a bad idea and working in a prison is better than starvation. This not

section o f the workforce tends t o invite extremist racists and sadists,

many o f whom create a n atmosphere o f violence that tends t o whittle away the judgment o f their peers. Here are some examples from a H u m a n Rights Watch document ( 2 0 0 1 ) : °

* In July 1999, four guards a t the Florida State Prison beat

*

Frank Valdez t o death. The guards beat Valdez with such brutality that his ribs broke and boot marks remained on his body. The guards claimed Valdez injured himself, but in February 2001, the state indicted them on murder charges. I n June 2001, the state acquitted eight prison guards a t California’s Corcoran State Prison w h o had been charged

with staging gladiator-style fights among inmates. I n November 1999, the

state

acquitted four other guards for

setting up the rape o f an inmate by another very violent prisonet. * From December 1999, the following events took place i n

women’s prisons: the state indicted eleven former guards and a prison official o n charges o f sexually assaulting o r

harassing 16 female prisoners a t a county jail operated by a private corrections company; a jury convicted a New Mexico jail guard on federal civil rights charges stemming from the sexual assault o f a prisoner; the state sentenced a

New York guard t o three years o f probation after he pleaded guilty t o sodomy o f t w o female prisoners; the state

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

92

sentenced a n Ohio jail officer t o a four-year term for sexually

female prisoners. I n South Dakota, the state faced a class action suit that charged the prisons with widespread physical abuse against assaulting three

juvenile girls detained a t the State Training School. T h e suit

charged

guards

that

routinely

shackled

youths

in

fashion after cutting off their clothes, sprayed them with pepper spray while naked, and placed spread-eagled

them i n isolation for 2 3 hours each day.

Finally, if we look

at

the major study o f the Indiana correctional

system conducted b y Kelsey Kaufman, w e get a sense o f the presence o f white supremacy within the ranks o f the correctional officers.

Kaufman details the growth o f a group known as the Brotherhood i n

the Putnamville Correctional Facility (once known as the Indiana State Farm). This group began a process o f sexual intimidation, physical assault, and drug trafficking against that halt o f the inmates w h o are

black

and

Latino.

Kaufman

cites

Department

of

Corrections

investigations that verify incidents that were “racially motivated a n d

very demeaning” and that t o o k place “almost o n a daily b a s i s . ” White

and black staff a t Putnamville reported that the Brotherhood members among the correctional otficers referred t o the few black employees o n

the premises as “lazy niggers,” “coons,” and “goat farmers,” that the Brotherhood staff routinely spat i n the faces o f black inmates as they

handed them food, that the guards said that the inmates should be deported back t o Africa, that o n e officer paraded about i n a KKI-style h o o d (a feature n o t e d i n Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, and

Wyoming),

that

swastikas a n d

confederate

flags

decorate the

officers’ lockers (as in Rhode Island, for instance), and that racist tattoos a n d gang-style symbols o f the radical Right are commonplace

o n the bodies o f the officers.”

I f this seems farfetched, and it might t o s o m e , I recommend a

reading o f the Department o f Justice’s “Good OI’ Boy Roundup” (March 1996), which is specifically about a July 1995 gathering in southeastern Tennessee o f Bureau o f Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel and other justice employees (including correctional officers).

This was the sixteenth roundup o f justice employees and it took a report in the conservative Washington Times to force an official

investigation o f the event. When the Bureau concluded its study, it took

Prison

93

pains t o show that this w a s n o t a government-sponsored event, that others also attended, that i t w a s n o t formally a “Klan rally” a n d that “alcohol, no doubt contributed

to

the recurrence o f such incidents.”

T h e “incidents” are as follows:

* Racist signs such as “Nigger check point” and “Any niggers in that car’ as well as caricatures o f blacks inside a circle with a red slash across the image. These signs had b e e n p o s t e d b y local police officers. * Checking cars t o see that n o blacks came t o the Roundup.

* Racist skits as part o f the Redneck o f the Year Contest in which a m a n i n blackface w a s traded for a dog, a n d then the

man pretended t o have oral sex o n another man dressed in a Klan outfit. I n another skit, a police officer w e n t onto the

stage with a watermelon and a black doll. He proceeded t o beat the doll after telling the audience, “You have t o kill the seed w h e n it is young.”

* Racist confrontations between white and black law enforcement officers. Two black officers came t o the Roundup in 1995 and got into a fight with four white

officers, backed up by the gathering. After the incident, someone painted “Whites Only” outside the toilet. »

T h e paraphernalia o f white supremacy laced the camp,

from Confederate flags t o t-shirts with images of blacks being violently subdued a t their car alongside slogans like “Boyz in the Hood.” Richard Hayward o f (former Klan head)

David

Duke’s

National

Association

for

the

Advancement o f White People was a regular and h e brought white supremacist literature that w a s given o u t t o

the officers.

|

But, as the adage goes, people do n o t live by bread alone. People live on freedom, o n love, o n solidarity, o n bread too: those basic needs, however, seem t o have l o s t their sanctity as the U S government m o v e d further

towards

a n illiberalism

whose inevitable o u t c o m e 1s a

prison guards a n d the passive beneficiaries o f their brutality on one side, and the largely working class and of-color prison population and their contingent class on the other. polarization o f the population—racist

24

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

A s the jail b e c o m e s a w a r zone with one side armed and the other

18, 1989, Justice Harry Blackmun o f the US Supreme Court affirmed the right o f the legislature t o hold sentencing guidelines. In his opinion for the majority i n Mistretta v. United States, Justice Blackmun wrote, “Rehabilitation as a sound penological theory came t o be questioned disarmed, all talk o f rehabilitation has disappeared. O n January

and, 1n any event, was regarded b y s o m e as a n unattainable goal for most cases.” Furthermore, Justice Blackmun cited a 1 9 8 4 Senate report

that called the prevailing penal philosophy an “‘outmoded rehabilitation model’ for federal criminal sentencing, and recognized that the efforts o f the criminal justice system t o achieve rehabilitation

o f offenders had failed.” I n agreement, the majority o n the court

defined the new penal philosophy as follows: “It rejects imprisonment as a means o f promoting rehabilitation, and it states that punishment

should serve retributive, educational, deterrent, and incapacitative

goals.” Prisoners’ rights activists Eve Goldberg and Linda Evans are on point with their following characterization o f rehabilitation: A s “criminals” b e c o m e scapegoats for our floundering

economy and our deteriorating social structure, even the

guise o f rehabilitation is quickly disappearing from our penal philosophy. After all: rehabilitate for what? To go back into an economy which has no jobs? T o go back into a community

which has

n o hope? A s education and other

prison programs are cut back, o r i n m o s t cases eliminated altogether, prisons are becoming vast, over-crowded,

holding tanks. O r worse: factories behind bars.”

I n jail, the prisoners are n o t reduced t o monitored consumers. O n

the contrary, some o f the inmates work in what are called correctional industries, where they often work hard t o produce goods for the private sector, where they are fed and kept with taxpayer funds, and where they

can earn slave wages for their efforts. Capitalism was founded o n plantation slavery. W e have n o w come full circle t o a form o f slavery which goes o n at the fringes o f American public life: penal slavery.

People o f color in jails n o w man the correctional industries and

produce the f e w products that bear the bittersweet label, “Made in America.” “Made in Prison” would be more appropriate.

Prison

95

THE BUSINESS OFJAILS I n 1992, when Clinton came t o office, Westview Press in Boulder, Colorado, published Harry Wu's Laggai: The Chinese Gulag.®' Wu, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a decade later, was a fellow a t

the Hoover Institute (located a t Stanford University) and the famous spokesperson against the “forced labor prisons” in the People’s Republic o f China (PRC). In his book, Wu argues that while the government accepts that about 1.35 million prisoners work 1n /agga: or prison camps, he holds that 20 million do so. By comparing the /zgga: t o the gulag, and sitting before innumerable Congressional committees t o denounce China, W u made sure t o paint a portrait o f the Chinese

regime as especially cruel t o its people. What 1s freedom for Wu? In the Washington Post, he wrote, “Until private ownership 1s allowed on a wide scale, genuine liberalization—representative government, free markets,

and individual rights—will remain elusive in China.”® In a more recent book by authors n o t known for their sympathy for the PRC, they show that the /aggai population 1s fewer than t w o million (in a country o f over a billion), with political prisoners being a negligible percentage o f the total. Having established the exaggerations o f Wu, the authors point out quite correctly, “ I t is not t h e size o f the laogai that 1s outrageous, b u t what goes o n within i t s worst p r i s o n s . ” A n

analysis o f the Huise Uranium Camp shows us how the 2,000 prisoners work amidst an annual mortality rate o f between ten and 20 percent,

how coal miners in the camps suffer from black lung disease. Furthermore, the authors inform u s that n o t only are there forced l a b o r

camps in China, there is also re-education through labor (/agjiao) camps t o interrogate political opponents and hold them in indefinite detention.” The material in the book shows us that the /lzggai are organized as autonomous units. The prisoners a t these camps produce goods t o make the camps self-sufficient. They raise livestock and grow crops for the market and for consumption, as well as t o p r o d u c e commodities for e x p o r t (most o f the /aggas g o o d s that c o m e t o the U S

are raw materials).

Each year the US Congress revisits discussion on its relationship with China. The format for this discussion is the Most Favored Nation (MEN) ratification, which 1s automatic for m o s t countries except

China. I n 1980, the US Congress passed the Jackson-Vanik Act that

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

96

prevents regular reauthorization o f trade privileges d u e t o emigration

restrictions from China. But with US-China trade n o w over $60 billion p e r year, there i s a n enormous incentive t o its passage. T o ensure that

the M F N

status

is

not

altered, lobbyists for major US multinational

firms camp out in Washington, D C , and donate over $20 million t o the Republicans a n d the Democrats. T h e Business Coalition for U S - C h i n a

Trade includes over 8 0 0 members, including trade associations (the

Business Roundtable, the National Association for Manufacturers, and the Chamber o f Commerce) and large firms (Boeing, IBM, Motorola,

Ford, General Motors, ConAgra, Nike, and Eastman Chemical). US business has now come t o rely upon the cheaper labor c o s t in China as well as its vast purchase o f high technology goods. I n the 1990s, for instance, Boeing sold o n e i n ten o f its planes t o the Chinese.

Just as China has become indispensable for the US-based global corporations, the U S politicians have u s e d “China” as a weapon t o strengthen their o w n

dubious populist

credentials. T h e Right,

represented b y m o s t o f the Republican Party a n d b y the fringe elements

o f the by n o w a l m o s t defunct Reform Party (led by Patrick Buchanan), is joined by sections o f the labor movement (such as the Hoffa leadership o f the Teamsters and by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union) in its denunciation o f the Chinese. Not only 1s China accused o f stealing jobs due t o its low wages, b u t also it is censured for human rights abuses, particularly in the fogs. T h e Democratic Party (under Clinton and Gore), but also sections o f the Republican Party (under Bush the Younger), cannot turn their back on the Chinese markets and labor. Politicians o f the neoliberal variety are vulnerable t o

the charge o f being hypocritical on human rights and unconcerned about the woes o f the US worker. Because o f this bind, the neoliberals seek symbolic ways t o attack China just as they want t o continue t o d o

business with China. T h e Jaggai became that symbol. I n O c t o b e r 1 9 9 5 , W u s p o k e t o the

AFL-CIO convention in New York and told the workers’ representatives that China’s /oga: system c o s t s US workers their jobs, b u t it also “continues t o destroy millions o f p e o p l e a n d create fear i n

billions more.” Greg Denier o f the United Food and Commercial Workers Union said, after W u visited the U F C W convention, “We

know that eight t o

ten million people are in

the Chinese prison system

and forced t o produce items for sale overseas. W e also have confirmed 3

Prison

97

through import records that Wal-Mart produces goods from the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.”** Then, on June 8, 1999, John Sweeney sat before a congressional subcommittee o n trade t o alert them that “China repeatedly a n d flagrantly violates internationally

recognized core labor standards, by denying Chinese workers freedom o f association and the right t o organize and bargain collectively, as well as by the abuse o f prison labor.” Before a mass rally on April 12, 2000, called “No Blank Check for China,” Sweeney rallied the troops: “Meanwhile, o u r workers are forced t o compete with prison labor and sweatshop workers making as little as 1 3 cents a n hour. A n d while w e

are losing hundreds o f thousands o f jobs, China is setting new records for violations o f human rights and polluting the environment.” N o t t o be outdone, Senator Paul Wellstone o f Minnesota told the Senate o n

September 12, 2000: Year after year, w e are importing products made with forced prison labor from China. This amendment is in no way an exercise in China-bashing. We are merely insisting that China stop treating the bilateral trade agreements it has signed with

us concerning prison labor exports as mere “scraps o f paper.” What does my amendment ask for? I t asks simply that

[permanent normal

trade relations] b e denied until

President Clinton can certify that China 1s honoring agreements it has repeatedly violated in the past, signed agreements i t has violated now. We already have these trade agreements with China, and they’ve n o t abided by them. We say in this amendment “We call on you t o live up t o your agreements

before

w e automatically extend

[permanent

normal trade relations].” What 1s unreasonable about that? O n September 1 9 , 2000, despite these pious declarations, Congress

voted t o approve a bill that enabled the US t o avoid its annual review o f China’s human rights record, and t o tie human rights t o trade. For the labor movement, the /aoggai represented a competition for US workers, rather than an opportunity t o forge connections with Chinese workers against the misery o f corporate globalization. For the Right (including much o f the Democratic Party), the main story remained symbolic. They fulminated against the PRC for its role in Tibet, for the /agga:, tor espionage (the W e n H o L e e case®), a n d for campaign finance

shenanigans (via Johnny Huang) a t the same time as they voted t o clear

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

98

the decks for US-based global corporate deals with China. Representative Christopher Cox, the California Republican, led the charge against Wen H o Lee,

set

himself u p as a defender o f Chinese

Christians, and touted his credentials as an anti-Red China Hand. Yet,

right through these campaigns, Cox fought within Congress t o ensure speedy passage for pro-corporate legislation regarding China. When debate erupted over the Most Favored Nation status in 1999, Cox told the business press that he feared that more regulations would mean less

profits for US-based firms with little impact on “national security.” “The lion’s share o f stuff,” meaning free entry o f corporations into China, “should be fast-tracked,” meaning, come without Congressional oversight, he told the press.’ Any alert person will know that the /aggas is a red herring, because

only did 1t enable people like Cox t o talk about liberty as they feted the most illiberal corporate figures on the planet, but it also allowed Sweeney t o cloak US labor’s protectionism behind talk o f human rights, just as it allowed Buchanan t o revive the Yellow Peril as a populist 1ssue. The /aggai also allowed the explosion o f US prisons t o disappear from the agenda from 1994 t o 2000. In a formal sense, the laogar did the work o f the Central American and Mexican maqguiladora in the fight over NAFTA;1n 1992, Texas Representative Henry Gonzalez, for example, wrote t o the commissioner o f US c u s t o m s t o complain about imported goods made by Mexican “slave labor.” not

There

has never

b e e n any possibility that United States

laborers could compete with prison labor and still receive a viable living wage, and n o w i t appears that o u r workers are going t o have a choice—compete with serf labor i n the

maquiladoras or compete with slave labor from the [Mexican] prisons.’’ Without a doubt the conditions i n Mexican jails and maqguiladoras are

beyond defense, but the tendency o f Gonzalez (and even significant sections o f the U S l a b o r movement) was t o turn the problem into a wage war between workers i n different states rather than a united struggle against global corporations whose entire ethos i s governed b y the

deterioration o f the worker’s wage. I n the 1990s, all talk o f prison labor was o f China and o f Mexico and not o f prisons and forced labor within

the American gulag.

I n a very stimulating b o o k o n the general i m p r i s o n m e n t o f the U S

population, sociologist Christian Parenti asks i f the p r i s o n b o o m o f the

1990s provided a n economic stimulus? Will the p r i s o n b o o m , i n o t h e r

words, create prosperity i n localities? After assessing the growth o f the p r i s o n industry i n several areas, Parenti notes:

I t 1s safe t o say that incarceration is a small-scale form o f Keynesian, public-works-style sumulus. T h e gulag provides opportunities for localized growth but it does n o t and

will

n o t assume the mantle o f d e facto industrial policy, because

it c a n n o t and will n o t replace the economic role o f military and aerospace spending.®®

I t 1s well t o b e caretul about the claims made by the prison expansionists,

b u t o n the other hand, prisons are big business and, like football

stadiums, they have allowed large corporations and the government

to

g o o n building sprees at the expense o f towns and cities. So, while the p r i s o n complex does n o t benefit the bulk o f the citizenry, i t certainly 1s a

b o o m for business and for bureaucracy. Both eat high o n the p r i s o n hog, find ways t o spend taxes other than t o create a population able t o

challenge power, and hold d o w n the contingent classes i n these pens

w h e n they d o get into disorganized forms o f social rebellion. T h e next section o f this chapter will assess the b o o m i n p r i s o n

construction, the growth o f prison labor, and the emergence o f a class o f deportable aliens w h o are held i n n e w p r i s o n s , m a n y o f them owned

and run b y private corporations. W e B u i l d P r i s o n s T o Life

A s the Crime Bill d r o p p e d large amounts o f cash into the p r i s o n m a r k e t s , construction a n d design firms flocked t o depressed parts o f

the country t o “revive” the local economy and t o make a decent profit i n the margin. I n 1 9 9 5 , expenditure o n prison construction increased

by $926 million, while outlay for university construction dropped by $954 million. Each year in the early 1990s, the various levels o f the government s p e n t a l m o s t § 7 billion i n taxpayer funds t o build prisons.

The $9 billion sum from the Crime Bill earmarked for prison construction w a s the down payment o n funds that t h e n c a m e from state governments and elsewhere. The state simply raised the money from its nominally progressive taxation schemes, b u t really regressive

taxation with the rich taking shelter i n the offices o f

their tax lawyers.

100

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

That money then went t o large construction and design firms that produced substandard buildings for wast profits, boosted by development subsidies, tax breaks, and cheap financing. By the mid-1990s, the annual funds spent by the state for prison construction and costs increased t o $17 billion (1995-1996). Design-Build, a construction trade magazine, estimates that in the 1990s, the

government built 3,300 prisons a t a c o s t o f $27 billion, with another 268 prisons on the design boards a t a c o s t o f $2.4 billion.” Two o f the construction firms that earned many o f the contracts in the 1990s come from the powerhouses o f international business. The largest German construction firm, with its paws all over Europe, 1s

Hochtief A G , a n d i t s U S subsidiary, Turner Construction, 1s knee-deep

in prison construction, with annual revenues a t $6.3 billion. The second firm, Kellogg, Brown & Root, 1s another major player in prison design a n d construction a n d it is owned by Halliburton, the $13.3 billion energy a n d construction conglomerate lately r u n b y Vice President

Dick Cheney.” These t w o firms are joined by a host o f smaller contractors who build the public a n d private prisons with taxpayer funds. Alongside them sit the major banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney, Shearson, and Merrill Lynch—all o f w h o m underwrite prison construction projects with lucrative b o n d i s s u e s . ” Private

prison firms or

the state bureaus take out

bonds

t o finance the

large

projects, a n d sell them t o these banks, w h o i n turn sell them t o

investors—the profits here for the banks range from $2 billion

to

$3

billion per year. A d d t o these players the small time manufacturers (for example, those w h o create sprinkler systems that ensure the inmates

cannot hang themselves) and the medical firms (for example, those

who provide medical care for inmates™)—and you can imagine the type o f market opportunities for businesses w h o know that the pipeline

o f prisoners means demand for their products will simply not flag. T o facilitate the building spree, Eli

Gage began t o publish

Correctional Building News in 1994. Gage recognized that this growth industry needed its o w n trade journal, so he jumped into the breech to produce, according t o writer Eric Schlosser, “the Variety o f the prison

world.”’® The magazine catries advertisements for the major construction and design firms as well as for such products as electrified fences a n d better techniques t o handle juvenile rebellion. Since the late

1980s, the magazine o f the American Correctional Association,

Prison

101

Corrections Today, has seen a 300 percent explosion in its advertisements. Products as diverse as handcuffs, chewing tobacco, and dandruff

shampoo are advertised t o attract prison administrators. Furthermore, p r i s o n s (both state a n d private run) offer contracts t o telephone

companies and the big firms (AT&T, Sprint, and the now defunct

MCI) charge inmates a t least six times the normal rate for a long-distance call. Profits here for the million- t o billion- dollar players. Meanwhile, new outfits have emerged t o train correctional officers, m a n y o f them i n the private sphere. A s the Census Bureau reported i n

1994. the recruitment and instruction o f correctional officers is “the fastest

growing function o u t

o f everything

that government

does.”

While private corporations make their real money as the ancillary t o the public p r i s o n industry, they have also re-entered the p r i s o n

management business. I n the mid-1980s, private firms entered the

business o f running INS detention centers—with the Corrections Corporation o f America (CCA) being the pioneer in 1936. In the past 15 years, private firms like CCA could only take control of five percent o f the entire prison market, b u t there are expectations that the trend will continue. However, the t w o biggest firms that entered the business, CCA and Wackenhut Corrections Corp., are n o t i n the best economic shape. CCA had revenues o f $310.3 million in 2001, but its n e t income was a loss o f $730.8 million, while Wackenhut made $535.6 million

with a net income o f $17 million.”® These are n o t impressive figures, yet i t needs to be underscored that CCA’s capitalization is still almost $4 billion, and it remains a steady draw for investors at the New York

Stock Exchange. They see a future in prisons. I n 2001, Good Jobs First published a report that revealed the extent

of

prisons. o f the 60 private prisons studied by Good Jobs F i r s t s assistance

governmental

Three-quarters

to

these

private

Philip Mattera and Mafruza K h a n received some form o f governmental

subsidy.”” Tax-free bonds worth $628 million, low-cost construction financing, property tax abatements, infrastructure subsidies (water,

sewer,

utility

hookups

for

free),

state

corporate

income

tax

o f the means u s e d by the private prison firms, mainly CCA (almost 80 percent o f its prisons received state subsidies) and Wackenhut (almost 70 percent o f its prisons received state subsidies). These “jail breaks” allowed CCA, Wackenhut and the

subsidies—these are some

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

102

other prison profiteers t o take f e w “free market” risks as they entered

the business. Even this cash was no guarantee o f profits. I n 1991, before the current prison blitz, Pricor joined up with the N-Group t o convince six Texas counties t o float a b o n d issue worth

$74 billion to build prisons that Pricor would manage. The Graham

brothers, who run the N-Group, spread money around among local elected officials and scored $2.2 million in cash for their labors. N o prisoners came t o the prisons, but the Grahams made a good deal o f it until a West Texas grand jury indicted them, Pricor, and their underwriter, the already blemished Drexel Burnham Lambert. Gilbert Walker, o f Pricor, joined up with David Arnspiger, a Drexel employee, to try to do the same sort o f deal in Florida in 1 9 9 2 . The problem for a series o f rural prisons before the 1993 Crime Bill was that the profiteers

did the deals, but the prisoners did

not

come.” The energetic

spree o f these firms from 1986 till 1993 overextended many o f them financially, and with flatness o f demand (that is, the rise o f the prison population), the firms could n o t recoup their investments. construction

According t o journalist K e n Silverstein:

Industry experts say a 90-95 percent capacity rate is needed t o guarantee the hefty rates o f return n e e d e d t o lure

investors. Prudential Securities issued a wildly bullish report o n C C A a few years ago [before 1997] b u t cautioned, “ I t takes time t o bring inmate population levels up t o where

they cover costs. L o w occupancy is a drag o n profits.” T h e Crime Bil suddenly enabled them t o fill the pens, reach out t o

Wall

Street for investment, and also t o a government eager t o dole out cash t o prison profiteers rather than t o either rehabilitation programs o r as cash disbursements t o the working class.

Jenni Gainsborough o f the ACLU’s National Prison Project questions the sanity o f letting the prison system g e t u n d e r the r o d o f the profit incentive: “There is a basic philosophical problem when you begin turning over administration o f prisons to people w h o have an

interest in keeping people locked u p . ” Alex Friedmann, a prisoner who was once i n a C C A prison, informs us that 70 percent o f prison-related expenses c o m e from the costs o f staff, “and this is where C C A really saves, beginning with sub-par starting s a l a r i e s . ” Going

over various studies o f life inside the CCA empire, sociologist Parenti

Prison

103

calls them a “private hell,” telling us how the guards are poorly paid, badly trained, and quick t o violence, and that this is the cause o f the high rate o f prison riots a t private jails.” Alex Friedmann captures the heart o f the problem and has the last word o f this section: The issue isn’t privatizing prisons, but rather privatizing prisoners. Inmates, traditionally the responsibility o f state and federal governments, increasingly are being contracted out

to

the

lowest

bidder.

Convicts

have

become

commodities. Certainly offenders should be punished for committing crimes, b u t should private companies and their stockholders profit from such punishment? Private prisons would b e great if the primary p u r p o s e o f the criminal

justice

system was to warehouse inmates without providing them with meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation. Private

prison companies have no incentive t o invest in such opportunities, especially when they profit from more crime, more punishment, more prisons.**

B a c k o n t h e Chain Gang P r i s o n labor, w e hear from Harry W u and others, takes place i n the Third World. B u t for s o m e significant noises o n the Left, there

is

otherwise a generous silence a b o u t prison labor i n the American gulag.

that license plates are m a d e i n jail, b u t there 1s a tendency think that this 1s just a good way for prisoners t o whittle away their

W e all k n o w to

l o n g days. There 1s little nationwide d i s c u s s i o n about the prisoners w h o

“ d o data entry for Chevron, make telephone reservations for T W A ,

raise hogs, shovel manure, make circuit boards, limousines, waterbeds, a n d lingerie for Victoria’s Secret”;> a n d more, infirmary beds, r a z o r

wire, flags, furniture, drapes, janitorial chemicals, garments, and decals; and then, conduct auto maintenance a n d bodywork, refinish furniture,

do laundry, work in print shops, and then, go o u t into the world in work crews t o offer their general labor tor hire. T h e list o f companies that hire

prison labor includes American Airlines, Boeing, Compaq, Dell, Eddie Bauer, Hewlett-Packard, Honeywell, I B M , J.C. Penny, McDonalds, Microsoft, Motorola, Nordstrom, Pierre Cardin, Revlon, Sony, Texas

Us. T h e top dogs o f t h e corporate world are well represented behind the walls o f Uncle Sam’s pens. I n 1994, by accident, I ran into a pamphlet from Rhode Island Correctional Industries (RICI). “We provide an opportunity for

Instruments, and Toys “ R ”

104

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

inmates t o practice and improve existing skills and work habits that are valuable in securing the retraining employment upon release,” said the pamphlet entitled Fifteen Secrets of Saving. The pamphlet had been sent t o state and municipal programs i n the state, as well as t o nonprofit organizations, because all three types o f agencies could avail themselves o f the cheap labor from RICI. Started over t w o decades ago, RICI enables the state t o forgo training schemes for laid off (or downsized) workers, because it claims t o do the work of retraining for that part o f the contingent class n o w incarcerated, who, if they are

released, anyway face a tough time being hired by a private sector that is chary o f prison records. In jail, however, RICI offers the nonprofits and the state sector “quality workmanship” on furniture, “professional service” on construction, and “highly skilled technicians” for automobile repair. “The quality standards” for garment production, RICI claims, “can match any privately operating sewing shop on the outside.” Because o f the low costs and the high standards, the industry urges state agencles, municipalities, and nonprofit agencies t o “Make Correctional Industries Your FIRST CHOICE.” One o f the services offered by RICI was a work crew of minimum-secutity inmates for painting, litter cleanup, grounds maintenance, interior cleaning (including rug shampooing and floor stripping). “We are constantly called upon t o handle unusual, labor intensive projects such as cleaning beaches or removing snow,” the pamphlet explained. I called the office and inquired about the service. I need a crew o f ten, I said, for a day. The day runs for six hours, I was told, and it will cost m e $350. I asked h o w much the inmates earned,

figure. The inmates certainly do n o t get minimum wage ($4.25). For 60 hours o f work, the employer would have t o pay $255 a t minimum wage (without benefits). That would leave $95 for the supervising correctional officer, the transport o f the but I could n o t get the cent

inmates, and for their lunch. Without lunch and transportation, the correctional officer makes under $16 per hour. That is well below the

officers’ wage structure, which leads us

to

assume that the inmates

make subminimum wages.

O f course there 1s n o need t o speculate. O n November 1, 1993, the

Supreme Coutt ruled that inmates did n o t have the right t o minimum wage.” Three hundred inmates who worked for the prison industries program sued the state o f Arizona for work done between 1986 and

Prison

105

1988 under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). They were paid between 40 and 80 cents per hour for their work with Arizona Correctional Industries. Further, Arizona law requires all wages earned b y inmates above 5 0 cents a n hour t o b e used for victim restitution,

repayment t o the state for room and board, and support payments t o

children or other dependents. Therefore, the prisoners effectively earn 5 0 cents per hour. This is so across the United States. After a n earlier

dismissal of the inmates’ case, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuits after they found a n “employer relationship”

between the inmates and the state prison. T h e inmates’ attorney argued that the subminimum wage structure produced unfair competition

1s harmful

to

private

sector

“that businesses.” By “private sector,” the

attorneys surely meant the business enterprises run o n small capital funds that must compete with other small concerns, rather than the large global

corporations whose economies o f scale dwarf the correctional industries, and whose taste for l o w wages leads them t o travel overseas as m u c h as t o the local state farm. The state’s attorney argued that

the inmates w h o work for private businesses (such as those who make reservations for Best Western hotels) are paid a t least the minimum wage (wifich they do n o t receive, since they can only effectively earn 5 0 cents per hour); those

who work for other prison industries are n o t entitled t o minimum wage. O f course, the state’s attorney did not answer the charge o f unfair business, since the correctional industries provided goods and services a t a lower c o s t than the private sector who are obliged t o pay minimum wage. T h e court agreed with the state that “prisoners working o n a

program structured b y the prison” are not entitled t o minimum wage.

The inmates, in the words o f the Arizona Correctional Industries, work not for economic reasons, but t o b e better prepared t o re-enter society

once they leave prison. With the rates o f incarceration o n the rise,

however, it seems as i f there are t o b e more and more forced labor camps, which will attempt t o produce cheap goods and setvices for state and nonprofit agencies. Besides, given the reticence o f society t o “take

back’ released prisoners, the rates o f reincarceration force us t o see the prison population as relatively permanent. Through the Hawes-Cooper A c t (1929) and the Ashurst-Summers A c t (1940), the U S government m a d e i t a felony t o transport

prison-made goods across state lines. While n o t a ban on prison labor, these laws restricted and regulated the use o f prisoners for corporate

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

106

profit.

Nevertheless, bucking

a n international

Roosevelt signed an order in 1934 Industries (or UNICOR) autonomous agency.

to

t o create

trend, President

the Federal Prison

operate around Washington, D C , as an

In 1947, when the world’s powers p u t

together

the General Agreement o n Trade and Tariffs, they allowed states t o erect

barriers

t o “free trade”

in

certain

exceptional circumstances

(article XX)—to protect public morals, human, animal; or plant life,

health, national treasures, exhaustible natural resources, and finally (in section “e€”), “relating t o the products of prison labor.” The disgust a t the use o f convicts for profits came from the broad social democratic

dynamic that overthrew Nazi racism, colonial barbarism, and the general disregard for human dignity that found its institutional champion a t the U N and in the International Declaration o f Human Rights (1948). Article 10.3 o f the Declaration’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (finally agreed upon in 1966 and ratified in 1970) states, “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim o f which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.” I f the post-war penal philosophy said that bibliotherapy would heal prisoners, the 1970s inaugurated a belief that work was the salve needed t o straighten o u t and reform criminals. Criminology provided a scientific basis for the emerging system of penal slavery: work, n o t for remuneration, but for therapy. I n 1979, the US Congress

passed the Federal Prison Industries Enhancement (PIE) Act that allowed private firms t o enter “joint ventures” with the state prisons, as well as opening the door t o prison labor in general.” Big corporations entered the prison labor trade, but n o t t o an enormous extent. Sociologist Parenti and American Studies professor

Cynthia Young are both clear that the prison labor situation should n o t be exaggerated. Parenti shows that less than five percent of inmates work 1n the prison industries, that the rate o f increase o f prison workers is n o t near the rate o f increase in inmates, and therefore, “prison labor is a sideshow.” Young, drawing from Parenti’s work, argues, “The reasons

for the increasing use of prison labor are, in fact, primarily ideological—not economic.”

While this is so i n terms o f the prison

system in general, i t does not obviate the fact that for the businesses that

the prisons, “prison labor is like a pot o f gold." Prison labor profits private firms that enter the pens t o take advantage o f cheap labor, b u t the state-run enterprises, even with enter

4

Prison

107

cheap wages, cannot seem t o stay afloat without state subsidies.

California’s Prison Industry Authority (PIA), for example, pays its workforce under a dollar with n o benefits, pays the Department of Corrections almost nothing for warehouse space, pays no taxes, does n o t have t o advertise because its customers are other state agencies that

are mandated t o buy its products, sets its o w n prices, and yet it has l o s t

money for a t least a third o f its existence.’” The prison-made goods do, however, enable the state, municipal, and nonprofit sectors to gain access t o goods

for relatively low costs with labor that 1s disciplined b y

guards w h o are paid for b y the state. T h e P I A does not make money

absorbs all kinds o f c o s t s that are n o t p a s s e d o n t o the customer—so the solvency o f the PIA is n o t a t issue, rather, the

because i t

generally l o w c o s t o f goods that enable the state t o pass b y small

business for prison business. Furthermore, as Cynthia Young puts it: Rather than generate huge windfalls for states or the federal government, prison labor has the potential t o enrich private corporations, benefiting states only i n so

far as corporations remain in-state. The relatively low startup costs and paltry wages paid by corporations make prison labor a cost-effective alternative t o relocating their factories t o Mexico, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, or the Pacific Rim.”

A t least t w o social classes stand t o lose from prison labor. The inmates are part o f a captive workforce with n o rights, only duties t o

capital, and they cannot bargain for higher wages or for

most

o f the

basic contractual arrangements. There are, o f course, s o m e prisoners’

unions, such as the Missouri Prisoners Labor Union (MPLU), legally chartered by the state o f Missouri on August 3, 1998 and now with a membership o f over 500 prisoners. O n July 1, 2000, the MPLU initiated a n international boycott o f the products m a d e b y Colgate

Palmolive because the company did n o t back MPLU’s demand that the state of Missouri establish a minimum wage for all Missour: workers, abolish forced labor, and condemn executions. I n a letter t o Colgate,

which hires Missouri prisoners, the MPLU noted: W e realize that your company didn’t p u t us in prison. This

is a

matter

o f Colgate-Palmolive reaping immense profits

for our incarceration and as the largest single consumer

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

108

block y o u have a social obligation t o us. T h e situation I a m outlining i s the same argument organized labor has used t o

oppose sweatshop labor employed b y Kathy Lee Gifford, Nike, e t c . I would also like t o a d d that w e are n o t asking fot

anything from society except that we be treated in a fair manner as defined b y the United States Constitution and numerous legal cases. W e are n o t advocating for a cushy life

style b u t simply a fair days pay for a fair days work and a safe, non-abusive work environment.”

Apart from a few instances such as this, the prison workers are by and large unable t o make demands and this situation shows us that the correctional industries are the highest stage o f capitalist extraction within a formally democratic framework. Those who do n o t realize they are losers in this setup are the small

business owners, those whose shops exist on the whim o f banks, and whose margins are thin enough that a few cents here and there on wages make an enormous difference o n the contracts they can offer.

These people, the small business people and their class, pay a lion’s share o f US taxes. These taxes subsidize the expanding penal workforce who n o w produce the same sorts o f goods that small

businesses produce. The prison goods are cheaper, even if they are of inferior quality, and they have a captive market in the state, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations. These middling classes hurl their invective a t criminals, but they have n o t yet organized against their economic competitors, the U N I C O R s a n d others w h o undersell

their jail breaks. Prison labor may n o t be the m o s t efficient form o f labor, but it is

them with

certainly not contradictory t o the dynamic o f capitalism. I t might even b e

its

efficient and yet underutilized form. From 1972 t o 1992, the number o f prison inmates working in correctional industries increased by 300 percent, from 169,000 t o 523,000. The prison industrial complex most

now hires more people than any Fortune 500 company with the exception o f General Motors.” This d o e s n o t m e a n that the prisons are fated t o b e c o m e the main industries i n the U S , b u t they are

certainly a significant part o f the economy, even i f they s e e m t o b e

only a “sideshow.”

Prison

109

Detention

I f the p r i s o n construction and management business w e n t i n t o a

brief slump in 2000 and 2001, the events o f 9/11 have made the prison C E O s jubilant. “The federal business is the best business for us,” Cornell C o m p a n y ’ s Steve Logan told his prison C E O colleagues, a n d

the fallout from 9 / 1 1 is “increasing the level o f business.””® I n 1986, the C C A was formed t o handle immigrant detainees, as they awaited deportation proceedings, and the other m a i n private p r i s o n profiteer,

Wackenhut, also began its career with immigration detention centers.

They branched o u t

to

other correctional sites, but with a decline in

d e m a n d there, and after

9/11 with

a b o o m i n immigrant detention

centers, the private prison firms have returned t o the basics. As the Village

Voices

Alisa

Solomon

notes,

“The

only

incarcerated

populations sustaining reliable growth n o w are I N S detainees and

federal prisoners, many o f them noncitizens.” T h e Federal Bureau o f

Prisons, in September 2001, issued directives t o c o n t r a c t o r s t o build prisons t o m e e t its “criminal alien requirements (CAR),” a n e w

category that harbingers a future for the prison industry. Setting aside the unknown number (perhaps several thousand) o f those picked up by the FBI since 9/11 and shielded from public view, the number of those who pass through the INS detention centers each year c o m e s t o a b o u t 150,000, with a b o u t 2 0 , 0 0 0 i n residence a t o n e

time. According t o a 2002 study by the Bureau o f Justice Statistics, the n u m b e r o f alien detainees w h o serve a prison sentence increased b y

ninefold between 1985 and 2000. This increase is more than twice the rate o f increase o f the entire federal p r i s o n population.”” O f those w h o

served a n I N S - r e l a t e d p r i s o n sentence, more than h a l f had Mexican

citizenship, seven percent had U S citizenship (but had violated I N S regulations—such as sale o f papers t o a noncitizen), three percent had Chinese citizenship, and the rest were evenly spread among the planet’s

population. Before the state’s drive t o register, incarcerate, a n d deport

Muslims, i t w e n t after migrants with HIV-AIDS. These survivors in the system could n o t even challenge

their situation because

they were n o t

arrested. Awaiting deportation as “administrative detainees,” these

migrants could n o t challenge the system’s lack o f medical care. How can they claim “cruel and unusual punishment” when they are only being held, n o t punished?”® The parallel with the post-9/11 detainees is very strong. The Village Voices Alisa Solomon has brought the stories

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

110

o f m a n y o f those w h o seek asylum, but live for intolerable amounts o f

time in jail: people like Uganda’s Emmy Kutesa and Yudaya Nanyonga, Nigeria’s Osabeda Egoibe, Ghana’s Adelaide Abankwah, Congo’s Lilian Loukakou, Togo’s Fauziya Kassindja, Barbados’s Kenneth Durant, Ethiopia’s Lulseged Dhine, and so m a n y o t h e r s . ” Thanks t o

the efforts o f Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM) in New York City, w e have the stories o f Ahmed Raza, a migrant worker from Pakistan

and now a 9/11 detainee in Passaic County Jail, o f Mohammed Akram (a convenience store owner also a t Passaic as a 9 / 1 1 detainee), and so

m a n y o t h e r s . ' ” T h e s e people provide

the human face t o the

underground expansion o f state power, and o f prison profiteering. As Egoibe told Solomon, “ A person cannot be in confinement like this a n d feel that he 1s safe. B u t I did c o m e t o America because I thought it was a place I could find safety.”

What accounts for this explosion, prior t o 9/11? Marika Latras and John Scalia, o f the Bureau o f Justice Statistics, note: A major portion o f this growth was attributable t o changes i n federal sentencing law that increased the

likelthood of a

convicted immigration felony offender receiving a prison

sentence—from 57 percent in 1985

to

91 percent in

2000—1n lieu o f s o m e lesser sanction. T h e growth was also the result o f increased sentences and

time actually served,

which increased from about 4 months in 1985 t o 2 1 months i n 2 0 0 0 . "

The numbers arrested after 9 / 1 1 may grow, but they are a small fraction o f those w h o are held b y the I N S for deportation, for crimes they committed, o r else until their asylum applications are processed. I n 1999,

long before the USA Patriot Act, the INS anticipated that it would need jal cells for almost 30,000 detainees. Richard Wackenhut, h e a d o f Wackenhut Corp. reported: view backlog of 8,260 correctional facility beds

W e are very optimistic about our continued growth i n

o f our

current

under development. Federal and other agencies are expected t o issue additional requests for proposals o n

additional p r i s o n privatization projects for over 20,000

additional beds in the coming year.'" The

US government

has n o w appointed a Detention Trustee

(the first

Prison

111

a p p o i n t e e t o this p o s t 1s Craig Unger, a former Bureau o f Prisons p r o c u r e m e n t officer), w h o has a budget o f $615 million t o contract for

beds for the expansion.

T o hold these “criminal aliens,” the I N S operates nine Service

Processing Centers (SPCs) in Puerto Rico, New York, California,

Texas, Arizona, and Florida. The n e w e s t INS SPC is located in Buffalo, N Y , where there are n o t only 300 I N S beds, but also 150 for use b y the

US Marshals Service (FBI). In addition, the INS

contracts

for seven

other tacilities, in Colorado, Texas, Washington, N e w Jersey, N e w

York, and California, in addition

to

use o f Bureau o f Prisons sites in

Louisiana and Arizona. To run these sites, the INS spends over $600 million per year. Stunningly, the Federal Bureau o f Prisons guaranteed CCA a 95 percent occupancy rate for its prisons—that is, the government will pay CCA for 95 percent o f its bed capacity regardless o f how many inmates are held in the jail. This 1s akin t o the power purchasing agreements that Enron insisted upon in its pioneering shakedown o f the world.!” Conditions i n these I N S detention centers are atrocious. T h e tale

o f the detention c e n t e r in Elizabeth, New Jersey 1s sufficient as an illustration o f the broad structural violence experienced by INS detainees, asylum seekers, and others caught in the I N S dragnet. Esmor Correctional Services Corporation began i t s correctional career i n

“halfway houses” for the homeless in New York City, but in 1989, as the city c u t back on social welfare, Esmor “turned t o the next emerging housing program: p r i s o n s . ” I n 1993, Esmor won a $54 million c o n t r a c t t o run the immigrant detention c e n t e r in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Their bid was $20 million less than their closest competitor, so that the upshot o f their bid was that they failed t o provide the inmates

with anything like humane occupancy when the jail opened on August 3, 1994. About six months after the holding area was up and running, the I N S ordered a review and investigation o f the facility; the seventy-two page r e p o r t showed that “detainees were subjected t o harassment, verbal abuse, a n d o t h e r degrading actions perpetuated b y

Esmor guards.” Such treatment “was part o f a systematic methodology designed t o control the general detainee population and t o intimidate and discipline obstreperous detainees through use o f corporal punishment.” The violence formed part o f “an atmosphere o f penny-pinching in the jail [as] poorly paid, ill-trained guards physically

112

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

and verbally abused detainees, shackling them with leg irons, roughing

them up and waking them without reason in the night,”!% O n the night o f June 18, 1995, after the INS reviewed the jail, but before they published the interim report, some INS detainees a t the Esmor facility took control o f the jail. The Esmor guards fled and the local police sent i n a S W A T team that viciously retook the j a i l . ' ” T h e

police brought the “ringleaders,” about 20 men, t o Union County Jalil, i n Elizabeth, w h o were, according t o H u m a n Rights Watch, “beaten,

held naked, made to crawl o n their hands and knees through a gauntlet o f jail officers, and forced t o chant, ‘America i s Number O n e . ” O n e Indian detainee claimed that between beatings, correctional officers used pliers t o pinch the skin o n his genitals and squeeze his tongue.”""’

Esmor’s share price fell from 20 dollars t o seven dollars in the aftermath o f the riot. The INS shut down the facility, but in 1997, reopened it under the management o f CCA. Little has changed. In July 1998, guards at the Jackson County Correctional Facility i n Florida used electric batons t o shock detainees,

torturing them into submission. When the matter was brought before the INS, the INS assistant deputy for detention and deportation a t the Miami office told the media, “We cannot dictate t o the county o r the state o f Florida what standards they should have in their facilities. They're another government agency. We have t o rely on their integrity.”!% The US signed the 1994 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, whose second article notes, “ n o exceptional circumstance whatsoever, whether a state o f w a r

or a threat o f war, internal political instability o r any other public

emergency, may be invoked as a justification o f torture.” What happened in the Jackson Correctional facility, what happens a t the Guantanamo Bay Camp X-Ray or elsewhere is a violation o f that Convention and yet, the bureaucracy 1s able t o make the case for interagency trust!

JONESING FOR FREEDOM Great Jones Street, home t o dope addicts who lived there in the 1970s. Folklore from the street tells u s that these addicts started t o talk o f their Between Broadway and the Bowery i n Manhattan you’ll find

addiction as the “jones,” and the verb form, “jonesing,” referred to being high o r craving dope. So here we are, after this excursus in the world o f

corrections, jonesing for freedom, the greatest drug o f them all.

Prison

113

The history o f US liberalism is torn by a contradiction that it c a n n o t overcome: it pledges t o promote equality, but it also pledges t o a system founded o n mechanisms o f social control that are authoritarian. T h e conservatives resolve this contradiction simply: they believe that

the goal o f equity is precisely what creates inequality and forces a

benevolent US state t o

a c t illiberally. People are inherently and forever

unequal (based o n race o r culture o r some version i n between),'” therefore t o try t o m a k e equity forces the state t o b e authoritarian. Get

rid o f the equity programs, they argue, and let “individuals” fight it out. A corporation, however, 1s treated as an “individual,” albeit with a lot o f accumulated power and capital. Real, living people are matched against

this foe, but since they are increasingly outside unions and other organizations, they m u s t struggle without power and without capital.

The deck is stacked overwhelmingly on the side o f global corporations. Despite their obvious corporate partisanship, U S conservatives

pose as the true champions o f equality and freedom. The process o f equality, in the conservative argument, 1s now “privatized” or made the responsibility of each citizen. The government, in this scenario, m u s t withdraw from the goal o f producing equity and m u s t actively pursue the role o f executioner and jailer. T h e contradictions o f American liberalism are n o w simplified: there 1s inequality because people d o n ’ t try hard enough (therefore former H o u s e Speaker N e w t Gingrich’s statements a b o u t c l o s i n g d o w n the “ D e p a r t m e n t

o f Happiness™).'"

The inflection o f US conservatism is deeply racist. The “people” who d o n o t try hard enough for conservatives are urban blacks: the stereotypes o f the welfare queen and the drug p u s h e r are emblematic. H e r e U S liberalism’s practices are articulated openly as legitimate practices b y U S conservatism: the convergence between Republicans

and Democrats on this issue 1s remarkable. I f the mainstream politicians fail us o n the prison score, there are

others who are eager t o confront the prison-first mentality. The movement against prisons i s n o t new, having antecedents i n Frederick

Douglass’s campaign against the “convict lease system” in the 19% Century.''! T o m a k e matters simple, I ’ m going t o create a f e w analytical

distinctions within the anti-prison section o f the movement.

114

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

Political Prisoners

Even as the government denies that it holds political prisoners, the

history of US imprisonment shows otherwise from Henry David Thoreau (imprisoned for refusal t o support the war against Mexico) to

the mass incarceration o f the leadership o f the Communist Party (in the 1950s) as well as the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP) in the 1960s. The state adopted various tactics against the BPP, whether assassination (of Fred Hampton, Mark Clark, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, and others), or fraudulent arrests (Angela Davis, Dhoruba bin Wahaad and the N e w York 21, Huey Newton, Assata Shakur, Mutulu

Shakur, Geronimo Pratt, and others). What 1s a political prisoner? Susan Rosenberg, a political prisoner herself, writes in the Journal ofPrisoners on Prisons: There are over 150 political prisoners in US prisons. We are in almost every federal prison in the country and spread throughout different State prison systems. I define a political prisoner as someone whose beliefs o r actions have

put them into direct conflict with the U S government, o r someone w h o has been targeted b y the government because

o f his/her beliefs and actions. While this is a somewhat generic description, i t complies with international legal

definitions. The other grouping o f people who ate in prison who are political are the prisoners o f war from the Puerto Rican and N e w Afrikan/African American liberation movements. These are individuals w h o m a k e that claim

their national liberation struggles for self-determination. The political prisoners and POW’s in the US who have struggled under international law i n pursuit o f the recognition o f

for human rights and social liberation—people w h o come

from movements that range from the anti-imperialist left t o the Native American struggle for sovereignty—have all been treated b y the government as political dissidents, b u t have been denied the dignity o f recognition as political

prisoners. Rather, we have been criminalized or wrongly defined as “terrorists.” W e have been repressed t o the

maximum.’ ‘4

The m o s t famous political prisoner in this period was George Jackson, whose book Soledad Brother informed the progressive community about the condition within the jails as well as about the

Prison

115

political w a r the state conducted against the poor. I n his posthumously

published book, Blood in the Eye, George Jackson wrote, T h e purpose o f the chief repressive institutions within the totalitarian

capitalist

state

1s clearly

to

discourage and

prohibit certain activity, and the prohibitions are aimed at

very distinctly defined sectors o f the class and race sensitized soctety. The ultimate expression o f law is n o t order—it’s prison. There are hundreds u p o n hundreds o f

prisons, and thousands upon thousands o f laws, yet there 1s n o social order, no social peace.’

In 1971, the s t a t e killed George Jackson within San Quentin prison, and several months later the prisoners o f Attica State Prison in New York rebelled against the conditions in the jail and in solidarity with the Soledad Brother. The retaliation against this uprising 1s still in popular memory. T h e movement against the imprisonment o f people o n political grounds has tried t o d o at least t w o things: t o raise awareness o f the

existence o f political prisoners and t o free this or that individual prisoner. The Committee t o Free Angela Davis, for instance, was formed t o galvanize people on her behalf, t o raise slogans like “Free Angela Davis,” and t o fight for her freedom as a political act against the crackdown on dissent in general. Today’s campaign t o “Free Mumia” works on the same axis. The Jericho Movement takes the individual cases and makes a general political campaign around the issue o f all

political prisoners.’ T h e State o f t h e P e n

Three former BPP members

went t o

the Angola prison in

Louisiana o n robbery charges, with the belief that they would s p e n d a

short time in jail before being paroled. While in jail, Albert Woodfox, Herman Wallace, a n d Robert King Wilkerson founded the B P P o f

Angola, in 1971, t o struggle against the terrible conditions within the

jail. They reached o u t t o white prisoners, tried t o forge solidarity against the prison regime and fought the guards on the conditions within the Farm. One o f the main complaints o f the BPP was the systematic use o f rape by the guards t o discipline the population. Human Rights Watch, in 2001, criticized the widespread use o f rape by guards for social control.

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

116

Men in prison were subject t o prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse, w h o s e effects o n the victim’s psyche were serious

and enduring. Victims o f rape, in the most extreme cases, were

literally the

slaves o f the perpetrators,

being “rented

out” for sex, “sold,” o r even auctioned off to other

inmates.115

“It wasn’t much help t o go t o the security,” Woodtox notes, “because m o s t o f the security people were condoning that type o f activity. They would benefit from it because they would get money or favors for allowing rapes t o happen. Some o f the guards themselves would b e involved i n the rapes.”''® I n 1 9 7 2 , the guards framed the Angola 3 for

the murder o f a prison guard, saddled them with life sentences, and threw them i n solitary confinement, but these three m e n continue t o

fight against the brutal conditions within prisons. Most o f those who are at work o n prison reform come from one o f these three communities: former inmates, families o f those in jail, and

religious groups such as the Quakers who are morally opposed t o prisons. They record the horrid conditions in the jails and bring the truth t o those o f us w h o are immune t o the violence done i n our name. Disenfranchisement

I n 1998, the nonprofit Sentencing Project released a n important

report that detailed the widespread denial o f the franchise t o felons. The authors found that all but four states (Maine, Massachusetts, Utah,

and Vermont) did n o t allow felons t o vote, while two-thirds o f the states did n o t allow those on probation t o v o t e either. Almost four million U S citizens, o r one i n 50 adults, are unable t o vote. Almost a million a n d a half o f them have completed their sentences, a n d a

million and a half are black (13 percent o f all black m e n cannot vote).

Bush II won the presidency through Florida, a state where a third o f black m e n cannot exercise their right t o v o t e . " The fight against this denial o f the vote is being conducted on the legal a n d political front. Since the dermal o f the vote violates the civil liberty o f the ex-felons, many o f the organizations that tackle those questions are in the fray (including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty

Project, a n d others). O n the political front, prisoners’ rights groups and Left organizations fight for the franchise with the knowledge that the p r i s o n complex is a warehouse o f

International, the Sentencing

Prison

dissent, so the

movement m u s t

117

ensure that these folk are able

to

be

involved in the political fights o f our time. Pressure from all these quarters caused several states t o change their policies, so that Delaware (where once a felon faced a lifetime b a n o n the franchise) restored

voting right t o felons in June 2000, New Mexico did the same in March 2001, and so did Maryland in 2002. Cases are pending in Florida, a h o t b e d o f discontent over the 2 0 0 0 election.''® T h e N e w Abolitionists

While these are all important arenas o f struggle, they fall short o f

the more general call for the abolition o f all prisons. Many prisoner writers (such as George Jackson) and small ex-prisoner liberation groups (such as the Out o f Control Lesbian Support Committee, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and the California Coalition

for Battered Women in Prison) called for abolition long before the Crime Bill o f 1993, and before the incarceration boom. I n 1988, for instance, the first issue o f the Canada-based Journal o fPrisoners on Prison

was dedicated t o the notion o f “prison abolition.” Critical Resistance, a network o f abolitionists formed in 1997, offered the most clear-headed description e

of “abolition™:

Abolition is a political vision that seeks t o eliminate the need for

prisons, policing, and surveillance b y creating sustainable alternatives

punishment and imprisonment. Abolition means acknowledging the devastating effects prison, po-

to e

licing, and surveillance have o n poor communities, communities o f color, and other targeted communities, and saying, “No, we won’t live like this. We deserve more.” e Abolitionists

recognize

t h a t the

kinds

o f wrongdoing

we

call

“crime” do n o t exist in the same way everywhere and are not “human

nature,” but rather determined by the societies we live in. Similarly, abolitionists d o not assume that people will never hurt each other o r

by their communities. W e d o imagine, however, that boundary crossings will happen m u c h that people w o n ’ t cross the boundaries set u p

less often i f we live in a society that combines flexibility with care t o provide for, and acknowledge, people’s needs. T o d o that, w e must

dealing with the injuries people inflict upon each other in ways that sustain communities and families. Keeping a community whole is impossible b y routinely removing people from it. create alternatives for

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

118

A n abolitionist vision means that we m u s t build models today that can represent h o w w e want t o live in the future. I t means developing e

practical strategies for taking small steps that m o v e us toward making

our dreams real and that lead the average person to believe that things really could b e different. I t means living this vision in our daily lives.

A crucial part o f this statement is the portion, “abolitionists do n o t assume that p e o p l e will never hurt each other o r that people won't cross the boundaries set up by their communities.” I n April 2000, radical activists held the Color o f Violence: Violence Against Women o f Color conference a t the University o f California, Santa Cruz. A n oversubscribed event, the conclave raised the problem o f violence

against women, particularly within communities o f color. While there 1s considerable, but n o t adequate, discussion o f violence against white

women, the organizers felt, there 1s a general invisibility over the

problem o f violence by men o f color against women o f color. Activist Andrea Smith notes that the domestic violence movement first began as a community transformation struggle, but then devolved t o

psychiatric and legal strategies. T h e reduction o f the struggle meant,

“Mainstream anti-violence advocates are demanding longer prison sentences for batterers a n d sex offenders as a frontline approach t o

stopping violence against women.” For communities o f color, this approach is n o t palatable because “the criminal justice system has always been brutally oppressive toward communities o f color.” As Angela Davis p u t i t i n the keynote address:

One o f the major questions facing this conference is how t o develop an analysis that furthers neither the conservative p r o j e c t o f sequestering millions o f m e n o f color i n

accordance with the contemporary dictates o f globalized capital and its prison industrial complex, nor the equally conservative project o f abandoning poor women o f color t o a continuum o f violence that extends from the sweatshops through the prisons, t o shelters, and into bedrooms at home."

Having raised the problem, Davis posed a question t o organizers: W e want t o continue t o contest the neglect o f domestic

violence against women, the tendency t o dismiss it as a

that relies on political mobilization rather than legal remedies or

private matter. W e need t o develop a n approach

Prison

119

social service delivery. W e need to fight for temporary and

long-term solutions t o violence and simultaneously think about and link global capitalism, global colonialism, racism, a n d patriarchy—all the forces that shape violence against

women o f color. Can we, for example, link a strong demand for remedies for women o f color who are targets

o f rape and domestic violence with a strategy that calls for the abolition o f the prison system?'?!

Davis and Critical Resistance, therefore, d o n o t simply call for an abolition o f prisons i n a n idealistic v e i n . ' * * C R ’ s program against prisons,

the police and the Crime Bill is a window into how

to

struggle t o

transform the system and yet b e aware o f the need for security:

I f our vision is t o eliminate the need for prisons, policing, and surveillance, w e must have a clear idea o f what w e need to make our commu-

nities safe and secure. We must make those alternatives realistic and w e must be able t o begin building them today. We need community al-

ternatives that keep people o u t o f the hands o f police and o u t o f prisons and jails, while addressing the fears that people live with on a daily basis. We can d o t h a t b y building our communities and ending a reliance on, and belief in, law enforcement as the only solution. Here are

just a few examples o f what those alternatives might include: e Community-based economic resources: C u r r e n t cooperative e c o -

n o m i c m o d e l s provide u s with one set o f strategies t o build our com-

munities. W e can create a means

for providing meaningful

work—and training for that work—to all. This work and training can provide for our housing, food, and clothing, and should contribute to

the well b e i n g o f

t h e community.

e Community-based education models: W e have examples o f small,

charter, and alternative schools that have been successful in showing us alternative means o f educating our community. Community-based

schools can offer education t o anyone who wants it (youth and adults). Education can b e free, participatory, and aimed toward sustaining the

kinds o f social environments we want t o create. They can also model the community forms w e want i n their teaching practices. O u r schools c a n tailor the learning process t o the needs o f the students and can in-

volve the adult community in learning and teaching so schools are n o t isolated

from the rest o f

t h e community.

forums: Some current restorative justice models from around the world provide us with examples o f how community meoe Community

diation a n d p r o b l e m solving is used t o resolve conflicts and keep o u r

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

120

communities safe. W e m u s t create a means o f dealing

with people

who hurt each other (physically, mentally, emotionally, materially). W e can establish community forums t o address grievances people have regarding each other and as a means o f resolving those con-

flicts. Such formations could include community councils that mediate

between

individuals/groups,

community

elders

to

whom

community members could g o t o for advice and counsel, age-, 1ssue-, and interest-specific groups for building community ties (youth

groups, artists’ circles, support groups, study groups, etc.), and com-

munity-based strategies for keeping individual community members

from harming themselves or others and t o provide disincentives for repeating such actions. Above all, these groups can grow from the

community and their direction and scope should come from the people involved in them and whom they affect. e Community

services: Current community-based organizations

provide us with good examples o f how services may be provided. We m u s t provide services t o those w h o have difficulty providing for

themselves. Such strategies can emphasize n o t only taking care o f

those who need the m o s t help, but finding ways t o help people get through these systems and c o m e o u t with b o t h what they need and their humanity a n d dignity intact. These models can also include working with people who currently provide such services t o design workshops, trainings, and ongoing support and resources that g o b e -

yond providing individual advocacy and services, and emphasize gaining independence from those systems. ®

Medical care: Current neighborhood clinics a n d free clinics pro-

vide u s with g o o d examples o f strategies for making free health care

available t o all. Such services can include basic health (preventative, checkups, acupuncture, etc.), health crises ( m a j o r medical emergen-

cies, terminal illness), dental and visual health, and mental health (both routine counseling and therapy as well as crisis care and care for the mentally disabled, etc.). M a n y o f the strategies discussed above are already i n place. They are n o t fantasies, b u t real life examples o f community building a n d

orowth.'*’

Discussions, lawsuits, film festivals, actions, and outreach

characterize the work o f Critical Resistance. I n many ways, its work mirrors that o f the Prison Moratorium Project founded in 1995, whose signature has been t o matry prison abolition work with hip-hop culture

(with 1ts We Remember Attica hip-hop teach-ins in 1996, its Education,

Prison

121

N o t Incarceration program from 1997, its War o n Drugs, War o n Us,

high school program from 1999, its No More Prisons music CD, its Not With Our Money campaign from late 2000, its anti—-Sodexho Marriott campaign o n college campuses, and finally its Stop the Disappearances movement

with D R U M against the illegal detentions after 9/11).

To abolish prison, as Critical Resistance recognizes, is

to

abolish

the dispensation that w e live under i n general, the world o f the C E O

class o n the one side and the contingent o n the other, the world o f the fat c a t a n d the world o f the hard

hat, o f

surplus a n d deficit.

122

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

Ww

Angela Y. Davis, If They Come in the Morning: 1vices of Resistance (New York, 1971), p. 25. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Declaration o f I n d e p e n d e n c e from the W a r in Vietnam (April 1967),” Ramparts, May 1967, pp. 33-37. The best introduction t o the socialist side o f Dr. King is in Michael Eric Dyson, I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther KingJr., New York: Free Press, 2000. Chapter 3 o f the b o o k offers the context o f King’s position o n Vietnam and imperialism. Dyson, I M a y N o t Get There With You, p . 112. Steven Holmes,

“Clinton Tells Hispanic

Group I t M u s t C o m b a t Urban

Crime,” New York Times, November 23, 1993.

Peter Mattheissen, Sa/ Si Puedes (Escape If You Can): Cesar Chaves and the New American Revolution, Berkeley: University o f California Press, 2000,

. 280. Robert Scheer, “The River o f Hypocrisy Runs Wide and Deep,” Los Angeles Times, A u g u s t 1, 1995.

After the Stuart case, Boston mayor Raymond Flynn created a commission under

attorney James

St.

Clair

to

investigate

the

department. T h e St. Clair Commission report, Report on the Boston Police Department Management Review Committee, released o n January 1 4 , 1992,

acknowledged the department’s racist response t o Stuart’s claims. Kevin Cullen, “Stuart dies in jump off Tobin Bridge,” Boston Globe,

January 5, 1990, and Kevin Cullen and Mike Barnicle, “Probers suspect Stuart killed wite,” Boston Globe, January 10, 1990. Robert Perkinson, “Civil Liberties: Oklahoma Fallout,” Z , July/August

1995. 10

I urge you t o turn t o Daniel Levitas’s The Terrorist Next Door: The Militia Movement and the Radical Right, New York: Thomas Dunne/St. Martin’s Press, 2002 for details on the fascist bands that dot the US landscape. O n the suspension o f rules for those held as terrorists, see Barbara

Olshansky, Secret Trials and Executions: Military Tribunals and the Threat to Democracy, N e w York: Seven Stories Press, 2002. I have written about the

problem o f

McCarthyism i n “The Green M e n a c e : McCarthyism after

9/11,” The Subcontinental, vol. 1, no. 1, 2003. 11

Kurt Fichenwald, “White Collar Defense Stance: The Criminal-less Crime,” New York Times, March 3, 2002.

12

Jonathan D . Glazer, “Mad as Hell: Hard Time for White-Collar Crime,” New York Times, July 28, 2002.

13

I have explicated the logic o f the political disagreements

14 15 16

the Planet. US News & World Report, December 30, 1968. William S. Buckley, “ O n the Right,” National Review, May 5, 1970. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, New York: Bantam Books, March 1968.

in

War Against

:

Prison

17

123

F o r an excellent overview o f the issues, see K i m Strosnider, “Anti-Gang

Ordinances After City of Chicago v. Morales: The Intersection o f Race, Vagueness Doctrine, and Equal Protection in the Criminal Law,” American Criminal Law Review no. 39, Winter 2002. 18

Dirk Johnson, “ 2 Out o f 3 Young Black Men in Denver Are on Gang Suspect L i s t , ” N e w York Times, D e c e m b e r 11, 1993.

19

Steven Stycos, “Legislator cleared i n trial exposing a d o z e n brutality

20

21

complaints against Officer Merand\i,” Providence Phoenix, June 21, 1996. President W. J]. Clinton, “Memorandum on Fairness in Law Enforcement: Memorandum for the Secretary o f the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary o f the Interior,” June 9, 1999. Even this data is n o t necessarily useful, as politicians influence h o w the

numbers are collected. Fox Buttertield, “Some Experts Fear Political Influence o n Crime Data Agencies,” New York Times, September 22,

2002. 22

David Harris, Driving While Black: RacialProfiling on O u r Nation's Highways.

23

American Civil Liberties Union Special Report, June 1999. A US Government, Office o f Civil Rights, Who is Guarding the Guardians?

Report on Police Practices and CivilRights in America, Washington, D C : O C R , N o v e m b e r 2000.

24

“I hereby direct you

to

review the use by Federal law enforcement

authorities o f race as a factor i n conducting stops, searches, a n d other

investigative procedures. I n particular, I ask that you work with the Congress t o develop methods o r mechanisms t o collect any relevant data from Federal law enforcement agencies and work i n cooperation with

State and local law enforcement in order to assess the extent and nature o f any such practices. I further direct that you report back to m e with

your findings and recommendations for the improvement o f the just and equal administration o f our Nation’s laws.” 25

Christian Parenti, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the A g e

London: Verso,

1999, p. 9. F o r

of Crisis,

a n insightful l o o k a t the origins o f the

“war o n drugs,” see Edward Jay Epstein, Agency of Fear: Opiates and

PoliticalPower in America, London: Verso, 1990. 26

M o s t o f the correctional statistics used i n this chapter are from the

Bureau o fJustice Statistics Correctional Surveys, the National Probation Survey, the National Prisoner Statistics, Survey o f Jails a n d the National

Parole Survey. A summary o f the numbers, until 1990, is available in Patrick Langan, “America’s Soaring Prison Population,” Science, no. 251,

March 29, 1991, pp. 1568-1573. 27

Agreement on this point is stunningly universal. From the Right, John Dilulio is pretty forthright in his widely cited article, “Against Mandatory Minimums,” NationalReview, May 17,1999, and a t length in the report by Anne M . Piehl, Bert Useem, and John Dilulio, Right Sigung Justice: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Imprisonment in Three States, N e w Y o r k : T h e

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

124

Manhattan Institute, 1999. That same year, from the Left, Marc Mauer published his useful b o o k , Race to Incarcerate, N e w York: T h e N e w Press, 1999. The leading criminologist Michael Tonry comes t o similar

conclusions in his Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment in America, N e w York: Oxford University Press, 1995. I n May 2000, Human Rights Watch released a comprehensiv e survey o f racism and incarceration ,

Punishment and Prejudice: RacialDisparities in the War on Drugs,

New

York:

Human Rights Watch, vol. 12, no. 2 (G), 2000. 28 29

All data is from the Bureau o f Justice Statistics. Marc Mauer, Young Black Men and the CriminalJustice System: A Growing National Problems, Washington, D C : Sentencing Project, 1990.

30

I invite the reader

to

visit my book Fat Cats and Running Dogs, pp.

164-166, where I offer some details o n the Citibank-Salinas connection. F o r more o n the role o f the CIA, see Alexander Cockburn and Jetfrey St.

Clair, Whiteont: The CLA, Drugs and the Press, London: Verso, 1998. 31

Barry R. McCaffrey, “Race and Drugs: Perception and Reality, New Rules for Crack Versus Powder Cocaine,” Washington Times, October 5,

1997. The article in the Journal of Alcohol! and Drug Education (1995) was entitled “Drug U s e and African Americans: M y t h Versus Reality” and it

32 33

was written b y Burston, Jones, and Robert-Saunders. Salim Muwakkil, “The Criminal Just-Us System,” In These Times, April 19,

1993, pp. 26-27. “US Appeal’s Judge’s Sentences That Defy Mandatory Guidelines,” New York Times, August 29, 1993. The case is US v. Hawley (984 F. 2d 252) in the Eighth Circuit, 1993.

34

“Sentencing in the Federal Courts: Does Race Matter? The Transition t o Sentencing Guidelines,

1986-1990: Summary,”

Washington, D C :

Bureau ofJustice Statistics, 1993. 35

David Baldus, Charles Pulaski, and George Woodworth, “Monitoring

and Evaluating Temporary Death Sentencing Systems: Lessons from Georgia,” 18 U C Davis Law Review 1375, 1985 and Idem., “Comparative

36

Review o f Death Sentences: A n Empirical Study o f the Georgia Experience,” 74 Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology 661, 1983. Speech at Annual Dinner in Honor o f the Judiciary, American Bar Association, 1990, The NationalLaw Journal, February 8, 1993.

37

Jettrey Pokorak, “Probing

the Capital P r o s e c u t o r ’ s Perspective: Race

and Gender o f the Discretionary Actors,” 83 Comell Law Review 1811,

1998. 38

David Baldus a n d George Woodworth,

“Race Discrimination

America’s Capital Punishment System Since Furman v. Georgia

in

(1972):

T h e Ewidence o f Race Disparities a n d the Record o f O u r Courts a n d

Legislatures in Addressing This Issue,” Report for the American Bar Association, 1997, or “Race Discrimination and the Death Penalty in the Post-Furman Era: A n Empirical and Legal Analysis with Receng Findings

Prison

39

125

from Philadelphia,” 83 CornellLaw Review 1638, 1998. F o r an excellent analysis o f the McCleskey case, see Chaka M . Patterson,

“Race and the Death Penalty: The Tension between Individualized Justice and Racially Neutral Standards,” Texas WesleyanLaw Review, vol. 2, no. 1, Summer 1995 as well as the ubiquitous, Baldus, Pulaski, and Woodworth, “Law and Statutes i n Conflict: Reflections o n McCleskey v.

Kemp,” Handbook ofPsychology andLaw, ed. Dorothy Kagehiro and William Laufer, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992. 40

B a c k e d b y evidence o f racism i n the judicial system, a movement against t h e d e a t h penalty seems t o b e i n formation i n the

generally liberal

state

US. I n 1997, the

o f Massachusetts almost reinstated the death

penalty under pressure from right-wing politicians. O n the heels o f the L o u i s e Woodward case, public demonstrations prevented the passage o f

the Massachusetts reinstatement by one

English a u pair w h o was charged with

vote

(Ms. Woodward was an

the murder o f a n infant, b u t public

outcry stayed the hand o f the court and she was let off with time

served—that 1s, the time o f her trial where she was found guilty o f murder). One could be more sanguine about this if the ultimate punishment were n o t death. I n April 1999, the US opposed the U N Human Rights Commission’s moratorium on executions (India 41

abstained). State-sanctioned racist murder, it seems, will not cease. Libero Della Piana, “From the Cold War t o the War o n Crime,” Third Force, N o v e m b e r / D e c e m b e r 1994, p . 8.

42

Sam Vincent Meddis and Deborah Sharp, “Prison Business 1s a

Blockbuster,” USA Today, December 13, 1994. 43

T h e best summary o f this material i s i n George

Lipsitz,

The Possessive

Investment in Whiteness, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998, 44

Chapter 1. Tamar Lewin, “Low Pay and Closed Doors Confront Young Job Seekers,” New York Times, March 10, 1994.

45

In

2002, data

shows that “ t h e unemployment rate for college graduates

has risen as much since early last year as it has for high school dropouts. Joblessness among whites has increased b y about the same amount, i n

proportional terms, as i t has among blacks and Hispanics.” David Leonhardt and Daniel Altman, “With Few Jobs Being Created, Pain Is Felt Far and Wide,” New York Times, October 13, 2002. 46

47

48

Richard Barnet, “The End ofJ o b s , ” Harper's, September 1993, p. 43. Between 1982 and 1988 (the “magical” Reagan years), 15 million new jobs were created a n d m o s t o f these jobs were i n t h e service sector (which has since borne many o f the cuts alongside manufacturing). Glenn C. Loury, “The Moral Quandary o f the Black Community,” The Public Interest 79, Spring 1985, p. 12. Much o f this work is the result o f the New Chicago School, mainly from students o f William J. Wilson such as Sudhir Venkatesh (see his t w o

126

Prison

papers, “Getting Ahead: Social Mobility Among the Urban Poor,” Sociological Perspectives, vol. 37, no. 2, 1994, and “The Social Organization

o f Street Gang Activity in the Urban Ghetto,” AmericanJournalofSociology, vol. 103, no. 1, July 1997) and Loic Wacquant, “America as Realized

Social Dystopia: the politics of urban disintegration,” InternationalJournal o f Contemporary Sociology, vol. 34, n o . 1 , 1997. T h e philosopher Charles

Mills points

out

that the

term

used

to

designate the class of the

contingent, the “underclass,” operates in popular discourse i n such a way as “ a class which is not a class, a social entity which is asocial.” Chatles

W. Mills, “Under Class Under Standings,” E#bes, vol. 104, July 1994, p. 49

858. William Julius Wilson, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor, N e w York: Random H o u s e , 1996, p . xi.

50 51

Manning Marable, The Crusis of Color and Democracy, Monroe: Common Courage, 1992, pp. 18-19. Angela Y . Davis, “Masked Racism: Reflections o n the Prison Industrial Complex,” ColorLines, vol. 1, no. 2, Fall 1998, p . 12 and p . 13. For an extension o f her crucial arguments about prisons and capitalism, see

“From the Prison o f Slavery

to

the Slavery o f Prisons: Frederick

Douglass and the Convict Lease System” and “Racialized Punishment

and Prison Abolition,” The Angela Y. Davis Reader, Ed. Joy James, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1998. 52

Gregory Winter, ““I'rading Places: W h e n Prisons Substitute for Social

Programs,” ColorLines, vol. 1, no. 2, Fall 1998, p. 22.

Part o f My

53

Amnesty International’s excellent report is entitled N o t

54

Sentence: Violations of the Human Rights of Women in Custody, A l , 1999. Nell Bernstein, “Left Behind: Tens o f Thousands o f Children Have a

55

Parent Behind Bars. What Are the Social Costs of Their Loss?” Mother Jones, July 10, 2001. M y data is from Howard N . Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, [xvenile Offenders and 17ictims, Washington, D C : Office o f Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999.

56

Barry Feld, “Criminalizing the American Juvenile Court,” 17 Crime and

Justice 197 (1993), p. 251. Barry Feld’s monograph, BadKids: Race and the Transformation of the Juvenile Court, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, should b e compulsory reading for anyone w h o pretends t o make public policy.

57 58

“Youth Curfews o n the Rise,” Associated Press, November 30, 1997.

Human Rights Watch, WorldReport 2007, New York: HRW, 2001. From a decade before, one might want to see Amnesty International,

Allegations of Police Torture in Chicago, Illinois, London: Amnesty International,

1990. W h e n

George B u s h the

Elder

spoke

of bombing

Iraq because o f an Amnesty International report o n torture o f Kuwaitis,

a few o f us marched in Chicago with copies o f this documeny, recently

Prison

127

released, with the slogan, “ I f Kuwait is Area 1, Chicago is Area 2 , ” Area 2

being the police station o f the brutality

at

the intersection o f 91st Street

a n d Cottage Grove Avenue. I t was n o t the best slogan, b u t i t h a d good

59

intentions. Kelsey WNautman, The Brotherhood: Racism and Intimidation Among Prison Staff a t the Indiana Correctional Facility-Putnamville, Greencastle, Indiana:

Russell J. Compton Center for Peace and Justice, D e Paul University,

2001. 60

E v e Goldberg and Linda Evans, “The Prison Industrial Complex and the

61

Global Economy,” Berkeley: Prison Activist Resource Center. Hongda (Harry) Wu, Laogai: The Chinese Gulag, Boulder: Westview Press,

1992. 62

Harry Wu, “ A Chinese Word May 26, 1996.

63

James Seymour a n d Richard Anderson, N e w Ghosts, Old Ghosts: Prisons

to

Remember—I_aggaz,” Washington Post,

and Labor Reform Camps in China, N e w York: M . E . Sharpe, 1998. 64

Muriel Cooper, “Add Justice t o Shopping List: Harry Wu helps kick otf U F C W Wal-Mart drive,” AFL-CIO News, December 1, 1995.

65

I n 1999, the U S government began a n investigation o f W e n H o Lee, a

scientist

at

the US government’s Los Alamos laboratory. The FBI

charged Lee with giving nuclear secrets t o China, even as Lee, a

long-time employee o f the government, denied all charges. Finally, after b l u s t e r from t h e government, the General Accounting

Office

showed

that the main agents i n the field offered incomplete testimony t o railroad Lee. Vernon Loeb, “ F B I Official Misled Congress About Lee, G A O 66

Says,” Washington Post, June 29, 2001. Dexter Roberts and Stan Crock, “Is I t Cold Enough for You?” Business Week, March 29, 1999, p. 40.

67

Letter from Henry Gonzalez (representative o f the 20th district, Texas) t o Carol Hallett, commissioner o f US Customs, March 18, 1992. The

68 69 70 71 72

contours o f the debate are laid o u t i n Gary Martin, “Gonzalez flails use o f Mexican ‘slaves,” San Antonio Express-News, March 29, 1992. Christian Parenti, Lockdown America, p. 217. June 1, 1997. K e n Silverstein, “America’s Private Gulag,” Counterpunch, Vince Beiser, “ H o w we got to t w o million,” Mother Jones, July 10, 2001. F o r m o r e o n Halliburton, see my Fart Cats and Running Dogs, pp. 62-060. Paulette Thomas, “Making Crime Pay: triangle of interests creates

infrastructure t o fight lawlessness,” Wall StreetJournal, May 12, 1994. 73

With the increasing number o f life sentences i n jails, some people speculating that s o o n p r i s o n s will have t o build geriatric wards

74

need m o r e g o v e r n m e n t funded medical personnel. E r i c Schlosser, “ T h e P r i s o n Industrial Complex,” Atlantic

282, December 6, 1998.

ate

which will

Monthly, vol.

128

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

75

Meddis and Sharp, “Prison Business,” quotes Meredith D e Hart o f the Census Bureau.

76

There are a h o s t o f other firms that I have n o t taken u p i n detail: Cornell,

77

Esmor, Pricor, Management & Training Corp., Correction Services Corp., Dominion Correction Services, Maranatha Corrections, Tuscolanta Corrections. Philip Mattera and Mafruza Khan, Ja:/ Breaks: Economic Development Subsidies G e n to Private Prisons, Washington, D C : Good Jobs First, 2001.

“The actual rate,” they underscore, “is very likely higher, but c a n n o t be determined because state corporate income tax credits are n o t 78

disclosed.” DBL was the company that made “junk b o n d s ” a h o u s e h o l d word i n the

1980s, under the stewardship of Michael Millken. The story o n Pricor was summarized by Covert Action in tall 1993, drawing from William P. Barrett, “I Guess We Look Stupid,” Forbes, February 3, 1992, and Kyle Pope, “Prison Sellers Fail i n Texas, Take Pitch East, Suits Pursue Backers o f Florida Jail Deal,” Houston Chronicle, March 3, 1992, 79

For example (and again, thanks t o Covert Action for the citations), Rhoda

Hillbery, “They Built It, But Inmates Didn’t Come: Minnesota Town’s Private Prison, Built t o Create Jobs, Attracted N o ‘Clients, Los Angeles Times, February 23; 1993; Richard Witt, “Crime Doesn’t Pay Off for

Irwin County Jail: Rental Prison Holds Hard Lessons in Finance,” 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Atlanta Journal and Constitution, February 7 , 1993. Silverstein, “America’s Private Gulag.”

Ibid. Alex Friedmann, “ P r i s o n Privatization: the b o t t o m line,” Corpwarch,

August 21, 1999. Parenti, Lockdown America, pp. 221-25. Friedmann, “Prison Privatization.” Goldberg and Evans, “The Prison Industrial Complex.”

Telephone conversation with Larry Walsh o f the RICI, December 16,

1994. 87

T h e information o n Arizona comes from Corrections Digest, November 17, 1993. I a m grateful t o Jenni Gainsborough o f the National Prison

Project (ACLU) for her help with information. The late Kathy DeLeon, who served nine months in federal prison, told me that she did n o t make more than pennies for her work. She died i n custody, n o t long thereafter.

88 89 90

The case, decided o n November 1, 1993, is Hale v. Arizona, 93-353. Parenti, Lockdown America, pp. 230-31.

Parenti, Lockdown America, p. 232, and Cynthia Young, “Punishing Labor: W h y Labor Should O p p o s e the Prison Industrial Complex,” N e w Labor Forum, n o . 7, Fall/Winter 2000, p . 41.

91 92

Goldberg and Evans, “Prison Industrial Complex.”

Lucia Hwang, “Working for Nothing: The Failure o f Prison Industry

Prison

129

Programs,” Third Force, vol. 4, no. 3, July/August 1996 and Parent, Lockdown America, pp. 230-235.

93 94

Young, “Punishing Labor,” p. 47. F o r m o r e details o n the campaign a n d o n M P L U , contact Michael Lee,

Communications Ofticer o f the MPLU, a t 2435 E . North St., P M B 255, Greenville,

95

SC 29615 o r by email, convict78(@hotmail.com.

G M , meanwhile, 1s i n a crisis o f its own. O n June 5, 1998, workers at

GM’s Flint Metal Center w e n t on strike; six days later their comrades from the Delphi East components plant in Flint, Michigan, joined them. B y mid-June, 9,200 United Auto Workers (UAW) members were o n

strike against GM. They had idled 23 assembly plants and 94 parts plants, with just over 100,000 additional workers oft work. G M operations in the US, Mexico, Canada and Singapore had been halted. Further, in N o r t h America, 83 percent o f GM’s production was o n hold. G M controls 31 percent o f the world’s automobile share. U A W went o n strike with t w o demands o n the table: (1) That G M reneged o n a 1995

promise

to

upgrade the Flint plants with a capital infusion o f $500

million. The company p u t i n $120 million and then used the rest to

bargain with UAW. G M wanted U A W t o decrease its control over certain aspects o f the production process (safety rules, etc). Instead o f putting capital into an older plant, G M wanted t o shift its production site t o Mexico (where i t would build a new mechanized factory and use the

cheaper, non-union, Mexican labor). (2) That G M use contract labor for its low-tech work, a process that c o s t U A W 2,500 jobs. With no c o m m o n language o n these issues, the talks went nowhere. There was a

time a few decades ago when G M controlled close t o half the world’s automobile market. By the late 1990s, its share went down t o 31 percent, but this did n o t hurt GM’s capacity to earn enormous profits. I n 1995, the company p o s t e d a n annual profit o f $6.9 billion (four times more

than the gross national product o f Nicaragua). I n the third quarter o f 1997, G M ’ s profits totaled $1.1 billion (with $423 million o r 40 percent earned from N o r t h American operations).

This profit

was earned by a t

least three means: (1) a reduction o f man-hours required t o assemble cars b y 62 percent (from 39 hours to 24 hours) and a general increase i n the speed

of

the plants;

(2)

a decrease

in

the workforce o f

150,000 US

workers from 1979 to 1990 (compensated b y lower-wage workers i n

Mexican maquiladoras or sweatshop factories); (3) a use o f profits for dividends t o shareholders and as salaries t o management rather than for

reinvestment i n the deteriorating physical plant o f US factories. For the workers the situation was bleak. Since the late 1970s, U A W lost over

550,000 members. “Those workers who were laid off,” says Sean McAlinden o f the University o f Michigan, “disappeared into nothingness—they got nothing.” This strike represented the frustrations

130

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

o f the workers against the globalization o f

capital. UAW

President

Stephen Yokich congratulated G M for its 1995 record profit, but complained that management did n o t give proper credit t o the union for its role

in

enhancing the bottom line.

In a n excellent example o f

collaboration between workers and management, U A W asked for just a little b i t more o f the p i e rather than challenge the unequal basis o f labor a n d capital. UAW l o s t the action.

96

Alisa Solomon, “Detainees Equal Dollars. The Rise o f Immigrant Incarcerations drive a prison boom,” Village Voice, August 14-20, 2002. Solomon’s many writings o n immigrant detention, l o n g before 9 / 1 1 , provide a road-map for the lay reader. I have relied u p o n it extensively

97

for this section. Keep in mind that by mid-2002, the rate of inmates increased by only a percent, but this number does n o t count those who are held in detention. Fox Butterfield, “ 1 % Increase i n US Inmates 1s Lowest Rate i n Three Decades,” New York Times, July 31, 2002.

98 99

Alisa Solomon, “Locked Up in Limbo,” POZ, September 1999, pp. 82-36. Alisa S o l o m o n , “Yearning t o Breathe Free,” Village Voice, August 8, 1995; “Wackenhut Detention Ordeal,” Vilage 170ice, September 1-7, 1999; “ A Dream Detained,” Village 170ice, March 24-30, 1999; “Sweet

Release,” Village Voice, June 8, 1999. 1 0 0 Tram Nguyen, “Detained or Disappeared?” ColorLines, vol. 5, issue 2, Summer 2002. 1 0 1 Marika Litras and J o h n Scalia, “Immigration Offenders i n the Federal

Criminal Justice System, 2000,” Washington, DC: BJS, 2002 (NCJ-191745). 102 Alisa Solomon, “Wackenhut Detention Ordeal.” 103 The details are in my Fat Cats and Running Dogs. 1 0 4 John Sullivan a n d Matthew Purdy, “In Corrections

Business,

Shrewdness Pays: A Prison Empire,” N e w York Times, July 23, 1995. 1 0 5 U S Immigration and Naturalization Service, The Elizabeth N e w Jersey,

ContractDetentionFacility Operatedby Esmor, Inc.:Interim Report,July 20, 1995. 106 David Gonzales, “Jail Uprising Leaves Many Sad and Bitter,” New York

Times, June 25, 1995. 107 H u m a n Rights Watch, Locked Away: Imnigration Detainees United States, N e w Y o r k : HRW, September

in Jails in

the

1998. HRW’s evidence came

from interviews and from three news reports: Christine Gardner,

“Defense Argues for U S Guards i n Trial O v e r Illegal Immigrants,”

Reuters, March 3, 1998; “Detained Immigrant Recalls Rough Treatment at Union County Jail,” Associated Press, February 2, 1998; Ronald

Smothers, “Immigrants Tell o f Mistreatment by New Jersey Jail Guards,” New York Times, February 6, 1998. 1 0 8 Teresa Mears, “Detainees Held by INS say Jails Rife with Abuse,” Boston Globe, August 2, 1998, and Human Rights Watch, LockedAway.

Prison

131

1 0 9 T h e furor a r o u n d the spurious b o o k The Bell Curve illustrates the reactionary urge t o justify inequality by a n argument for natural

differences Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, The Bell Curve. Intelligence and Class Structure in America, N e w York: The Free Press, 1994,

but for several useful critical essays, The Bell Curve Wars: Race, Intelligence and the Future ofAmerica, ed. Steve Fraser, N e w York: Basic Books, 1995. 110 I n a speech i n Minnesota, Gingrich told the G O P faithful that the

Constitution calls for “life, liberty and the pursuit o f happiness,” and that “it doesn’t call for a federal entitlement t o happiness. I t doesn’t say a federal department o f happiness. There’s n o quota or set-aside for happiness.” “Gingrich Accuses Clinton of Avoiding Recommendations,” Minnesota Daily, February 8, 1990. 1 1 1 Angela Davis, “From the Prison o f Slavery t o the Slavery o f Prison:

Frederick Douglass and the Convict Lease System,” The Angela Y. Danis Reader.

112 Susan Rosenberg, “Female Political Prisoners and Anti-Imperialist

Struggle,” Journal ofPrisoners on Prison, vol. 2, no. 2, Spring 1990. There are two

extraordinary collections being edited by Joy James: Imprisoned

Intellectuals: America’s Political Prisoners, Liberation and Rebellion, Lanham, M D : Rowman and Littlefield, 2003, and _.Abolition: Incarceration,

Enslavement and Rebellion, Albany: SUNY Press, forthcoming. 113 George Jackson, Blood in My Eye, Baltimore: Black Classics Press, 1990, pp. 99-100. 114 T o reach the Jericho Movement, c o n t a c t the National Organizing Committee a t P. O . Box 650, N e w York, N Y 10009, 212-502-1143, www.thejerichomovement.com. 1 1 5 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2007, N e w York: HRW, 2001. 1 1 6 Materials o n the Angola 3 are available a t www.angola3.org. 117 Jamie Fellner and Marc Mauer, Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony

Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 1998. 118 Patricia Allard and Marc Mauer, Regaining the Vote: A n Assessment of Activity Relating to Felon Disenfranchisement Laws, Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2000. 119 Andrea Smith, “Colors o f Violence,” Colorlines, vol. 3, no. 4, Winter 2000-2001. 1 2 0 Angela Davis, “The Color o f Violence Against Women,” Colorlines, vol. 3. no. 3, Fall 2000. 1 2 1 Davis, “The Color o f Violence.” The All-India Democratic Women’s

Alliance has been

at

work for almost

two

decades on community

transformation as a means t o struggle against misogynist violence.

Elisabeth Armstrong’s forthcoming work on the subject will address this theme a t length. See, “From Hands t o Mouths: AIDWA and the Politics o f Funding,” ANNALS:JournalofPoliticalandSocialScience, forthcoming.

132

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

122 Rick Sauve offers a caveat against the utopianism o f the idea o f abolition, but it seems t o m e that

CR’s program i s

far

from utopian

a n d close t o

what Sauve calls the “dismantling o f this monstrosity.” “Prison Abolition: T h e N e e d for Decriminalization,” Journal o fPrisoners on Prison,

vol. 1, no. 1, Summer 1988.

123 www.criticalresistance.org/whatisabolitio html. n.

WORKFARE I ’ m a w o m a n . I ' m a black woman. I ’ m a p o o r woman. I ’ m a fat w o m a n . I’m a middle-aged woman. A n d I ’ m o n welfare.

I n this country, i f you're any one o f these things you count

less as a human being. I f you’re all those things, you don’t c o u n t at all. E x c e p t as a statistic. Welfare’s like a traffic

accident. I t can happen t o anybody, b u t especially i t

happens to women. A s far as I ’ m concerned, the ladies o f

N W R O [National Welfare Rights Organization] are the front-line t r o o p s o f w o m e n ’ s freedom. B o t h because w e

have so few illusions and because our issues are so important t o all women—the right t o a living wage for

women’s work, the right

to

life itself. — Johnnie Tillmon, 1972!

ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF CLINTONVILLE, 1999 I

Philadelphia, within sight o f the Liberty Bell, a group o f workingclass folk w i t h o u t h o m e s set up a tent city t o p r o t e s t the w a r against

the poor. They were part o f the Kensington Welfare Rights Union

(KWRU), a group formed in April 1991 t o fight the Pennsylvania-wide c u t s i n welfare s u p p o r t s for t h e u n e m p l o y e d contingent working class.

Following

t e n t cities, marches, and finally a Freedom B u s t o u r

(Freedom from Unemployment, Hunger and Homelessness), the KWRU occupied the land beside the Liberty Bell t o protest Clinton’s “welfare r e f o r m ” bill o f 1996. Their t e n t city w a s n a m e d “ C l i n t o n v i l l e . ”

In

Boston, Massachusetts, a professor at Brandeis

University

s u b m i t t e d a review o f Nobel-laureate R o b e r t M . Solow’s Work and

Welfare t o the Times Literary Supplement. T h e essay, “ C l i n t o n ’ s Leap i n the

Dark’ appeared in 1999, as plans for Clintonville germinated among K W R U organizers. I n the article, the professor, Robert Reich, former

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

134

secretary o f labor during Clinton’s first term as president, explained the

hotror felt by the liberals in the Democratic Party by the Welfare Bill o f 1996.% Reich wrote: W h e n during his 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton vowed t o ‘end welfare as w e k n o w it’ b y moving people

“from welfare t o work,” h e presumably did not have in mind the legislation which h e signed into law i n August 1996. T h e

original idea had been t o smooth the passage from welfare t o work with guaranteed healthcare, childcare, job training and a j o b paying enough t o live on. A s a result former welfare

recipients would gain dignity and independence, and society as a whole would have the benefits o f their labors.

Furthermore, Reich noted, “The 1996 legislation contained none o f these supports—no healthcare or childcare for people coming off welfare, n o job training, n o assurance o f a job paying a living wage, nor, for that matter, o f a j o b at any wage. I n effect, what was dubbed welfare

‘reform’ merely ended the promise o f help t o the indigent and their children which Franklin D . Roosevelt had initiated more than 60 years before.” So far, the tenants o f Clintonville would agree with this confederate o f Clinton. B u t welfare organizers, such as the K W R U , hit a stone wall with

the national media as well as i n the corridors o f power. N o one cared t o hear criticism o f the bull.

The White House, meanwhile, was jubilant about the bill. Clinton reserved his glee for a n August 1 9 9 9 welfare-to-work conference i n Chicago, w h e n h e argued that all states h a d fulfilled their quotas o f

getting people off welfare t o work, with 35 percent o f welfare recipients

with jobs by the end of 1998. Behind Clinton, a slew o f governmental and nongovernmental studies showed, however, that the scenario did n o t merit such p r a i s e . I n early August, the Urban Institute reported that

most

women who left welfare went into the low-wage sector, with a

third i n straits o f hunger, with 4 0 percent unable t o pay rent a n d with

two-thirds

without health insurance.” Another

Urban Institute

study

and a report from the General Accounting Office, both published in

1999, showed that as the poor dropped o u t from Food Stamp eligibility, the demands on charity food banks increased in proportion. Seven and a half million people left the Food Stamp program between.

April 1996 and 1999, and, as the G A O noted, the drop in child 2

Workfare

135

participation “dropped more sharply than the number o f children living in poverty, indicating a growing gap between need and assistance.” Struck b y the multitude o f reports such as these, Senator

Paul Wellstone raised his voice against welfare “reform,” o n l y t o find the m e d i a a n d the experts d e a f t o h i s announcement: There’s b e e n a flurry o f credible reports suggesting that all

1s n o t well with welfare reform yet President Clinton and Vice President Gore continue t o claim that welfare is “working.” What they overlook 1s why, a t a time when the weltare rolls have been c u t in half and the economy is booming, we n o w are finding

that

millions more children

are going t o bed hungry each night; demand for emergency food assistance is growing; millions o f p o o r families are

dropping off the Food Stamp rolls faster than economic indicators would predict; and former welfare recipients are

losing their medical coverage, c a n n o t make the

rent

and

utilities, and are unable t o afford child care. These are n o t the results o f successful reform. T h e welfare rolls m a y have b e e n c u t i n half, b u t n o t poverty.’

Robert Reich walked the same road as Wellstone o n this one:

We have no way o f knowing how many o f these people are in permanent jobs paying a living wage, or are in temporary jobs paying so little t h a t they have t o double up with other family members and leave their children a t home alone during the day, or are living o n the s t r e e t . And we may never know, even after the economy slides into recession, and t h e ranks o f the unemployed begin t o grow once again. T h e sad truth

1s t h a t

America has e m b a r k e d o n t h e largest

social experiment it has undertaken in this half o f the twentieth century without even adequate base-line data from which researchers can infer what has happened, or deduce w h a t will happen, t o large numbers o f p o o r p e o p l e

who no longer receive help. Then, h e paused, and justified the need for a Clinton-type reform,

although he would have removed people from welfare with a soft landing. Most American women with young children, he argued, work, and “ m a n y o f t h e m are struggling t o m a k e ends m e e t . ” T h e y are w i t h o u t healthcare and daycare, t w o i m p o r t a n t ingredients for a wage

136

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

worker’s life. Given that they work and have n o support, Reich noted, “It has seemed increasingly unfair for poor non-working mothers t o receive welfare benefits.” T h e unfairness was heightened, Reich argued, because “ a highly visible portion o f these beneficiaries (although not a

majority) was black o r Hispanic.” W h y did the government need t o conduct welfare “reform”? T w o reasons, said Reich: (1) Because there are m o r e working poor

in the country a n d i f

they can work, a n d not get

support, it was “politically untenable” t o provide welfare t o some; (2)

“Being ‘tough’ on welfare thus seemed t o be a

matter

of imposing

discipline o n a group o f people w h o are morally lax and undeserving,

relative t o the increasingly hard-pressed working families just above them.” I n other words, the contingent and working class had to be

treated equitably, whether employed or not, and these new mechanisms would help discipline the entire class o f low-wage and no-wage workers.

Reich, one of those who disavowed the pressure of policy creation based o n demographic support, nevertheless touted the line that welfare creates a racist form of jealousy among white workers and the administration must undercut that by ending “welfare as w e know i t . ” F r o m Reich, then, w e get a n adequate confession o f the reasons for

welfare “reform,” despite the full knowledge o f the misery it created. The issue here 1s not that the government did not k n o w what it was

doing,

that one more study, just one more, might convince people o f the inherent cruelty o f n e w policy. They knew that welfare “reform” meant grief. However, t o appeal t o the (white) working class, the Clinton Democrats

felt that they had t o shrug off their social democratic commitments t o the multi-ethnic working class i n general. Furthermore, i f prisons provided o n e means t o discipline the contingent class o f workers, welfare

“reform” provided one more way to “discipline” (this is now Reich’s term as well) the “morally

“reform”

lax” underclass. T h e strategy o f welfare

was not t o provide independence t o the

people, it

was t o

ensure that those without any hope o f getting a good j o b would b e disciplined b y the private sector and starvation, o r else g o t o prison i f they took any action against the state. This i s a far cry from freedom.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF WELFARE In January 1935, the US Congress, at the initiative o f F D R , p a s s e d the Social Security A c t t o provide relief t o t h e impoverished, unemploym ent insurance t o the laid off, as well as social insurance !

Workfare

137

schemes for retirement and disability. The omnibus a c t

set

in place a

two-tier system o f social benefits: for those within the world o f work, the benefits o f retirement and disability insurance provided a genuine

comfort, while the working poor could only take refuge in highly punitive forms o f charity through programs s u c h as A i d t o D e p e n d e n t

Children (ADC) and other forms o f relief.° Furthermore, there was another two-tier’ system, this within ADC, as Linda Gordon notes: “ B l a c k s were systematically deprived o f access t o A D C benefits.” T h e charity

side o f the Social Security A c t did n o t

m e a n that the state acted

benevolently toward the working poor; rather, the state adopted

policies t o monitor, regulate, and discipline the working p o o r , w h o had t o succumb t o these techniques i f they wanted the check from the

government. T h e

state manipulated assistance t o

the wiles

of

macroeconomic conditions: w h e n there was a need for contingent and

low-wage work, the managers o f A D C and other charity programs

suspended aid t o drive people t o work, set rates much below wage rates (following the principle of “less eligibility”), used residency requirements t o shunt newcomers when 1t suited them, or else argued that the mother o f the dependent child had a lover w h o could care for the child (“midnight raids” b y the government t o check o n A D C recipients were

part o f the story of the disciplinary procedures o f the state).” I n 1961, the US government allowed two-parent families with an unemployed father t o avail themselves o f the newly renamed Aid t o

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Two years later, the federal government created the Medicaid and Food Stamp programs that disbursed medical and food assistance t o those o n AFDC, as well

as others. I n 1964, the Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act—legislation i n t e n d e d t o be the centerpiece o f the government’s “unconditional w a r o n p o v e r t y . ” T h e s e programs sent considerable

money into the segregated zones o f the poor, and, as Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward argued, “ F o r a time these programs did n o t so m u c h m o d e r a t e u n r e s t as p r o v i d e the vehicles through w h i c h the b l a c k g h e t t o s mobilized

t o d e m a n d g o v e r n m e n t services. T h e y

activated a n e w leadership structure i n the ghettos and they also

activated masses o f b l a c k p o o r . ” O n e o f those w h o began t o receive welfare, became political through the mechanisms o f social control set u p b y the state (such as the

“midnight raids”), and then helped form the [LA-based Aid

to

Needy

138

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Children—Mothers Anonymous (ANC-Mothers Anonymous) in 1962 was Johnnie Tillmon. Raised in a rural Arkansas family o f sharecroppers, Tillmon moved t o California, worked in a series o f jobs despite a host o f illnesses, raised six children o n her own, and then, when too sick t o work, she turned t o the government w h o had till then gladly received her taxes,

its social contract with dignity. Once she was organized, Tillmon’s political consciousness moved swiftly:

but failed t o live up People

to

just started talking.

W e found out t h a t all over the

country the attitudes o f the general public a n d t h e welfare

department, were the same toward anybody o n welfare.

The people from New York got treated by the social workers a n d the o t h e r p e o p l e the same as they did i n Mississippi. I n the past, m o s t o f u s had b e e n so ashamed that w e were o n welfare that w e wouldn’t even

admit i t

to

another welfare recipient. But as we talked t o each other, w e forgot about all the shame, and as w e listened t o the

horrible treatment and conditions all over the country, we could begin

thinking about the idea that maybe i t

wasn’t us

that should b e a s h a m e d . "

Tillmon, Dovie Coleman, Dorothy Dimascio, Edith Doering, Ruby Duncan, Kate Emmerson, Bertha Hernandez, Etta Horn, Catherine

Jermany, Frankie Jeter, Marion Kidd, Margaret McCarthy, Alice Nixon, Carmen Olivio, and Beulah Sanders found George Wiley, a Syracuse

University chemistry professor who quit his job t o lead the newly formed National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) in 1967.'"! These women, with Wiley and a h o s t o f other organizers and allies such as

Madeleine Adamson, Barbara Bowen, Richard Cloward, Gary Delgado, Marcia Henry, Hulbert James, Rhoda Linton, Bill Pastreich, Wade

Rathke, Mark Splain, Tim Sampson and the Reverend Paul Younger, pushed the federal government with a novel approach t o welfare rights. T h e anti-poverty programs legitimized the demand for welfare, turning i t , a t least i n the eyes o f the contingent class, into a right a n d n o t

charity. T h e rhetoric o f the Civil Rights movement underscored the power o f the state and its ability t o defraud people o f their just desserts.

I n his famous address a t the March o n Washington (August 28, 1963), for example, Martin Luther King, Jr., censured the United States for its failure t o live its Constitutional creed. He said:

Workfare

139

Instead o f honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check; a check which has come

back marked “insufficient funds.” We refuse t o believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults o f opportunity o f this nation. And so we've come t o cash this check, a check that will

give u s u p o n demand the riches o f

freedom and the

security o f justice.’ S o m e m a y believe that this i s metaphoric, b u t m a n y w o u l d have

instinctively found h e r e a programmatic call for economic justice from the state.

After a study o f welfare programs, Piven and Cloward published a charter for s o c i a l action in the Nation called “ A Strategy t o End Poverty” (it appeared o n M a y 2 , 1966, although 1n circulation for at least six m o n t h s prior t o publication), j u s t as almost 2 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e i n

Ohio marched from Cleveland t o C o l u m b u s o n a welfare rights march. T h e Piven-Cloward plan did n o t g o after the broad structural forces

that produced the condition o f the contingent, but it demanded that t h o s e without h o p e o f a j o b earn a guaranteed i n c o m e . With this as a goal, Piven-Cloward felt that mass-based organization was n o t as

important as mobilized disruption o f the system by the poor across the country. I f the p o o r demanded welfare according t o the government’s

o w n criteria, the welfare rolls would expand, begin t o impact state budgets a n d therefore bring the question o f poverty t o the forefront o f

the electoral battles. I n other words, rather than organize those i n poverty, “ t o mobilize for a welfare disruption, families would b e

encouraged t o demand relief.”'* This became the principle strategy o f

the NWRO, a t least from 1967 t o 1972. In the early 1960s, less than a million people had been o n the welfare rolls; by 1972, three million d e m a n d e d welfare t o t h e tune o f $5 bilion—a victory for the m o v e m e n t , a t any rate, as well as a step toward the national

conversation on poverty envisaged by NWRO. That was n o t t o come. In 1968, President Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) designed t o c u t social welfare, and instead t o provide a family o f four w i t h a guaranteed a n n u a l income o f

$2,600 (Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Guaranteed Annual Income came t o only $1,800). Far below the poverty line, NWRO resisted it with a campaign called “Live o n a Welfare Budget,” a challenge t o the families o f Congressional leaders t o d o their b e s t o n this

low income. N W R O

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

140

had already discussed the issue o f a guaranteed annual income, and i t h a d placed this important demand i n its platform. Reflecting o n

NWRO’s demand, Tillmon wrote: W e put together our o w n welfare plan, called Guaranteed

Adequate Income (GAI), which would eliminate sexism from welfare. There would be n o “categories” —men, women, children, single, married, kids, n o kids—just poor people w h o n e e d aid. Y o u ’ d get paid according t o n e e d and family size only a n d that would b e u p p e d as t h e c o s t o f

living goes u p . ”

I n 1969, NWRO’s membership totaled 22,000—the apex o f the movement.

A lack of liberal support for welfare rights (support = cash),

several tactical errors b y N W R O , and a leadership crisis crippled

NWRO’s ability t o be effective as Nixon set the seeds for a lurch t o the Right.'® When Nixon announced his “welfare reform” agenda, NWRO was n o t capable o f a riposte—it had mobilized people t o sign up for welfare, but as N i x o n ’ s rules p u t pressure o n the states t o treat those o n

welfare as criminals, NWRO did n o t have the organizational capacity t o respond. In 1970, the federal government turned over administrative power t o the states t o monitor welfare recipients. I f a state showed that more than three percent o f those w h o took welfare had been ineligible, i t would have t o pay a fine t o the government. Rather than get t o the

stage o f a fine, the states became strict with welfare recipients, cut back the disbursements and gained needed fiscal reliet—on the backs o f the indigent. Despite several Supreme Court decisions on behalf o f the broadest welfare payouts from 1968 t o 1970, the courts refused t o establish a constitutional “right t o life” (or t o follow the broad entitlements enacted in the International Declaration o f Human Rights, 1948—refused by the United States and many other states around the w o r l d ) . ! ”

I n 1972, Nixon offered the slogan “Workfare, n o t Welfare,” where

he returned the emphasis of federal welfare programs from the side o f a guaranteed income t o a disciplinary procedure t o drive the contingent

class toward low-waged, unskilled work. Even back in 1961, when the state allowed money t o go t o families i f the father lost his job, the state had t o deny assistance t o the family i f he refused t o work “without good cause.” The next year Congress created the Community Work }

Workfare

141

and Training (CWT) program t o train the indigent toward work. The 1964 Economic Opportunity Act included CWTs. The government included the emphasis on work t o increase the labor market productivity o f the p o o r . The contingent class lived in poverty, the government’s main economic advisers argued, because they either

worked t o o little o r else they had n o skills t o earn them sufficient

money. CWT programs would increase their skills and discipline them into hard work. Along this grain, in 1968, the government required states

t o create a program called W o r k Incentive (WIN)

“appropriate”

welfare recipients, especially unemployed

for

fathers.

A series o f measures i n the Reagan years framed “poverty” through the lens o f “welfare t o w o r k . ” N o t enough t o b e arrested b y the growth

o f the poor, public policy now had t o concentrate on getting the contingent t o waged work. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (1981) asked states t o require welfare recipients t o d o j o b training, j o b

searches, and apprenticeship while they drew funds; the J o b Training

Partnership Act (1982) and the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility A c t (1982) allowed states t o require j o b searches as a criteria for funds;

Family Support Act (1988) created the Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS) program t o push welfare recipients into waged work, with medical assistance as well as childcare for a year after A F D C ends. L o n g

before Clinton, “welfare t o w o r k had become the

mantra

o f public

policy framers.

Indeed, long before we heard about “ending welfare as we know i t , ” welfare as a social wage had already deteriorated. “The rollback o f means tested benefits began i n the early 1 9 7 0 s , ” reflects Frances F o x Piven. I t t o o k “ t h e form o f allowing inflation t o erode the real value o f

benefits, by one-third between 1970 and the mid-1990s, while politicians began the assault o n welfare mothers for their sexual and w o r k b e h a v i o r . ” ! ” I n t h e t w o states that h o u s e d m o r e than half o f t h o s e

up for welfare, the assaults from Governors Rockefeller (New York) and Reagan (California) demonstrated the government’s

w h o signed

anti-woman, a n t i - p o o r administrative r e s p o n s e . A s early as 1961, i n h i s

political campaign against Barry Goldwater, N e l s o n Rockefeller noted

he did n o t c o n d o n e “ t h e use o f p u b l i c assistance t o encourage idleness.” Even as he tried t o forge a middle ground between a gutless that

liberalism and a heartless conservatism, t o speak, for instance, o f government help for those “truly i n need,” the Right scored h i m as a

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

142

liberal and he failed t o make any political headway.*’ In 1972, he would n o t m a k e a n y s u c h m i s t a k e s . Rockefeller

h i r e d a millionaire

as

inspector general t o write a report a b o u t “welfare fraud” i n the state, a provocation that then allowed h i m t o “refuse welfare benefits t o any newcomer t o N e w Y o r k State w h o could n o t find d e c e n t h o u s i n g o r health c a r e ” ? ! N o t

only did Ronald Reagan c o n d u c t similar maneuvers,

b u t also i n 1 9 7 6 , while o n the campaign trail for the presidency, h e

made up a story about a black woman from Chicago’s South Side: [She] has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards, and i s collecting veteran’s benefits o n four

non-existing deceased husbands. A n d she is collecting

Social Security o n her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps, a n d she is collecting welfare u n d e r each o f her names.

When asked t o name the woman, Reagan demurred, and a hive o f investigative reporters descended o n the South Side, t o n o avail. David Zucchino, w h o w o n a Pulitzer Prize for

his journalism, spent time with

t w o mothers o n welfare i n Philadelphia a n d showed that the Reagan

myth o f the “welfare queen” was far off the mark.” Finally, in Nevada, the Department o f Welfare went after “welfare cheaters” in late 1971. T h e state o f Nevada p u t its entire d e p a r t m e n t toward a n a u d i t o f

welfare recipients, screened the paperwork o f a community generally

without accountants and lawyers, and knocked a fourth o f them off its rolls. Welfare “reform,” again, predated Clinton; indeed it came with

welfare itself.

In 1972, NWRO’s leader Johnnie Tillmon captured the sexist formulas o f welfare, how it was designed from the start t o regulate, discipline, and control the lives o f the contingent class: Welfare 1s like a super-sexist marriage. You trade in a man for the Man. But you can’t divorce him i f he treats you bad. He can divorce you, o f course, c u t you off anytime he wants. B u t in that case, h e keeps the kids, n o t y o u . T h e m a n runs everything. I n ordinary marriage, sex i s s u p p o s e d t o b e

for your husband. O n A F D C , you're n o t supposed t o have any sex at all. Y o u

give up control o f

your o w n

body. It’s a

condition o f aid. Y o u m a y even have t o agree t o get your

tubes tied so you can never have more children just t o avoid

being cut off

welfare. T h e man, the welfare system, controls

Workfare

your money. He tells you what

143

to

buy, what

not to

buy,

where t o b u y it, a n d h o w m u c h things cost. I f things—rent,

for instance—really costs more than he says they do, it’s too bad for you. He’s always right. That's why Governor [Ronald] Reagan can get away with slandering welfare >» recipients, calling them “lazy parasites,” “pigs o n the trough,” and such. We've been trained t o believe that the ¢¢

only

reason people are o n welfare is because there’s

something wrong with their character.” T o discipline the contingent class, the state exercised t w o options:

incarceration and welfare. The welfare state emerged i n the 1930s,

when turbulence i n the world o f

finance left a

third o f

the population

without waged w o r k and a large section o f the rest with depleted b a n k accounts.

As a safety n e t , the government provided welfare legislation

that took care o f unemployed single (mainly widowed) white women with children and unemployed,

hungry p e o p l e . ”

T h e government

gradually extended benefits t o p e o p l e o f color, drawing i n a larger

number o f p e o p l e w h o became irrelevant t o the transformed, “ j o b l e s s ” economy. T h o s e w h o came t o these benefits found themselves n o t necessarily relieved o f their burdens, as

their lives became regulated b y

a state anxious t o get them, via the training programs, retooled for the next

e c o n o m i c e x p a n s i o n . Welfare,

for

the state, w a s always a

w a r e h o u s e for the surplus as well as a vocational s c h o o l o n the cheap t o

keep w o r k e r s ready for w h e n low-end jobs became available.”

T o d o all this, welfare remained a remarkably cheap o p t i o n for the state. I n 1992, when talk o f “welfare reform” filled the airwaves, the

C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research Service estimated that the t w o largest items o f

the welfare b u d g e t comprised o n l y t w o percent o f t h e combined state and federal budgets (split evenly between AFDC and Food Stamps). I f all forms o f assistance were included (such as veteran benefits, s c h o o l lunches, student Pell Grants, and aid

to

the charity sector), then the

welfare budget still only drew just over ten p e r c e n t o f the state a n d federal budgets.”® E v e n t h i s w a s g r o s s l y exaggerated b y escalating m e d i c a l c o s t s since t h e 1 9 8 0 s (for

the Medicare and Medicaid

programs that provide subsidized care). According

to

Congress, federal assistance i n the early 1 9 9 0 s w a s l o w e r

p r o v i d e d i n 1970.

the US t h a n that

144

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

T h e government (and b o t h parties) went after t h o s e o n welfare for criminality a n d

greed, just as

corporate giants went o n untrammeled

with their crimes and their welfare—the tax shelters and breaks, the fraud and the pork. “THE WORST THING BILL CLINTON HAS DONE”?’

I n 1996, b y the initiative o f President Bill Clinton, “welfare as we

know it” ended. O n the campaign trail in 1992, Clinton read the work o t Harvard University’s public policy luminaries M a r yJo Bane and David Ellwood w h o found that m o s t people w h o entered the welfare system did n o t

stay for very long. Drawing from this finding, Ellwood proposed t o “divide and conquer” those on welfare. The state should enforce “time limits” o n welfare use, this t o target t h o s e w h o stayed o n welfare, a t the same time ensuring that those who used welfare as a means o f transit should n o t be affected.®® Clinton, apparently, was enthused b y the idea

of “time limits” and on the campaign trail, he began t o use the phrase, “No one who can work should be able t o stay on welfare forever” (the phrase appeared in his campaign book, Putting People Firs#).?® Clinton followed the Democratic Leadership Council’s 1990 declaration, “We believe the p u r p o s e o f social welfare i s t o bring the p o o r into the

nation’s economic mainstream, not maintain them in dependence.”0 While this s o u n d s reasonable, it means that the contingent class n o t b e allowed a social net, b u t they m u s t

be

forced into active w o r k i n the

low-wage sector—where the m o s t j o b growth t o o k place i n the

Clinton years. W h e n i n power, C l i n t o n appointed B a n e and Ellwood t o the D e p a r t m e n t o f Health a n d H u m a n Services where they, along

with Clinton’s axe-man Bruce Reed, began t o develop a welfare “reform” proposal. In a book published in 1994, Bane and Ellwood w r o t e that i f people had child support, medical insurance, and good paying jobs “there would be far less need for welfare.” I n other words, they began with the premise that people wanted t o work, that those o n welfare did

n o t fail because o f s o m e intrinsic reason, but because the system did n o t enable them t o live with dignity. With

structural assistance

(childcare, etc.), “Single patents could realistically s u p p o r t themselves at

the poverty line i f they were willing to work half-time, even a t a job

paying little more than the minimum wage. I f they were willing t o work 2

Workfare

145

full-time, they could move well above the poverty line.” I f the private s e c t o r did n o t provide the good jobs, and “if the government is n o t willing t o provide cash support forever, it m u s t provide full- or part-time j o b s . ” I f the jobs enabled people t o support themselves, “then the notion o f a time-limited transitional assistance program

for

b o t h single-parent and two-parent families makes sense. A rich set o f

training and support services ought t o b e included as part o f the benefits. B u t the cash program would b e o f

limited

duration.”'

Bane and

Ellwood’s entire program relied upon a n ensemble o f government-backed

services, such as childcare, medical care, unemployment insurance, and living wages.** Without these, welfare “reform” would b e tantamount to social cruelty.

I n 1996, a California Democrat, Representative Matthew Martinez,

Act (HR-950). The bill, pushed by the National Labor Community Coalition for Public Works Jobs, called for the creation o f a $250 billion

p u t h i s n a m e t o the J o b s Creation a n d Infrastructure Restoration

fund toward emergency public works programs over a five-year period.

The government would n o t only provide full-time jobs t o those who formed the contingent class, b u t they would be hired t o help rebuild the infrastructure i n t h o s e z o n e s that they inhabited. T h e s e state-hired

workers would rebuild schools, homes, parks, and transportation systems. T h e Martinez bill could have b e e n one o f the avenues used b y

Clinton administration h a d i t b e e n serious a b o u t the support mechanisms for those who were being kicked off the welfare rolls. The the

Bane-Ellwood team could have added specific language for childcare and medical insurance t o the bill and, with Democratic support, Congress would have h a d t o debate the philosophical differences

between neoliberalism and socialism. A t a protest o n October 18, 1997,

while the Martinez bill came up for the second year, the United Farm Workers’ Dolores Huerta noted, “You would think that with welfare

deform that a public works jobs bill would be a priority. But it’s not! Congress and President Clinton should be putting this bill first instead o f last.”>? I n fact, the Clinton approach was not t o debate the bill, but t o undercut the m o v e m e n t

by

commandeering

Martinez. Bribed with

an

extension o f t h e $1.4 billion L o n g Beach free-way into Martinez’s district, Clinton earned

his

vote o n the fast-track authority for trade

deals, ended his fealty t o the jobs bill, and p u s h e d h i m into a corner so that h e emerged a few years later as a Republican.”

146

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

When the Republicans won the mid-term Congressional elections in 1994, Ellwood resigned from his job. The night o f long knives for welfare recipients had begun.’ Under the illusion that what Ellwood foresaw would n o t come true, Bane remained and was joined in the welfare policy group by Peter Edelman (husband o f Marion Wright Edelman o f the Children’s Defense Fund). When Clinton went ahead and signed the welfare “reform” law sent t o him by Congtess (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, or PRWORA), both Bane and Edelman resigned from government in protest (as did Wendell Primus, also o n the welfare team). Edelman, in disgust, told the press, “ I have devoted the last 30-plus years t o doing

whatever I could t o help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in exactly the opposite direction.”>® AFDC ended, and TANF (Temporary Aid t o Needy Families) was born. The weltare bill provided $16.5 billion in block grants t o states t o manage their T A N F recipients. T h o s e o n T A N F could receive federal

assistance for a total o f 60 months for their lifetime, m o s t are required t o w o r k while i n receipt o f the funds, a n d the states could set their o w n

rules for the program. Between 1996 and 2000, the TANF caseloads declined b y m o t e than 5 0 percent. That means, in thesefewyears, six million people lost access to government assistance.

Why did Clinton sign the welfare “reform” a c t of 1996? Certainly, the liberal position (time limits plus state supports) lost the argument t o the Right, whose ideologues played on fears o f “black pathology’ and o f “women’s license” t o gain the upper hand among the mainly white m e n w h o run the government. I n 1 9 8 4 , a rather obscure and n o t

professionally well-regarded scholar, Charles Murray, published a screed against welfare called Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980; Murray’s b o o k followed, but overshadowed, George Gildet’s 1981 anti-welfare classic Wealth and Poverty, Ronald Reagan’s

favorite book. In 1994, Murray returned t o center stage with a shabby book (co-authored with Richard Herrnstein) called The Bell Curve, in which h e argued that the welfare-fed “underclass” would cause the

collapse o f American civilization:

The underclass will become even more concentrated spatially than i t is today. The expanded networks o f day care centers, homeless shelters, public housing, and other services will always b e located i n the poorest p a r t o f the inner

Workfare

147

city, which means that anyone who wants access t o them will have t o live there. Political support for such measures as

relocation o f people from the inner city t o the suburbs, never strong t o begin with, will wither altogether. The gaping cultural gap between the habits o f the underclass and the habits o f the r e s t o f society will make i t increasingly difficult for children who have grown up in the inner city t o function i n the larger society even when they want to.’

Murray and Herrnstein called the process underway in America, “dysgenesis,” the opposite o f eugenics, and defined by a racist anthropology in the early part o f the 20% Century as the general decline o f the genetic materials o f humans because o f such things as

“race-mixing” a n d the development o f cultural pathologies.’® George Gilder also returned t o the scene, with books and interviews, magazine articles and testimonials before Congress. I n 1 9 9 4 , i n a n interview, h e w a s asked a b o u t the “pathologies” o f welfare, a n d h e r e s p o n d e d :

Essentially, welfare benefits are far better than low-wage,

entry-level jobs. Welfare gives benefits far superior t o entry-level jobs because they yield valuable leisure time for the recipient. Thus i t usurps the male role as chief provider and undermines the foundation o f families. H i s provider

role is absolutely central t o the family; i f the state replaces the male provider, you don’t have families. The welfare state cuckolds the man. That 1s why w e have eighty percent illegitimacy r a t e s i n the inner cities. The welfare

has been far more destructive than slavery was.” state

to

the black family

There is a n obsession i n these texts against the social capability and sexual a u t o n o m y o f the b l a c k w o m a n . T h e data becomes irrelevant

when the rhetoric 1s charged up:

* Black girls, age 15-17: 90 percent have n o children. »

Black girls, age 18-19: 76 percent have no children.

»

B l a c k single m o t h e r s : 7 5 percent h o l d jobs a n d were o u t s i d e the welfare system i n 1 9 9 5 .

»

B l a c k children i n single-parent households: 3 4 percent.

Furthermore, i n 1995, there were more whites on A F D C than blacks, m o s t people had between one (43 percent) and t w o (30.7

148

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

percent) children, only a handful were teenagers (7.6 percent), and most remained o n welfare for under t w o years ( 1 9 percent less than seven

months, 1 5 percent between seven months and a year).*’ The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and the National Fatherhood Initiative’s Wade Horn joined Gilder t o champion the need for “marriage promotion” as a panacea for poverty. This despite the fact that a GAO study in 1987 (that looked a t over a hundred studies o f welfare from 1975) noted, “Research does n o t support the view that welfare encourages two-parent family b r e a k u p . ” * ! T h e Right,

with no grounding in the data, rushed ahead with its racist and misogynist assassination o f the welfare state. And Clinton was there with them all the way. Several studies point t o Clinton’s tendency t o seek political power rather than hold the line on ideology (what has been called “triangulation”).* I f the theory o f “triangulation” is about deceit and guile, others argue that Clinton, Blair, and others o f their ilk embody the “third way,” neither socialist nor conservative. This “third way” m u s t capitulate t o the permanence o f capitalism, and then decipher ways t o make the market just.*> A t least this second argument has the

merit o f allowing Blair/Clinton t o come t o the table in defense o f an ideology and n o t just t o hold onto their seats. These explanations are useful, but they are incomplete. The 1ssue is n o t so much why did Clinton sign the act, but why did welfare “reform” come t o be in 1996? For m o s t o f the 20th Century, the dominant form o f capital was that held and deployed by industrialists. Industrial concerns worried about a relatively qualified and totally disciplined workforce. Governments used fiscal policy t o maintain steady unemployment t o discipline labor and t o feed the surplus population i n case it was ever needed for production. F r o m the 1970s t o the 1 9 9 0 s , mobile finance capital t o o k predominance i n the world

call globalization. Reagan’s structural adjustment o f US manufacturing began a process in the 1980s that set in motion a demand for low-paid labor—both t o work in the service and produced what w e n o w

industries, but also t o undercut the union shops i n the newly started small, industrial sector. Clinton’s feint against welfare freed u p the

reserve army from its barracks into the battlefield o f wage work, where o n e o f the important results was t o put pressure o n the wagesj o t the service sector. Welfare “reform” is n o t the willful result o f vicious

Workfare

149

politicians, b u t 1s a condition o f globalized capitalism and a failure o f

nerve among the liberal wing o f the mainstream parties t o temper the

pressure from business for cheap labor. The old way t o discipline the surplus population through the carrot (welfare) and the stick (incarceration) has begun t o lose its shine, and the state flailed about in search o f a n e w m e t h o d for social control.

WAR AGAINST THE POOR What's wrong with welfare “reform”? Before w e get into the details o f the defects

in

the

1996 law,

it

1s pressing t o

u n d e r s c o r e the

cruelty o f the bill. While only 1 5 percent o f the population at large

reports

to

the government that they or their children are disabled,

among T A N F recipients, the figure 1s 44 percent. A US government General Accounting Office study i n 2002 found that “ t h e recipients

with impairments were half as likely t o exit TANF as recipients without impatrments.” Nevertheless, those with a disability and on the TANF rolls had t o tind jobs a t a r a t e much higher than those with a disability a n d n o t o n T A N F . “Regarding other potential sources o f income,” the

GAO noted, “leavers with impairments were more likely than leavers without impairments t o report having n o income from personal

earnings, household earnings, o r SSI [Supplemental Security Income—a

federal program t o assist those low-income individuals w h o are elderly,

blind, or disabled], but they also were more likely t o receive Food Stamps and Medicaid.”** A state that does n o t offer the maximum opportunity for those with various physical and psychological impairments, i f it can afford it, 1s an uncivilized and cruel state. This 1s n o t all. There are a h o s t o f p r o b l e m s with T A N I ,

they are. Mclobs

and h e r e

Keeping Up with t h e Dow Joneses

150

childcare, or they are ‘diverted’ from applying in the first place,” reports

Gary Delgado, executive director of the Applied Research Center, a movement think-tank. “Most of those leaving TANF have found their w a y into the gender ghettos o f service, sales and clerical work where they are earning barely above the minimum wage.”

Sandra Robertson, executive director o f the Georgia Citizen's Hunger Coalition, concurs. Data from the welfare rolls means little.

“We don’t care what those numbers are,” she n o t e s . “They don’t reveal much. W e want the legislature t o measure the success o f welfare reform

by the economic conditions o f the families.” By all accounts, and Georgia 1s as stark as any state, those who once lived on AFDC and other state support programs experience old times in the New Economy.*® Or take Wisconsin, home t o Tommy Thompson. I n 1985-86 the state disbursed welfare payments t o nearly 300,000 recipients, but by 1999 it s e n t checks t o only 35,000 people.*’ Where have the poor gone? Economist Randy Albelda notes, “Society cannot expect single mothers t o enter low-wage labor markets and exit poverty.”® They d o n ’ t exit poverty, s o they take refuge in the

impoverished private charity sector. As the number o f Food Stamp recipients dropped by 40 percent, the lines a t the soup kitchens grew progressively longer, this according t o P a t Gowens, executive director

o f Milwaukee’s Welfare Warriors.” Poverty remains, b u t the p o o r have been banished from state care. I f those o n workfare enter the low-wage sector because there are f e w other

jobs for

them,

their entry displaces o t h e r workers from these

jobs and, crucially, depresses wages further. T h e Department o f Labor guidelines for T A N F workers makes i t clear that they cannot work for

less than minimum wage, but since many TANF workers hold jobs as part o f their “training” period, they are “ n o t entitled to the minimum wage.” These trainees are n o t meant t o displace “regular e m p l o y e e s . ”

While it 1s very hard to ensure that this does n o t occur for each

individual job, macroeconomic studies show, “Economic analysis indicates that workfare is likely t o have a substantial, negative effect o n

the broader workforce—and particularly on the lowest-wage, m o s t disadvantaged workers.” A good test case for welfare reforms’ decisive impact against the contingent class 1s New York City. Here, Mayor Rudy ¢iuliani ruthlessly went after the unionized workforce in the early 1990s, then,

Workfare

151

with welfare reform, flooded the tight, barely unionized labor market with 130,000 workfare workers through the Work Experience Program (WEP) between February 1995 and December 1996.°* Like Clinton,

Giuliani praised the drop in the welfare rolls and the rate of job growth among those formerly o n A F D C . However what h e did not address, and what the media remained silent about, was that the WEP workers did the same jobs as former unionized workers for less pay, and whatever pay they did receive was subsidized by tax dollars. The WEP workers at the low end toil for around $1.80 per hour, or $3,600 per year rather than about $20,000 per year for a unionized worker (also a n outrageously l o w

salary). The WEP workers earned about a third less than the poverty line, and only 14 percent of WEP workers ended up with a paid job.” Community Voices Heard, a workfare rights group i n N e w York City, showed i n their innovative r e p o r t that the average W E P recipient i n

1999 earned no more than $5,724 per year (inclusive o f all benefits, including Food Stamps), for about 22 hours o f work a week. They could work n o more, because this was the threshold for workfare workers. Since m o s t o f these jobs were during the day, and since these are the high-surveillance, low-wage jobs, i t was impossible t o seek o u t

alternative employment while on the clock. And i t was equally impossible t o gain job training, because New York’s WEP program insists that the recipients d o their time, before they can get the skills.”

I f this were n o t bad enough, discrimination rears its head as T A N F recipients enter the workforce. A survey published i n 1 9 9 9 showed that

5 4 percent o f welfare recipients struggled with racism and sexism, with

disability discrimination, and other

sorts

o f harassments.”> A third o f

b l a c k T A N F recipients found a j o b , whereas more than halt t h e whites

entered the low-wage swamp. As Susan Gooden o f the Center for Public Administration at Virginia Tech puts it, “ I n general, blacks earn

less than whites, are less likely

to

be employed full-time and are

overrepresented i n lower paying occupations.®

Partly this is so

because more blacks and Latinos live within the walls o f wageless cities, a n d since d e c e n t jobs are i n s h o r t s u p p l y , i t i s n o surprise t h a t T A N F recipients from the w o r l d o f c o l o r d o n o t have a high employment ratc. I f the government r e t o o l e d transportation networks, perhaps this

would n o t be the case. Furthermore, people o f color are paid less than whites, so that the jobs are even less attractive for them t h a n for whites.

152

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Who Will Keep t h e Kids?

I f a parent is forced to take a low-wage job, w h o will take care o f the kids? Norma Calderdn, o f People Organized to W i n Employment

Rights (San Francisco, CA), said

at a

welfare rights hearing in

Washington, D C , on February 5, 2002: While I was i n workfare, I spent $150 a month o n childcare.

I sent in reimbursement requests, but never received anything. I went t o the Children’s Council t o ask for benefits, but they were denied. I would like t o work full-time, but without childcare, I can’t. What a m I going to d o with m y children when m y wages are so low that I can’t

afford childcare and I don’t have family members here who can help me? Welfare didn’t provide adequate childcare either. I don’t want t o be forced t o leave my children unattended while I ' m at work, o r t o place them i n unsafe o r inadequate childcare. I k n o w that I ' m n o t alone because I

have spoken with many other mothers w h o are i n the same situation. T h e system makes it difficult to get out o f poverty

and t o survive. There are thousands o f families that don’t have jobs that allow u s t o make enough money t o provide

for our children.

Calderon’s account sums it up for millions o f women who have t o balance childcare with waged work. Activist Grace Chang notes: W h e n wages and household subsidies are cut, w o m e n as

wives and mothers adjust household budgets often a t the expense o f their own and their children’s nutrition. As public health care and education vanish, w o m e n suffer

from lack o f prenatal care and b e c o m e nurses t o ill family

members at home.’

Impoverished w o m e n stretch their bodies t o provide their o w n services.

I n a remarkable b o o k , economist N a n c y Folbre offers a strong critique o f o u r e c o n o m i c culture that casts from view the v a s t amount o f reproductive work done b y women, just as it lifts u p waged work as

the only positive feature in our world.”® Women had been able t o provide the labor o f the “invisible heart” in the era when the “family wage,” thanks t o union pressure o n management, allowed a male breadwinner t o finance the livelihood o f a family. With the “family wage” n o w a thing o f the past, political scientist Nancy Fraser notes,

Workfare

153

conservatives crack d o w n o n w o m e n with a contradictory message:

they say that men m u s t be the primary breadwinner, even the “family wage’ earner, In an era when the one-income household has become impossible, and they say that women m u s t go o u t and get a job.

“Punitive, androcentric, and obsessed with employment despite the absence o f g o o d jobs, [neoliberal policies o f the conservatives] are

unable t o provide security in a postindustrial world.” The rhetoric o f workfare serves in great measure t o pervert the idea o f “work” itself. When the working class women o f color work hard to raise children,

those in power call them lazy, just as the magazine industry loudly applauds the sexist push t o drive (mainly white) middle-class women away from the public sphere and into the arms o f their children. Work, for the poor, 1s reduced t o wage work, and working class mothers are expected t o feel useless i f they are n o t o u t there in numbing jobs for subhuman wages.

Childcare 1s only one aspect o f the lack o f

state

supports

to

help

transition welfare recipients into the waged work force. From Chicago, we learn that many TANF recipients who fell off the rolls lost their homes and are n o w i n homeless shelters. Forty-four percent o f

homeless families in the shelters told researchers that they had lost cash assistance benefits, while 8 5 percent o f t h o s e i n the shelters said that they had experienced some level o f the welfare “reform” cuts.®! From Los Angeles, we hear that 60 percent o f those i n the family shelters found

the

“welfare

bureaucracy...unresponsive

in

providing

supportive services that would stabilize their lives.” A m o n g these

services, the homeless families numbered childcare, transportation, job training, and homes.®? From Tennessee, w e find that almost 30,000 families w h o have b e e n cut off from the welfare rolls are “ l o s t i n the

bureaucratic maze, unable t o obtain the assistance promised them, and

struggling

to

keep jobs while keeping up with rigid program

r e q u i r e m e n t s . ” W i t h o u t d e c e n t p u b l i c transportation a n d childcare, m a n y former r e c i p i e n t s r e p o r t t h a t they face “the termination o f a p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ benefits for failure t o attend class, keep a n a p p o i n t m e n t

with a caseworker, or hold a full-time job.”®> From Albany, New York, news c o m e s t h a t o n l y t w o p e r c e n t o f those o n T A N F are enrolled i n

the Transitional Childcare Services provided by the state—the b u r e a u c r a t i c maze bewilders recipients, b u t also d o c u m e n t e d cases o f racist discrimination prevent recipients from learning a b o u t the meager

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

154

transition services offered b y the state.® Community Voices Heard

reports that N e w York City’s municipal authorities failed “to address the needs o f families reaching their time limits,” and “benefit

reductions due t o sanctions have caused roughly 54 percent o f survey respondents t o fall behind on their rent payments, 44 percent t o be unable t o afford food costs, 3 6 percent t o have their utilities cut

off,

their health benefits.”® A study from Boston shows us that a living wage for a family o f three would be about $3,263 per month. To earn this money, the adult

a n d 2 1 percent t o l o s e

would have t o hold a j o b that earns $17.47 p e r hour, already far above

minimum wage. I n Boston, an expensive city, childcare costs would be

$985 per month—almost a third o f the expenses.®® In 1999, a third o f working women across the country earned wages at or below the poverty level, significantly more than the share o f m e n (20.7 percent) at

that level. We are in the Purgatory o f the Service Economy, where “temporary work’ is the new euphemism for indentureship in the workforce, where n o one can watch the kids while T A N F workers are

work, where the state puts the kids in foster care because o f that—childcare in a punitive economy.

at

Theft o f C h i l d r e n

The removal o f children from the family is n o t an unlikely scenario. When Newt Gingrich was the Speaker o f the House, he tendered a proposal t o bring b a c k the poorhouse a n d state children’s return

facilities, t o

us t o the days o f Oliver Twist.

I n Utah, the state has already started t o take away children from

T A N F recipients w h o cannot find a j o b and need T A N F . Bonnie Macri, executive director o f J e d i for W o m e n i n Salt Lake City, Utah, tells a chilling tale. I f a w o m a n cannot get a j o b after the 3 6 month

TANF limit, then the state o f Utah takes her children away and puts them up for adoption (Utah decided on the strict 36 month cut-off, while Connecticut is the strictest state with only 21 months o f TANF). The state admits that about 2,000 children have been removed from

their mothers, while Jedi thinks this is a deflated figure. Rebecca

Gordon o f the Applied Research Center summarizes the story o f Utah based o n a survey o f T A N F recipients: Welfare caseworkers inform Family and Child Services a

month after a T A N F family reaches its lifetime benefit

Workfare

155

limit. Within a month, Family and Child Services makes an unannounced visit t o the family’s home t o determine its fitness as a place for children. O n e respondents weeping son was removed from her home with no investigations whatsoever, because a t the moment when the visitor from Family a n d Child Services arrived, she was tending his bloody nose. Another was told she didn’t have enough canned goods in her pantry, not too surprising a situation as

her welfare benefits had been terminated. Her children were taken, too. Still another woman lost her children o n laundry

day. She’d had her kids throw their dirty clothes down t o the foot o f the stairs so she could bag it up and take i t t o the Laundromat. The FCS worker walked in, observed the pile of clothes and promptly removed the children from this “unfit” h o m e . Perhaps the saddest case was that o f a w o m a n

who had managed t o leave an abusive situation, only t o lose her children because she “allowed” them t o see her being beaten up. I n m o s t o f these cases, it was the loss o f benefits

that precipitated a visit from FCS and subsequent breakup of the family unit.’

Only a short while after Jedi took up this issue, over 300 families j o i n e d them because they had personally l o s t children t o welfare reform.®

Gwendolyn Mink shows that

Department o f Health a n d

Human Services adoption numbers rose from 28,000 in 1996 t o 46,000

in 1999, and then holds, “The adoption law hovers within the TANF regime as the regime’s final solution t o independent motherhood.”®’ Reading, Writing, Racism

The rhetoric o f workfare and o f dignity through work falsely raises the hopes o f families who feel trapped by the constraints o f economic injustice. Janet Robideau o f Indian Peoples’ Action i n Montana finds

that many Native American women means t o get paid. T o earn

turn t o

well, many

workfare programs as a

try t o break o u t o f t h e gender

ghetto through post-secondary education. But, Indian Peoples’ Action found that a number o f their members worked hard t o complete their degrees through state-assisted childcare and scholarship programs only

their degrees. They are “cut otf a t the knees,” says Robideau. “It’s like giving t o lose access t o these resources o n the last stretches toward

someone a car with three w h e e l s . ”

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

156

Racism, furthermore, blocks access

to

the small

amount

of

education money available.”” Helen Nickens of Grassroots Organizing from Mexico, Missouri, spoke at the February 5, 2002, briefing o n

Capitol Hill: The county director and other agencies who are supposed t o help p e o p l e i n need denied services t o m e b e c a u s e I a m

o f color. Neighbors o f mine who are poor, white, and receive welfare benefits and other services are aware o f the

way people o f color are treated differently. Because I a m an

African American woman, they do n o t inform me about educational opportunities, real job training, or other support services. I f they are n o t ignoring us o r pretending w e d o n ’ t have real racial concerns then they are harassing u s

and turning their noses u p at us.

Susan GGooden’s study o f welfare recipients in Virginia shows that whereas the black recipients h a d better educational qualifications than

whites, n o t one caseworker encouraged black folk

to

go

to

school.

Meanwhile, just over 40 percent o f whites said that caseworkers asked them t o g o t o s c h o o l and better their prospects for jobs. Instead, the

caseworkers pushed blacks toward drug and background tests more such racist barriers for them.”

to

raise

A s the assault o n public education intensifies across the country,

fewer funds g o toward decent educational opportunities for the TANF recipients. Those who are immigrants and who do n o t have English as a first language experience the “English Only” classrooms, harassment,

and inconsiderate behavior from T A N F caseworkers, and an impossible task in the job market without the language suppotts so crucial for adaptation t o a foreign land, o r i n a land that does n o t

respect multilingualism. Make the Road B y Walking, a community

organization in Brooklyn, conducted a study o f welfare recipients, 65 percent o f whom found it impossible to communicate with their

caseworkers because the city did n o t provide translation services in the TANF offices. “Language has caused me so many problems,” said Donatilla P., one o f those surveyed. “I can’t even describe them all.””’? From Idaho, we hear that “limited English-speaking people” d o not get

counseling for the TANF application process, and because of enrollment delays they often do n o t get transitional facilities, like childcare.”” Hostility t o immigrants, as well as lack o f cohcern for

Workfare

157

language education and translation, leads t o a decline i n immigrant access t o F o o d Stamps (as documented i n Santa Clara County, California) and healthcare (as documented for N e w York C i t y ) . ” T h e r e 1s n o childcare reimbursement for the evening h o u r s s p e n t

in school, little care that education c a n n o t be time-bound, and certainly

no concern that education alongside wage labor and parenthood 1s well nigh

impossible. T h e

government claimed a t t h e time that there

just

were n o funds available for these “social” programs, while the welfare

bill provided $250 million in federal matching funds for

states

who

inserted “abstinence only” into the school curricula. Education, then, did get funds, but n o t toward the generation o f skills for those o n

funds taught a type o f sex education t h a t 1s n o t only unrealistic (that is, which does n o t deal with HIV-AIDS, condoms, sexual parity, a n d j o y rather than rape a n d violence), b u t which does n o t T A N F ; rather, the

stand muster i n a bill o n its own. Instead o f education for those o n

TANF, the state insisted, under the heading “education,” that the schools teach conservative values t o all students. The M a n Don’t Take No Mess

The TANF

regime c o m e s with a full array o f surveillance

mechanisms as well as procedures for the caseworkers t o “sanction” t h e r e c i p i e n t . E a c h recipient h a s a n “individual responsibility

plan” that

has t o b e followed, a n d i f anything 1s awry, the caseworker 1s allowed t o

sanction t h e recipient b y cutting off benefits for a period o f

time, o r for

g o o d . G a r y Delgado a n d Rebecca G o r d o n o f t h e A p p l i e d Research C e n t e r s h o w t h a t sanctions are u s e d as a disciplinary m e c h a n i s m ,

that

“ t h e y are the primary r e a s o n that welfare r o l l s have declined,” t h a t

more than h a l f o f those o n T A N F knew the rules, b u t less than half had b e e n t o l d a b o u t the appeals process i f they are denied benefits, and that b l a c k s face t h e highest rates o f sanctions, n o t for any o t h e r r e a s o n than

the racist lens through which the program is administered.” “Race casts a m u c h longer s h a d o w than any o f the o t h e r factors c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s analysis o v e r t h e state a d o p t i o n o f get-tough welfare r e f o r m s , ”

writes political scientist Sanford Schram. Indeed, the states that adopted t h e t o u g h e s t sanctions regimes h o u s e d the largest p o p u l a t i o n

o f blacks, and in those states, blacks by far received the cruelest t r e a t m e n t from caseworkers.

158

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

Where African American single mothers predominated o n

the rolls, the chances were much higher that the state would c h o o s e stricter policy options. A n d t h o s e policies were

more likely t o affect African American mothers than their

white counterparts. Race mattered a t least twice over when i t came t o

imposing

the get-tough policies o f welfare

reform.’®

In Alameda County, California, the state has jailed thousands o f people whom they charge with “welfare fraud.” Faced with t w o felony counts (one o f fraud and the second o f perjury), many low-income people plead guilty and thereafter find it hard t o get a job with a criminal record. Frequently, the county charges the recipient with fraud when the problem is an accidental overpayment by the state.”’ Angela Chung o f People United t o Build a Better Oakland (PUEBLO) points o u t in 1996, “We know that a lot o f money was given t o Alameda County t o develop an aggressive welfare fraud policy.” The county gets incentives from the state to find those w h o commit fraud, a clear

indication that the goal is n o t t o increase employment but t o find new ways t o discipline urban populations. Eighty-four percent o f those who seek assistance in Alameda County are people o f color, and Alameda has the highest percentage o f blacks i n California. That the state has targeted this county for its feverish prosecution o f welfare errors

bespeaks the racism o f the entire apparatus. Tie You U p i n Knots

TANF, version ’96, was about “work” and the creation o f personal responsibility through the regulation o f a job. T A N F , version ’02, i s about marriage, about the production o f a fantasy two-parent family

that

produces normal children and, thanks t o a variant o f the “family wage,”

is able t o live with dignity. T A N F *96, however, did say in its preamble, “Marriage 1s the foundation o f a successful society,” and it did allocate almost $050 million t o states i f they reduced “out-of-wedloc k”

births a n d

abortions. T h e federal government rewarded states i f they acceded t o conservative measures o f social engineering, rather than i f they took care o f the poor i n a civilized manner. I f the state backs away from the

regulation o f cotporations, it does n o t seem chary o f regulating the lives o f the poor.” I t Clinton pushed marriage, Bush the Younger and hissMarriage

Workfare

159

Czar, Wade Horn (assistant secretary for children and families in the D e p a r t m e n t o f Health and H u m a n Services), are eager t o d e n y any services t o unmarried m o t h e r s , and therefore t o force w o m e n o f the

contingent class t o marry. I n 1 9 9 7 , W a d e H o r n , a l o n g w i t h Andrew

Bush, w r o t e i n a report for the neoconservative Hudson Institute: As

state

officials launch new welfare reforms, they

n o t l o s e s i g h t o f the larger issues o f

fatherhood

must and

marriage. T h e p r o b l e m is that strategies for p r o m o t i n g

fatherhood a n d marriage are, t o a very large extent, i n

conflict with those that seek t o help single mothers achieve self-sufficiency through w o r k . Indeed, a welfare system t h a t h e l p s single m o t h e r s b e c o m e employed, b u t ignores

t h e n e e d t o promote fatherhood and marriage, m a y serve

only

to

enable unmarried women

to

rear children without

the presence o f the father.”

Without a doubt, one earner in a family makes survival difficult. This

1s n o t the reason why Bush-Horn

want to

see TANF women in

marriages. They have a patriarchal agenda whose premise is that moral

values can only b e imparted t o society i f w o m e n are married t o men, and

i f the man is the head o f a household (the idea o f “Fatherhood”). The Bush admunistration’s Responsible Fatherhood Act 1s the m a j o r attempt t o discipline those on TANF further by pushing women t o marry at the state’s insistence, despite the fact that i n m a n y communities, the state has

l o c k e d u p large numbers o f m e n for drug-related, nonviolent crimes. A major c h a l l e n g e t o t h e B u s h - H o r n p l a n was t h a t i t w o u l d force

w o m e n t o r e m a i n i n abusive r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r else t o return t o abusive

spouses 1f they had already fled them. Sixty percent o f women on the TANF rolls have been i n relationships where violence has been a factor. I n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s l i n e o f a r g u m e n t , H o r n t o l d t h e

media,

“ G o v e r n m e n t c a n h e l p [ c o u p l e s ] manage conflict s o t h a t i t d o e s n ’ t

escalate i n t o v i o l e n c e . W e d o n ’ t w a n t t o b e a federal d a t i n g service. N o r d o w e w a n t t o force p e o p l e t o g e t m a r r i e d o r p u s h c o u p l e s i n t o abusive r e l a t i o n s h i p s . ” ® Certainly t h e B u s h - H o r n p r o p o s a l s d o n o t

force people t o get married, but they give them a n impossible choice: e i t h e r marry a n d receive t h e T A N F benefits, o r struggle t o survive

w i t h o u t any state-funded social net.

I n Montana, the rules t o make the poor marry deepen the oppression o f women who are i n difficult situations, as well as o f

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

160

lesbians whose partnerships are n o t recognized b y the marriage promotion advocates. “ I w a s married t o m y ex-husband for thirteen

years,” testified Mary Caferro o f Working for Equality and Economic Liberation

(Helena, Montana) o n February 5, 2002.

W e h a d four children, a n d h e m a d e a g o o d i n c o m e b u t was

very abusive and an alcoholic. I stayed in the marriage, feeling that I couldn’t p u t my children into a situation that was economically unstable. I k n e w that if w e split up w e would live i n poverty. I stayed i n t h e marriage, afraid that I

wouldn’t have the support t o leave, and putting what I

thought were m y children’s needs in front o f m y own safety. T h e abuse was extreme. W h e n things escalated and

my children too, I found the strength t o leave him. I saved my family’s life. That is why I am n o t

i t became unsafe for

married. I want t o get married again because I love, care, and respect the person. N o t because I a m being coerced b y

the government with the threat o f my children’s benefits being c u t off. This experience drew from Mary the following strong analysis:

Marriage promotion is n o t about solving poverty. Marriage promotion is about controlling women by using racist rhetoric and restrictive policy. Single parents have been touted as being responsible for all social evils o f society today. This dehumanizing myth serves t o foster the stereotype o f the welfare queen and further instill shame a n d guilt o n o u r mothers.

Sociologist M i m i Abramovitz makes t w o m o r e excellent points i n her preface t o a movement study o n marriage promotion. She writes o f the

double standard o f Bush-Horn, and o f the Bush-Horn fear o f women’s liberation: T h e marriage promotion program also suffers from a

troublesome double standard. While forcing poor women o n welfare t o marry regardless o f their needs and interests, its supporters

vehemently oppose

stable non-matrimon ial

relationships and same sex bonds. T h e pro-marriag e

campaign also implies that economic dependence on men is better for women than economic dependence on the state. O f course, access t o outside income, be it wages or cash aid!

Workfare

161

has the potential t o increase a woman’s autonomy and t o increase her bargaining power a t home and a t the job. Perhaps this 1s why welfare reform cuts benefits, pushes women into low wage jobs, and promotes marriage!” States’ Rights! Corporate Rights!

Clinton’s welfare bill

set a

new standard within the US for

“devolution.” T h e federal government h a d b e e n the font o f social

welfare, but with the welfare bill, administrative decisions now devolved t o the statehouse. Each state was n o w entrusted t o set eligibility requirements, time limits, and benefit levels. This m e a n t that there 1s n o

federal standard, there is n o yardstick b y which t o measure the various programs and their effectiveness and the various federal regulatory

agencies (Office of Civil Rights, Department of Labor) are a t sea with the enormous apparatus o f T A N F . With n o federal guidelines and oversight, some regions adopted novel approaches t o decrease the T A N F rolls:

Selma, Alabama, for instance, located its welfare office five miles outside town, outside the reach o f public transport.®* Delgado a n d Gordon o f the Applied Research Center argue:

Devolution has reintroduced the tyranny o f states’ rights. Whether i t is a question o f guaranteeing access t o public

transportation, securing funds for public schools that serve poor children—through Title I o f the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—or guaranteeing employment rights through the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal government has acted in arenas where individual states either cannot o r will not d o 50.5

Furthermore, states feel pressure t o c u t welfare rolls t o save money,

mainly because there has b e e n n o nationwide preparation for any

emergency, such as a depression and consequent rush for social services b y the impoverished. I n s t e a d o f fighting t o create a fund for t h i s

emergency, states are pinching pennies t o roll over T A N F m o n e y for any eventuality.®*

T h e federal government has n o t only devolved power t o the

arbitrary control of the states, it has also given up its service provision r o l e t o private c o r p o r a t i o n s . Welfare services have n o w entered the

private sector, the profit sector, t o b i l k the p o o r t o achieve targets at

their expense. Maximus, Inc., one o f the private social service firms,

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

162

lied t o get a contract i n Colorado a n d earned m a n y complaints for racist

discrimination in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; America Works, Inc., has

been charged with drawing $1 million from New York State for putting people in jobs, something they did n o t do; Curtis and Associates asks those eligible for welfare t o fill o u t long, complex forms, and i f they cannot d o s o , i t denies t h e m coverage (all the while collecting m o n e y

from the state).®”

Despite all these reasons why welfare “reform” 1s flawed, the bill was passed in 1996, i t has been celebrated, and now, as reauthorization

is on the table, there are many that want t o push its draconian policies even further. The workfare program, however, cannot deliver quality jobs, a colossal failure best represented by the increase in petty crime (and in the prison population). “The real 1ssue,” says Peter Edelman, w h o resigned from the Clinton administration in 1996, “isn’t welfare.

It’s poverty.” But poverty is n o t a problem o f the federal government in the age o f structural adjustment. The problem o f poverty is abandoned in favor o f the state’s obsession with its debt rating. In May 1999, Alan Greenspan noted, “The arithmetic o f foreign debt accumulation and compounding interest costs does indicate somewhere i n the future

that, unless reversed, o u r growing international imbalances are apt t o create significant problems for our economy.”®® O n e w a y t o c u t funds w a s t o kill social welfare a n d t o set people free t o w o r k i n the low-wage

O n October 1, 1999, the Wall Street Journal reported a modest gain 1n income in the US, but i t was forced t o acknowledge the words of Rose Woolery, a working mother: “This country is still for t h o s e w h o sector.

have money. F o r the people w h o d o n ’ t have it, you're n o t going t o get it.”%” T h o s e w h o “have i t , ” “get it” from the U S ’ s corporate welfare

program. From 1996 to 2000, ten o f the global corporations received a

$30 billion tax break from the US Treasury, with Microsoft taking in a $12 billion tax break (with no tax paid in 1999 despite $12.3 billion in profits), General Electric t o o k away $ 1 2 billion i n tax welfare a n d Ford

earned “relief” o f just over §9 billion. I n 1999 and 2000, WorldCom

paid no

taxes

even though it took in profits o f $15.2 billion, General

Motors paid n o tax for three o f the last five years, again despite profits

o f $12.5 billion, while Enron paid no taxes for the past four years despite $1.8 billion in reported profits.*® For 2002, the US military took home $300 billion, a 14 percent increase on the 2001 budget, the size o f the increase ($44 billion) itself greater than the annual defensé budgets

Workfare

163

o f Japan ($41 billion), Great Britain ($35 billion), Russia ($29 billion), Germany ($23 billion), China ($14.5 billion) and North Korea ($1.3 billion). For 2003, the Pentagon wants an additional $30 billion and the president’s budget proposes an additional six percent increase over the 2 0 0 2 disbursement.®” All this for the military-corporate alliance, b u t

nothing for social development.

BUSH'S LEAP OF FAITH George W. Bush’s political agenda is essentially ABC: Anything B u t Clinton. F r o m Kyoto t o Korea, this has b e e n t h e general approach o f t h e administration o n

everything except

welfare.

On

welfare, the

Bush and Clinton agenda 1s similar. I n his 1999 campaign book, A Charge to Keep, Bush followed the Clinton position that “Too much government fosters d e p e n d e n c y . ” H e wrote: T h e n e w culture said i f people were poor, the government

should feed them. I f criminals are n o t responsible for their acts, then the answers are n o t i n prisons, b u t i n social programs. People became less interested i n pulling

themselves up by their bootstraps and more interested in pulling d o w n a monthly government check. A culture o f

dependency was b o r n . Programs that began as a temporary

hand-up became a permanent handout, regarded by many as a right.” This Clintonian analysis translated into unoriginal policy suggestions:

time limits o n welfare benefits and workfare, with n o consideration for the education o r any support network for those o n welfare.

I n early 2002, reports from across the country showed that the

welfare rolls begin t o rise as inequality increased in the year o f 9/11. T h e modest increase ( o n e percent) t o o k place i n two-thirds o f t h e

states.” I n big cities, however, the welfare rolls continued t o slide,

despite the widespread lack o f jobs and overcrowded food banks. “The people

running

non-profit,

community-based

feeding

agencies

overwhelmingly indicate that people kicked off welfare are c o m i n g t o

them for help because they do n o t have jobs,” said Joel Berg, executive d i r e c t o r o f t h e New York City Coalition A g a i n s t H u n g e r . ” * With t h e scorecard

for

TANF

r e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f the law

in

hand,

Congress

began

to

consider

(as stipulated i n 1990) in t h e early m o n t h s o f

164

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

2002. In May 2002, the House passed Bush’s version o f welfare “reform,” n o t unlike the 1996 bull, but with stricter work requirements, a little more money for childcare, and m o r e talk o f marriage as a n

obligation. I n September 2002, more than half the Democrats in the Senate called upon the majority leader, T o m Daschle, t o begin a debate o n welfare, t o extend the 1 9 9 6 law for another three years, and t o add m o t e money for childcare.”” T h e Senate dithered, B u s h extended the

program till the end o f 2002, and the fight continued over childcare and work requirements. Then, o n February 13, 2003, the House once more

passed its draconian version o f welfare reform, with strict work rules for those who want welfare, with more pressure t o push people t o work rather than toward education. “ I n 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared a

war against poverty,” said Representative Pete Stark (Democrat from California). “Today, my Republican colleagues and the President have declared a war against the poor.””* Bush took the Clinton insistence upon work above all else t o its logical limit: now work is everything, education is irrelevant.

While Clinton eagerly sought t o send the social welfare aspects o f government t o the states and t o private agencies, Bush welcomed the role o f religious organizations, the “armies o f compassion” t o tender welfare. “ A compassionate society,” said President Bush, “is one which recognizes the great power o f faith. W e in government must n o t fear

faith-based programs, we m u s t welcome them.””> When critics said that his faith-based approach violated the constitutional barrier between the church and state, Bush said: Participation i n faith-based programs m u s t b e voluntary,

and w e m u s t m a k e sure secular alternatives are available. B u t government should welcome the active involvement o f

people w h o are following a religious imperative t o love their neighbors through after-school programs, childcare,

drug treatment, maternity group homes, and a range o f

other services. Supporting these m e n and w o m e n is the n e x t b o l d s t e p o f welfare reform.”

Even here, there 1s nothing spectacularly different from the Clinton years, because the 1996 law offered faith-based organizations a n opportunity t o bid for welfare contracts under a provision called

“Charitable Choice.” T h e law even allowed these organizations t o offer religious services alongside secular assistance. T o champion “fdith-based

Workfare

charity” 1s a convenient way

to

165

shrink the state’s social welfare aspect

without the appearance o f callousness. T h e B u s h domestic ploy resembles the demand made o n states across the globe over the last t w o decades t o c u t b a c k o n social welfare a n d give that sector over t o “nonprofit”

or

“nongovernmental” organizations, including religious institutions.”

Part o f the Bush angle is t o use the “faith-based initiatives” as a way t o p r o v i d e c o v e r for the racism o f welfare reform. I n 2 0 0 2 , h e regularly

visited black churches

to

offer his promotion o f the form o f

institutional religion over the content o f religious charity. “We've got t o

recognize,” h e t o l d a predominantly black congregation i n Milwaukee,

“there are s o m e people i n o u r country w h o wonder whether the American experience 1s meant for them. I t ’ s o n e thing t o make sure that w e are secure, b u t w e also have got t o understand that i n our plenty,

there are pockets o f despair and hopelessness.””® T h e message sounds

compassionate, but because o f the draconian policies from the

administration it did n o t fool anybody. Reverend Timothy McDonald 1s the president o f the African American Ministers Leadership Council, a group of 60 ministers spread over 30 states. The Bush administration, h e argues, “is trying t o b u y the allegiance o f the black church. A n d that is t o the advantage o f the Republican Party, because the black church has been a major thorn in their side.” Theresa Thomas Boyd, a pastor a t the nondenominational Christian Church Matters o f the Heart, says that the

Bush initiative “is a buy off, but t o m e it’s more o f a brainwash. The buy

off is the money, and the brainwash is that there’s always a different, underlying agenda.” When some Democrats wanted t o hold the line o n these two issues,

hurt the help.”'”’ As the GOP takes control o f

B u s h exploded, saying that any change o n his position “would

very people we're trying

to

Washington, and the Democrats slither around in search o f a new skin, the contingent class is going t o pay a heavy price. “We're trying t o help

those people,” Bush said, but it is those very people who want to help themselves. . ..

NON-REFORMIST REFORM: THREE APPROACHES TO LIBERATION I n 1996,

the forces o f humanity

did

n o t stand

up

against the

Clinton-Gingrich alliance, and the welfare bill went through without

much fuss. The unions did little, the welfare rights movement was in disarray, and the feminist movement let down the side.'’! Shortly after

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

166

T A N F came into force, the welfare movement rose from the ashes, fiery and ready for the fight. The welfare fights that I profile below do n o t fit into what Andre Gorz calls “reformist reforms” that simply

and shore up the s y s t e m , b u t they g o along the “non-reformist reforms,” o n e s that in a cumulative fashion

maintain the status q u o

grain o f

tend toward social transformation.”

If

w e go back

t o Rosa

Luxemburg’s careful thoughts o n the subject, “non-reformist reform

refers t o those social changes that not only produce n e w forms o f social

also p u t the extant social structure into crisis: welfare, in the Piven-Cloward formula, has the tendency t o call into question the liberal hypocrisy o f the system, but it also provides the material basis for the further mobilization and organization o f the working poor toward fundamental social transformation.'” Too many on the US Left abjure “reforms,” and t o o many of those in the reform industries are uninterested mn a Left agenda—a dialectical unity o f these t w o opposites 1s what 1s needed in our current conjuncture. Not just any “reforms,” but mainly “non-reformist reforms.” engagement, but

As more and more people are released from prisons (just as others

move into them, or else those o u t will be recycled in) and with the absence o f social assistance, the only way the state has t o keep the reserve army of labor in check is by lockdown conditions in urban areas. The anti-police brutality fight is one part o f the struggle, but in a defensive way; the welfare fight gets a t the same problem but in a proactive way. The fight for welfare liberation is an offensive one. Tax t h e R i c h i n Connecticut

In mid-2000, the Campaign t o End Child Poverty in Connecticut s e n t a delegation t o m e e t with the Democratic leadership in the state house. A s w e entered the main lobby, w e began t o feel awkward. T h e Connecticut State House

is opulent a n d aristocratic, with the lobbyists

gathered like sharks in the stairwell, and under a very high ceiling state

representatives trade in their personal oddities for their considerable power. Committees deign t o h e a r c e r t a i n bills a n d fast-track others, as the mentality o f a clique k e e p s o u t s i d e r s apprehensive.

The Connecticut Teachers’ Union, with its considerable muscle, organized a meeting for the Campaign, and representatives from

Vecinos Unidos and the Communist Party (CP) spent half an hour trying t o convince the leadership o f the Democratic Party t e support

Workfare

167

the Campaign t o End Child Poverty’s Bill no. 5461 (End Child Poverty Social Investment Fund). Vecinos Unidos, being a welfare rights group, is a natural a t this s o r t o f campaign, but neither the teachers’ union nor the Communist Party are newcomers t o the politics o f Connecticut’s

poor. The CP i n N e w Haven, for instance, has been instrumental i n most

major campaigns from below, from the Civil Rights movement

(including the B l a c k Panther Party w o r k a n d the defense committee for B o b b y Seale, for instance) t o the fight against homelessness a n d poverty. I n the 1980s, the People’s Center, the h o m e o f N e w Haven’s

CP, became the drop-in center for the city’s homeless. There, the CP,

along with Yale University’s Hunger and Homelessness Action Project and the Yale Law School Legal Aid Program, organized the destitute into a political movement t o reopen and expand the city’s shelter

program. The current (2002) tent city in New Haven Green is a legacy o f the CP’s work in the city.'** In 1999, statistical data released by the state o f Connecticut showed that n o t only did the state have a high rate

of the nation’s wealthy, but it also housed a high rate of the impoverished. To celebrate the eightieth anniversary o f the CP, the organizers o f the party planned a Concert t o E n d Child Poverty. A t the p r e - c o n c e r t rally, several leaders o f local groups talked a b o u t a campaign o n this theme, a n d a t a meeting the next week, the Campaign t o E n d Child Poverty w a s b o r n . O v e r 3 0 organizations j o i n e d up,

including unions, faith groups, welfare rights groups, a n d community

organizations. The years o f activity that preceded 1999 w e n t into the strength o f the group. With that behind us, a year later, i n mid-2000, o u r delegation sat with t h e leadership of the state’s Democratic Party i n the statehouse. W e m a d e o u r p i t c h : Connecticut has the highest disparity i n i n c o m e

and wealth in the US. A tenth o f all Connecticut’s children live below the official poverty line. In the cities, among the youth o f color, the figure rises t o over 3 0 percent. Unimaginable grief c o m e s from a lack o f resources. H o w c a n a relatively deprived child b e expected t o have the

same opportunities as those who are privileged? Our popular prejudice i n favor o f equal opportunity is m o c k e d b y o u r social conditions.

be o n e o f the m o s t generous states, yet with a paltry social welfare program. Before 1996, while a family o f three i n Connecticut used to

Mississippi earned $ 1 2 0 p e r month, the same family i n Connecticut

t o o k h o m e a check for $600 o r m o r e . T h e social safety n e t

has

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

168

disappeared. This i s unconscionable and the delegation urged the

elected officials around.

to

support the Social Investment Fund. Smiles all

Then, t w o o f the women from Vecinos Unidos testified o n the harshness o f life without social assistance. T h e Urban Institute calls

Hartford, the home of these women, one of the kindest t o people on public assistance, b u t even here the conditions are atrocious. T h e women mentioned the renewed, anti-feminist glamorization o f domesticity for elite white women, just as w o m e n o f c o l o r are being

treated as criminals for tending t o their children. It is powerful stuff. The elected officials interrupt periodically t o say that this problem or that problem can be dealt with by this piece of a n extant law or by that social agency. To them the problems are those o f access and n o t of disenfranchisement: i f only the women knew of the support structure that the good government o f Connecticut has already given its people! But the women are adamant: yes, we've tried t o

get the child-care benefits, but we've been told we don’t quality because o f this, that, and the other thing. And the official says, call my office I'll sort it out. Another woman says she can call your otfice, but what about

of other w o m e n w h o d o n ’ t k n o w they can do that. W e need civics classes and better trained state workers, says the official. the thousands

Frustration sets into the conversation. Eventually little came o f the meeting. T h e representatives said that

they supported the spirit o f the bill, but they could n o t see what the specifics might be. How do you spend the money, they asked? The Campaign t o E n d Child Poverty has worked for several years with lawmakers t o craft legislation that offers children a healthy a n d just future. T h e bill calls for a t w o percent tax o n the portion o f income

above $200,000 per year (only the money above this amount will bear the tax). This tax o r social levy would only affect three percent o f the population and i t would raise $600 million. The bill does n o t say h o w

the money will be spent, but the Campaign does offer many ideas. The assault on welfare left thousands o f families in Connecticut, as

elsewhere, without the means t o live with dignity. The Campaign wants families t o receive a cash payment, this so that the recipients are

allowed the dignity t o spend the money as they wish (the state used t o dictate h o w the funds are spent via F o o d Stamps, and so forth). Furthermore , the Campaign sets aside funds for the creation o f social

Workfare

services t h a t

cannot

receive funds

169

because o f a draconian “ s p e n d i n g

c a p ’ passed b y the conservative state legislature. There is even talk o f a

neighborhood corps o f civics workers whose role i t is t o go door t o door and check i n with families t o see i f they can provide any social capital t o help engender change. T h e Campaign targets children for a strategic reason: the media

and power elite stigmatize p o o r women (often women o f color), and any program that targets them 1s sure t o fail. Obviously any program

that targets children will enable the destiny o f all people, n o t just children. The status o f Connecticut’s children is stark and the Campaign offered a g o o d strategic wedge t o break open discussion o n

welfare by a n appeal t o a generally vacuous moral liberalism. A year later, in the spring o f 2001, 500 academics from Connecticut signed a petition on behalf o f the Campaign and its bill. The Campaign organized a press conference t o highlight this development as well as t o publicly turn over the signatures t o the sponsors o f the bill. Two legislators came t o the conference. Tima King, a member o f the

Campaign, harangued the statehouse for its indifference. With a child in her arms, she said, “I’m standing as an American citizen ready t o fight for

my rights.” Only one reporter came t o the event, Dan Levine o f the HartfordAdvocate.” T h e struggle continues. . . . “You Only Get What You're Organized t o Take”

I n 2000, the Republican Party chose t o hold its political convention i n Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Eager t o w i n the North for a team from

the S o u t h (Bush)

a n d the W e s t (Cheney), the Republicans also wanted

t o s h o w c a s e t h e n e w form o f d e v e l o p m e n t i n A m e r i c a s o d e a r t o t h e

h e a r t o f t h o s e i n power: t h e fancy downtown. Downtown Philadelphia,

like m o s t large US cities, experienced “white flight” from the end o f World War I I t o the present. Even i n the 1990s, the population o f Philadelphia declined b y just over four percent, and i t would have been m o r e h a d the city n o t attracted Latinos a n d Asians t o keep t h e numbers

u p . ' ” The population in Bucks County and Montgomery County that

Philadelphia grew by t e n percent. T o attract t h o s e w h o t o o k their tax dollars elsewhere as consumers (and some as residents), the

border

city spent vast sums o f taxpayer dollars t o “revitalize” downtown. Millions o f dollars went toward a convention center, s u r r o u n d e d b y

new, expensive h o t e l s and shops, all financed w i t h b o n d issues a n d

170

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

O n top of this, the city managers wanted t o build a $1.2 billion (or more) baseball stadium in the area that now houses a 150-year-old Chinatown. The city (and state) felt comfortable spending money on corporate welfare, b u t their plan for the poor w a s quite different.!”’ Professor Dennis Culhane o f the University of Pennsylvania’s School o f Social Work has produced a m o s t depressing body o f work. From a reading o f some o f the papers in his considerable oeuvre, it becomes clear that Philadelphia is a city in crisis, with a large homeless population drawn from neighborhoods battered by structural taxes.

adjustment. Almost 70 percent o f those w h o use the shelters o f

Philadelphia, the “city of brotherly love,” had once lived in working-class neighborhoods now assaulted by a loss o f jobs and services. These are the neighborhoods with abandoned homes (30,000 across the city) and stores, high rates o f police brutality and violence, and a collapse o f the social democratic institutions, such as schools and

representative democracy.'™ A quarter of those who live in Philly struggle below the federal poverty line; a third o f the children in the city live south o f success. I n Kensington, Philly’s p o o r e s t neighborhood, only a fifth o f the population turns out t o exercise its franchise. The city had a plan for the poor: t o discipline them with an overwhelming police dragnet known as Operation Sunrise. T h e

neighborhoods known as Kensington and Fairhill once housed the Irish working class that worked i n the m a n y manufacturing plants

whose carcasses are still visible here and there. A s black migrants m o v e d into the city, the Irish a n d other whites fled with the jobs,

although those also disappeared in the 1970s as the economy shifted focus. I n Kensington, whites remain i n a majority, with the median income less than $26,000. Almost half o f those 70,000 w h o n o w live in Kensington-Fairhill sutvive below the poverty line. T h e managing

director of Philadelphia, Joseph Certain, complained about drug use in the neighborhood, characterizing the situation as a “neighborhood emergency,’ and said that 1998’s Operation Sunrise was a “military regimen” t o rejuvenate the area.!’” H o w does police violence solve a

problem whose roots are in this: only 21 percent o f those in Kensington earn income via employment, the rest are unemployed; only 3 1 percent had access t o trade school o r college, while the rest barely finished high

school; even though close t o three-quarters o f the residents

in

Kensington had bank accounts, there are n o banks in the area’ ..? What

Workfare

171

does Operation Sunrise d o t o create the long-term means for security

and prosperity among the people i n Kensington? Nothing.

The new mayor, John Street, talked o f demolishing blight and attracting the N e w E c o n o m y t o the city, t o create a “Philacon Valley.”

Rather than turn over abandoned homes to the homeless, h e began to demolish them and turn them over t o developers. T h e future is n o t a h o m e for everyone, b u t o n e m o r e J u m p Street U S A — a city-financed

$50 million retail complex in the Temple University area

to

rival

Harlem i n N e w York City. T h e J u m p Street p r o j e c t took place w h e n Street was the head o f the City Council. His predecessor, Mayor

Rendell, said o f the project, “People in North Philadelphia [people o f color] are dying t o g o t o the movies here instead o f going downtown [where the white suburbanites visit]. They are dying t o eat i n s o m e

first-class restaurants right here, instead o f going downtown. This is going t o b e a true destination.”!!° T h e people are dyingall right, whether t o see a movie o r e a t a t a first-class restaurant i s another question.

I f we're talking rights in Kensington, there’s one place that walks

the walk: the Kensington Welfare Rights Union (IKWRU). Born in 1991 from a conversation between five “welfare mothers,” K W R U 1s innovative i n 1ts approach t o welfare rights and effective i n getting its message o u t t o the world.!'! K W R U draws o n the abolitionist heritage

(with 1ts new Underground Railroad—a network o f individuals who s u p p o r t K W R U ) , b u t for i t s ideological sustenance, mainly o n the

human rights tradition. I f the campaign in Connecticut drew on the “Tax the Rich” line, the KWRU position 1s “Human Rights for All.” The horizon for KWRU 1s the Universal Declaration o f Human Rights from D e c e m b e r 10, 1948, a d o p t e d by the General Assembly b u t n o t by individual states mainly because the U S S R and i t s allies felt chary a b o u t

the freedoms o f association and expression, whereas the USA refused t o agree t o the rights t o housing, income and a job, education, medical

care, and other basic needs.!!'? Even as the US did n o t agree with this broad declaration o f human needs, the K W R U i n 1997 began a campaign t o d o c u m e n t h u m a n rights v i o l a t i o n s based o n the h o r i z o n set

by the world community in 1948. KWRU’s use o f the human rights framework is n o t unique; indeed

m o s t welfare r i g h t s ’ g r o u p s riff off the Declaration as t h e y formulate

their

o f KWRU’s work 1s a t the and tactical level. According t o Willie Baptist (the e d u c a t i o n

demands. The distinctive aspect

strategic

172

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

director at KWRU), if w e accept that the liberal reformers from above

have failed t o liberate the poor, that charity is n o t the solution, then the

welfare recipients must liberate themselves. When the working class held jobs, they were able t o pay dues t o sustain their o w n organizations (unions), but a m o n g the contingent there 1s n o surplus income for

organization building. S o h o w d o e s K W R U operate? O n e o f K W R U ’ s

main slogans is “You Only Get What You're Organized t o Take.” Here 1s Willie Baptist o n the slogan:

We don’t advocate going around taking things all the time, but w h e n i t comes t o families w h o are being displaced with

no other recourse, when there’s empty buildings just sitting there complete with plumbing, or an empty church with

plumbing a n d heating, and there’s people sitting there with families and kids, who have no other options but t o die or go Into the church, we go into the church.

When KWRU did this, and a group of priests objected, those within the church said, “We talked

to

God, and God told us that we

shouldn’t let the families die on the streets.” This shamed the priests into allowing the people shelter. The basic position o f the poor is where we have t o take our destiny into o u r o w n hands and p u t ourselves into relationship with others w h o see their self-interest tied t o

us, whether social workers, labor leaders, students, o r

people in the religious community, and win the bulk o f the American p e o p l e t o a program t h a t affects their

lives as

well as ours.

KWRU organizes people t o fake what they need, forms these sites into bases (called H u m a n Rights Houses) t o expand the struggle, and then pursues a political campaign from this base. A Freedom B u s Tour,

a Poor People’s Summit, a University o f the Poor, and the Poor

People’s Human Rights Campaign form the vatious parts o f the political campaign o f K W R U . I t i s significant, however, that Willie Baptist and

Mary Bricker-Jenkins (both senior KWRU leaders), note that the campaign does n o t “and has not prescribed specific programs, opting

instead t o emphasize the imperative o f organizing a mass base for change, to ‘win people’s hearts and minds’ to the notion that economic

justice is both necessary and possible.” ! 3

3

Workfare

173

KWRU plays a very important role in Philadelphia and the theories t h a t emanate from i t s v i r t u o s o practice have stimulated discussions across the country. However, there are s o m e points that remain o p e n

for debate. For example, what does i t mean for K W R U n o t t o prescribe

specific programs or reforms in its political work? Does this mean that KWRU

does n o t have a legislative agenda, a program for the

transformation o f the state and for state power? I f this is so, then w h y b o t h e r with the indictment o f the state for human rights reforms? I f the state 1s t o b e a b j u r e d , w h y bring i t into the picture a t all? W h a t i s n o t clear

from K W R U is h o w m u s t the welfare rights movement understand the

What is clear, however, is that K W R U 1s a phenomenal organizer o f the contingent class and it encourages people t o become leaders, turn state.

progressive set o f values leader Cherri Honkala put it: to a

a n d take the country back.

T o bring this movement

As KWRU

everybody o u t there, we i n this r o o m have t o see ourselves as leaders. We have got t o get people o u t o f their intoxication in every sense o f the word, t o to

get people t o p u t d o w n the drugs, the alcohol, the television,

and the despair. I f w e can inspire them to get involved, then

we can win the fight because we are the majority o f the people and we can truly take our country back.''*

The New Millennium Freedom Riders “ I t i s outrageous t o hold a conference that excludes the very people

being talked about,” said Mark Toney, executive director o f the Center

for Third World Organizing (CTWO). I n Washington, DC, policy w o n k s gathered for the N e w World o f Welfare conference i n early

February 2001. Organized by the University o f Michigan’s Ford School o f Public Policy, the conclave sought t o frame the policy debate for the reauthorization o f the federal welfare laws i n 2002. B u t the organizers

failed t o i n c l u d e the voices o f those o n welfare o r those w h o are o n the frontlines o f welfare r e f o r m . ' " ” T o n e y a n d a b o u t 1 0 0 o t h e r grassroots organizers fought their w a y into

the

conference

and

registered

their

displeasure

at

the

undemocratic w a y decisions are formulated i n the U S . T h e y c a m e t o

D C t o p u t t h e political elite o n notice: w e are here, w e can speak, and w e w o n ’ t allow y o u t o m a k e policy b e h i n d closed d o o r s . They d i d n ’ t d o

much direct action, the sorts o f things that one sees a t r e c e n t

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

174

their very presence as a bloc, their questions, their interventions, their intelligence, all this

international monetary conferences recently. Rather

was a shock t o those w h o have got so very u s e d t o being managers o f the

republic. T h e speakers invited t o formulate the debate came from the

ideological Right: Charles Murray, Jason Turner (the controversial welfare commissioner for New York City), “scholars” from the American Enterprise Institute and Heritage Foundation (notably Robert Rector) and finally, Tommy Thompson, the US Secretary o f Health and Human Services. Faced with word o f the “disruptions,”

Thompson withdrew himself “due

to

safety concerns.” When the

grassroots talk back, the establishment senses the Bastille.

Indeed, the New World o f Welfare conference illustrates the problem with h o w this nation formulates “public” policy. T h e elite

meet i n

expensive hotels

(this was

the p r i s o n profits—soaked

Marriott),'!’” far from the rabble, and formulate policy based on all manner o f prejudices t o suit the interests o f Wall Street (and sometimes Main Street). But this time the grassroots sprouted, much t o the discomfort o f the suits. Little p r o t e s t o c c u r s without meticulous preparation. This o n e came t o us courtesy o f GROWL, Grassroots Organizing for Welfare

Leadership, a national platform o f 50 grassroots organizations convened b y C T W O . Founded t w o decades ago, C T W O has made quite a n a m e for i t s e l f i n the world o f anti-racist justice. I t i s well k n o w n

for its MAAP program, which began a decade ago as the Minority Activist Apprenticeship Program, but in 2001, changed the M t o Movement. Activists o f color learn C T W O ’ s ideology-based direct

action philosophy and then do six week-long internships with allies across the country. Apart from this, CTWO is also on the map as a leading part o f the National Organizers’ Alliance and the former publisher o t Colorlines magazine.

In 1999, CTWO brought together organizations from across the country that either work on the issue o f welfare justice or whose working class constituencies had begun t o feel the effects o f the ruthless welfare “reform” measure. These 50 groups come from places as distinct as N e w York City, Oakland, Miami, and Boise, but each o f them brings their special experience o f poverty. While groups such as

Fifth Avenue Committee (Brooklyn, New York) or Direct Action for

Workfare

175

Rights and Equality (Providence, Rhode Island) are community-based, working-class membership organizations, other groups offer technical support (such as San Francisco’s We Interrupt This Message or Oakland’s Applied Research Center), while yet other groups are labor formations (for example, Miami Workers’ Center). This v a s t and energetic coalition of groups announced the formation o f GROWL i n M a y 2000 as a means t o intervene i n the welfare debate with a framework that 1s based o n anti-racist justice, gender equity, sexual

liberation, and class struggle. G R O W L m o v e d forward with another outrageous act, a national briefing for lawmakers o n the issue o f welfare reauthorization from the

grassroots! I t was scheduled for September 11, 2001, and people from across the country trudged to D C t o tell the lawmakers what’s what.

That date, unfortunately, was a disaster, and the meeting was

postponed until February 5, 2002. After a n immense a m o u n t o f organization and planning, the meeting came off and i t s e t a t o n e in DC: Don’t make policy without listening t o the people who have t o live with t h o s e laws (if y o u listen t o E n r o n executives t o make energy

policy, perhaps you should listen t o the oppressed when you make oppression rules!). O f course there are no illusions that a hearing changes m i n d s , b u t s u c h a political act b o t h steels those w h o face their

that the base is neither disorganized nor passive. About 200 people gathered in a Capitol Hill hearing room t o listen t o the testimonies. “You'll rarely see a Capitol Hill policy briefing that moves the audience t o tears,” said Frances Fox Piven, a co-moderator o f the briefing. “We heard m e n d a c i o u s representatives a n d it reminds these elected leaders

remarkable stories that s h o u l d challenge policy makers t o take a serious

look a t the flaws i n our country’s welfare system.” Much o f the material in this chapter comes from that briefing, as well as from the materials prepared by GROWL over the past t w o years. “GROWL is the voice o f t h o s e w h o are directly impacted,” says Sandra R o b e r t s o n , o f the

H u n g e r Coalition. “ W e are representatives o f those w h o m w e are fighting for. W e are o u r o w n voices. That 1s minimal in other coalitions and networks. B u t for G R O W L ,

this is pivotal.” Unquestionably,

GROWIL.s uniqueness lies in its genuine grassroots flavor. But, as this [eft ensemble makes clear, the issue is n o t just that the people b e allowed

t o speak, b u t that the radical analysis o f working-class conditions

is

organized into the debate. T h e “welfare debate has been hijacked by the

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

176

Right,” says Toney. “No one says welfare reform is wrong,” explains former G R O W L coordinator Dana Ginn Parades. “It increases poverty,

rips families apart. What's that got t o do with family values?” What is the purpose of GROWL, o f the national network o f these impressive grassroots organizations? GROWL 1s about power, about power secured in the struggle t o win concrete gains from the formally democratic system as well as t o p u s h the quantitative gains towards a qualitative transformation. Parades laid o u t the dispute with the government’s framework i n the following manner:

governments]

[The

declares

framework

that

“work” —meaning paid work outside the home, n o matter h o w demeaning o r poorly compensated—must b e the

highest value in our society. So when poor people care for their families o r get a n education, they are n o t viewed as

“working.” T h e dominant philosophy holds that childcare o r

education are n o t important enough t o support with a strong

safety net. GROWL challenges this philosophy from a grassroots perspective b y conducting research t o influence policy makers, building effective networks o f grassroots and

support

organizations,

and

providing

trainings

and

consultations t o increase grassroots capacity.’ '®

How does GROWL propose t o reframe the debate on welfare? * Consolidate a progressive political alliance. I f the local organizations can join their place-based power into a nationwide force and i f they conduct a full-scale attack o n the

Right’s view of welfare, then perhaps they can move the discussion o n social assistance t o include class inequality, homelessness, illness, starvation, and immobility and t o fight

for economic equity, homes, healthcare, food, transportation. * Document h o w welfare “reform”

perpetuates racism,

sexism, and xenophobia. I f the justice framework i s n o t

open

about the specific m o d e o f attack

utilized by

the

Right, we will miss the race, gender, and national questions raised b y welfare “reform” and b y “welfare as w e k n o w i t . ” * Expand the definition o f work. Waged w o r k i s n o t the only

kind o f labor, as childcare, cultural work, and other social contributions m u s t b e seen as worthy o f i n c o m e suppbrt.

Workfare

177

* Build a collective vision. Fight t o value justice, creative

expression, and social interactions over the anomie o f

welfare “reform.” Human rights 1s part o f the framework, b u t rather than assume that w e are fighting for inalienable rights i n a state w h o s e character is a

given, the groups within GROWL are on the road t o entirely refashion the relationship between the state and the citizen. W e need t o think o f

new organizational forms for social interaction and the GROWL campaign, 1f it does retain the virtuosity o f its members, will go in that direction. G R O W L i s , then, a b o u t organization as well as ideological

and political struggle. “What w e want for citizens i n o u r state cannot b e w o n unless w e get national legislation,” says Robertson, and Toney

adds, “unless we change the global conditions o f exploitation that are based o n r a c i s m . ” G R O W L recognizes that its fights are a b o u t this reform and that reform, but it 1s more than the sum o f each o f these local battles. I n Montana, Native peoples felt that they were being

singled o u t for attack, says Robideau, but G R O W L shows us how “we are n o t alone, that there i s a pattern, a systematic attack against working

people o f color.” GROWI. organizes the heart and soul o f the surplus population t o fight b a c k against the systematic attack o n them, b u t also t o try t o imagine i n t h e i r struggle a b e t t e r world. “We’re h e r e a n d w e ’ r e not

alone,” says Robideau. “Together we’re going t o change this world.

I f y o u ’ r e i n the way, g e t i n step, because we're coming.”

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

NR

178

Johnnie Tillmon, “Welfare is a Women’s Issue,” Ms., 1972. All quotations are from Robert B. Reich, “Clinton’s Leap in the Dark: H o w the plight o f the “next t o poor” has distorted the reform o f

welfare,” Times Literary Supplement, January 22, 1999.

Pamela Loprest, How Families thatLeft Welfare areDoing:ANationalPicture, Washington, D C : Urban Institute, 1999.

GAO,

Food Stamp Program: Varions Factors Have L e d to Declining

Participation, Washington, D C : G A O , 1999; Sheila Zedlewski and Sarah

Brauner, Are the Steep Declines in Food Stamp Participation Linked to Falling Welfare Caseloads? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1999; Hunger Action Network o f New York State, The Reality of Hunger: A Survey of Emergency Food Program Utilization in NYS between November 1995 and November 1999, Albany: HAN-NYS, 2000; Northwest Federation o f Community Organizations, FoodStamps Out Hunger: Hunger in the West and

What Governors and Congress Can D o About It, Seattle:

NFCO, 2001;

Oregon Action, Hunger Pangs: Oregon’s Food Stamp Program Fails to Deliver, Portland: O A and Seattle: N F C O , 2000, and Oregon Action, S#// Not

Making the Grade: AES Gets a ‘C’ from Families Seeking Food Stamp Benefits, Portland: O A and Seattle: N F C O , 2001.

“Wellstone Challenges White House Assertion o f Welfare Reform ‘Success Story,” Press Release from Senator Paul Wellstone’s office,

August 3, 1999. Excellent overviews o f the “two tier” system can be found in G . John Ikenberry and Theda Skocpol, “Expanding Social Benefits: T h e Role o f

Social Security,” Political ScienceQuarterly, vol. 102, no. 3, 1987, and John

Myles, “Postwar Capitalism and the Extension of Social Security into a Retirement Wage,” one among many usetul essays in The Politics ofSocial Policy in the United States, edited by Margaret Weir, A n n Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. I am following the

very useful 1979 summary from Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People’s Movements, pp. 264-361. For a passionate account o f the life o f the contingent class and welfare, see David Hilfiker, Urban

Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002. Linda Gordon, Pitied But N o t Entitled. Single Mothers and the

History o f

Welfare, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994, p . 276.

For example, Lucy Komisar, Down and Out in the US A: A History ofPublic Welfare, N e w York: Franklin Watts, 1977, p p . 7 5 - 7 7 . Komisar’s general

approach mirrors that o f Anthony Platt’s The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency, Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1969. Platt denounces the paternalistic studies o f

child welfare

a n d a d o p t s a Marxist

view o f

welfare as social control. Elizabeth Wilson's Women and the Welfare State,

London: Tavistock, 1977, takes the Platt approach one step further.

From a feminist standpoint, she argues that welfare policy is mbre than

Workfare

179

“Just a set o f services i t 1s also a s e t o f ideas about society and family.” The state, then, forms the working-poor American family. Piven and Cloward, Poor People’sMovements, p. 2771. Charles Payne reports that the anti-poverty money enabled activists t o s t a r t getting a paycheck, that n o t only did m o s t o f them n o t get co-opted, but “they w e n t on agitating i n s i d e t h e i r n e w organizations, often against their o w n bosses.” I've Got the Light

10 11

of Freedom:

The

Organizing Tradition

and the Mississippi

Freedom Struggle, Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1995, p. 358. Mary Lynn Kotz and Nick Kotz, A Passionfor Equality: George A . Wiley and the Movement, New York: Norton, 1977, p. 199. Linda Gordon’s fantastic study offers us a prehistory o f NWRO in the mutual benefit societies, church groups, womens’ clubs and i n the National Association o f Colored Women, from the 1890s t o the 1930s.

Pitied But Not Entitled, chapter 5. 12

F o r a fuller discussion o f N W R O , see Andrea Sachs, “The Politics o f Poverty: Race, Class, Motherhood and the National Welfare Rights

Organization, 1965-1975,” Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Ph. D., 2001; Lawrence Ballis, Bread or Justice: Grassroots Organizing in the Welfare Rights Movement, N e w York: Heath, 1974; Robert Fisher, Let the

People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America, New York: Twayne, 1984; Larry Jackson and William Johnson, Protest by the Poor: The Welfare Rights Movement in New York City, N e w York: Lexington, 1974; Kotz and

Kotz, A Passion for Equality; Jacqueline Pope, Biting the Hand that Feeds

Then: Organizing

Women on Welfare a t the Grassroots

Level, N e w

York:

Praeger, 1989; Guida West, The National Welfare Rights Movement: The SocialProtest ofPoor Women, N e w York: Praeger, 1981. 13 14 15 16

Martin Luther King, Jr., “ I Have A Dream,” A Testament ofHope, p. 217. Piven and Cloward, Poor People’s Movements, p. 284. Tillmon, “Welfare 1s a Women’s Issue.”

Pwven and Cloward, Poor People’s Movements, tell the broad story well. Guida West shows us how the black w o m e n o n welfare fought t o gain c o n t r o l o f a n organization dominated b y middle-class black m e n (like

Wiley) and middle-class white men (like Tim Sampson and Bert De Leeuw). I t was n o t simply a matter o f identity, b u t also o f h o w the issues

came t o be c u t . Against Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP), West tells us, “The male dominated staff gave top priority t o goals t h a t reinforced the ‘ i n t a c t ’ a n d traditional family (where b o t h father a n d mother are

17

present), ignoring the fact t h a t the majority o f NWRO’s members represented female-headed households.” West, The National Welfare Rights Movement, p. 80. The most significant case was Goldberg ». Kelly (392 US 254, 1970) i n which the justices accepted that welfare is a form o f property that could

be withheld without due process. However, Rosado v. Wyman (397 US 413, 1970), Dandridge v. Williams (397 US 471, 1970), and Wyman 7. James

not

180

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

(400 US 309, 1971) put limits on the state’s responsibility

to

provide

welfare, allowed the state t o restrict welfare, and, from the last case, allowed the state t o violate the privacy o f welfare recipients.

18

For instance, Robert Lampman, The Low-Income Population and Economic Growth, Washington, D C : Congressional Joint Economic Committee, Study Paper n o . 1 2 , 1959; Vincent Burke a n d L e e Burke, Nixon's Good

Deed: Welfare Reform, New York: Columbia University Press, 1974. 19

Frances Fox Piven, “Globalization, American Politics and Welfare Policy,” Lost Ground: Welfare Reform, Poverty and Beyond, E d s . Randy

Albedia and A n n Withorn, Cambridge: South E n d Press, 2002, p . 31. A l s o , Sanford F. Schram, Words of Welfare: The Poverty

of Social Science and

the Social Science of Poverty, Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press,

1995, pp. 77-97 offers a useful overview o f h o w statistics work 1n the 20

top-down side o f welfare policy. Lisa Levenstein, “ F r o m Innocent Children t o Unwanted Migrants and

Unwed Moms: Two Chapters in the Public Discourse on Welfare in the

21 22 23

United States, 1960-1961,” Journal of Women’s History, vol. 11, no. 4, Winter 2000. Piven and Clowatd, Poor People’s Movements, p . 333. David Zucchino, The Myth o f the Welfare Queen, N e w York: Touchstone

Books, 1999. Johnnie Tillmon, “Welfare is a Women’s I s s u e . ” T h e point about getting the tubes tied 1s n o t idle. I n 1990, the Philadelphia Inguirer p r o p o s e d the enforced use o f the contraceptive Norplant to prevent women o n

welfare from bearing children. D . Kimelman, “Poverty and Norplant: can contraception reduce the underclass?” Philadelphia Inquirer, December 12, 1990. Vanessa Williams, then president o f the

24 25

Philadelphia chapter o f the National Association o f Black Journalists called the editorial “a tacit endorsement o f slow genocide.” Clarence Page, “Hope Best Way t o Fight Poverty,” Oregonian, December 31, 1990. AFDC recipients h a d a n average o f 1.9 children, with the median period o f receipt o f AFDC only 23 months. The notion of the “blameless widow” is central t o this stereotype upon which politicians made policy. Gordon, PitiedB u t NotEntitled, chapter 2. I f this theory appears too conspiracy-oriented, one need only read the basic texts o f neoclassical economics. I n 1958, A . W . Phillips argued for a

negative, or inverse, relationship between the rate o f inflation and unemployment. That is, when unemployment remained low, wages skyrocketed and vice versa. I n the late 1960s, Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman made a more sophisticated model called “expectations

augmented Phillips curve,” where they disaggregated the short and long term expectations o f workers, b u t

in the e n d argued for

a “natural rate o f

unemployment.” Embarrassed by the baldness o f the’ phrase,

Workfare

181

economists now refer t o the “natural rate” as N A I R U , “non-accelerating inflation rate o f u n e m p l o y m e n t . ” T h e t w o central papers o n this are

Edmund Phelps, “Phillips Curves, Expectations o f Inflation and

Optimal Employment Over Time,” Economic. NS 34, n o . 3, 1967 and Milton Friedman, “The Role o f Monetary Policy,” American Economics Review, vol. 58, 1968. I f there m u s t naturally be an unemployed population, i t would b e relatively deskilled, i n need o f surveillance, a n d occasionally hired t o discipline the r e s t o f the population.

26

Congressional Research Service, “ C a s h and N o n - C a s h Benefits for

Persons with Limited Income: Eligibility Rules, Recipient and

27 28

Expenditure Data, F Y 1990-92,” Washington, D C : CRS, 1993 (Report 93-832 EPW). Peter Edelman, “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done,” Atlantic Monthly, no. 297, March 1997.

David Ellwood, Divide and Conquer: Responsible Security for America’s Poor, N e w York: Ford Foundation, 1987, and Mary Jo Bane and David

Ellwood, “Slipping into and o u t o f poverty: the dynamics o f spells,” Journal ofHuman Resources, vol. 21, no. 1, Winter 19806. 29

T h e line also appeared i n the 1 9 9 2 Democratic Platform, “ A N e w

30

Covenant with the American People,” in Part two, entitled “Responsibility.” E . J. Dionne, They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives WillDominate the Next Political Eva, N e w York: Simon & Schuster, 1996, p. 69.

31

M a r yJo Bane and David Ellwood, Welfare Realities:From Rhetoric fo Reform, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994, pp. 157-58.

32

Clinton’s first draft o f welfare “reform,” the “Work and Responsibility A c t ” o f 1994 p r o p o s e d t h a t work m u s t pay, assistance must b e limited t o t w o years, the state m u s t enforce child s u p p o r t payments, a n d t h e state

must p r o v i d e education and the support structure t o enable p e o p l e t o go t o s c h o o l . F o r a g o o d introduction

t o t h e legislative p r o c e s s a n d the

Washington blather, see Anne Marie Cammisia, From Rhetoric to Reform: [Welfare Policy in American Politics, Boulder: Westview, 1998. 33

Evelina A l a r c o n , “Rallies B o o s t Martinez J o b s B i l l ) ” People’s Weekly

World, October 25, 1997. 34 35

Margot Hornblower, “Pork and the Fast Track,” Time, February 9, 1998. Ellwood w o u l d later regret that “time l i m i t s ” remained o n t h e agenda,

w i t h o u t the social s u p p o r t . David Ellwood, “Welfare Reform as I K n e w

I t : w h e n b a d things happen to good policies,” American Prospect, n o . 20,

36

May-June 1996; Frances Fox Piven and David Ellwood, “Controversy,” American Prospect, no. 27, July—August 1997. Barbara Vobejda and Judith Havemann, “ 2 HSS Otficials Quit Over Welfare Changes,” Washington Post, September 12, 1996.

37

Murray and Herrnstein, The Bell Curve, p. 524.

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

182

38

Biologists and psychologists have repudiated this argument, such as in Intelligence, Genes and Success: Scientists Respond to the Bell Curve, Eds. Devun,

Fienberg, Resnick and Roeder, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997, and Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve, Eds. Fischer, Hoot, Jankowski, Locas, Swidler and Yoss, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. 39

“Freedom F r o m Welfare Dependency: A n Interview with George

Gilder,” Religion andLiberty, vol. 4, no. 2, March-April 1994. 40

Committee on Ways and Means, US House o f Representatives, Overview

of Entitlement Programs, Washington, DC: Congress, 1994. 41

Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, “The Historical Sources o f the

Contemporary Relief Debate,” The Mean Season: The Attack on the Welfare State, Eds. Fred Block, Richard Cloward, Barbara Ehrenreich and Frances Fox Piven, N e w York: Pantheon, 1987, pp. 58-062. 42

This 1s the general tenor o f Christopher Hitchens’s gossipy N o OrneLeft to Lae To: The Triangulations of WilliamJeffersons Clinton, London: Verso, 1999, and o f Robert Reich’s Locked in the Cabinet, N e w York: Vintage, 1998.

43

Anthony Giddens, the prophet o f the “third way,” wrote, “The new mixed economy looks instead for a synergy between public and private sectors, utilizing the dynamism o f markets b u t with the public interest in mind.” The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, London: Polity, 1999, pp. 99-100. After Enron, this emperor has no clothes.

44

G A O , Outcomes for T A N F Recipients with Impairments, Washington, D C :

GAO, n o . 02-884, 2002, p. 2. Also Winifred Collier-Bolkus, “The Impact o f the Welfare Reform Law on Families with Disabled Children That N e e d Child Care,” Wilmington, D E : Widener University, Ph.D.,

2000. 45

Gary Delgado, “Racing the Welfare Debate,” Colorlines, vol. 3, no. 3,

Fall 2000. 46

Washington State, headquarters o f the Microsoft New Economy, is no paradise. The Northwest Federation o f Community Organizations finds that about 40 percent o f all jobs in the region pay less than the living wage for a single adult, while 75 percent pay less than a living wage for a

single adult and t w o children. Northwest Federation o f Community Organizations, Northwest Job Gap Study: Searching for Work that Pays, Seattle: NFCO, 1999. Washington Citizen Action found that 300,000 families in Washington State live below the federal poverty line. Washington

Citizen Action,

The Washington Economy:

Working But N o t

Marking a Living, Seattle: WCA and NFCO, 2000. 47

Lying with statistics 1s well-known

t o the B J P government i n I n d i a : T h e

government revised the poverty line in such a way that in Pune district

the number o f poor families fell from 59,340 t o 34,000, while in Yeravada, the decline was stunning, from 12,000 t o 261. This is either magic o r mendacity.

48

3

Randy Albelda, “Fallacies o f Welfare-to -Work,” Lost Ground, p . 34.

Workfare

49

183

Four studies from Milwaukee Women and Poverty Public Education Initiative lay o u t the facts clearly: W-2 Community Impact Study WPPEI, 1998 shows that recipients turn t o family and friends t o bear the c o s t o f survival); Myth and Reality: The Experience of W-2 in Wisconsin (WPPEI, 2000, shows that the Wisconsin program left the poor without any transitional services, in poverty); Ihe Status of Employment Opportunity for \V-2 Participants in Central City Milwankee (WPPEI, 2000, shows t h a t o u t o f all W-2 parucipants with a job, only one in six earns an income above the poverty line); and vices from the Community (WPPEIL 2001, lets us listen 1n as W - 2 recipients document racism and harassment at the

welfare office, and a lack o f i n c o m e and housing as impediments t o

freedom). 50 51

“Labor

Protections

and

Welfare

Reform,”

Washington,

DC:

Department o f Labor, 1997. Chris Tilly, Workfare’s Impact on the New York City Labor Market: Lower Wages and Worker Displacement, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, Working Paper n o . 92, 1996; Lawrence Mishel and John Schmitt, Cutting Wages by Cutting Welfare: The impact ofReform: on the Low-Wage a I bor Market, Washington, D C : Economic Policy Institute, 1995. For an overview o f

the workfare issue, see Jamie Peck, Workfare States, New York: Guildford, 2001. 52

Karen Carrillo, “Welfare Warfare,” Third Force, January/February 1997,

pp. 10-11. 53

Hunger Action Network o f New York State, Assessing the Effectiveness of Welfare-to-Work Programs in N e w York State: Recommendations for Economic Security, Albany: HAN-NYS, 2001.

54

Community Voices Heard, New

York City’s Public Sector

Sweatshop

Economy, New York: CVH, 2000. For an update on WEP, see Kim

55

56

Phillips-Fein, “The Education o f Jessica Rivera,” Nation, November 25, 2002. National Partnership for Women and Families, Detours on the Road to Employment: Obstacles Facing Low-Income Women, Washington, D C : NPWF,

1999. Susan Gooden, Examining Racial Differences in Employment Status among [Welfare Recipients, Oakland: Applied Research Center and GRIPP, 1997, and

“The

Hidden

Third

Party:

Welfare

Recipients

Experience

Employers,” Journal ofPublic Management and Social Policy, no. 5, Summer 1999; Institute for Research on Poverty, What's Working? Where Do We 57 58 59

Go From Here? University o f Wisconsin, IRP, 1999. Grace Chang, Disposable Domestics, Boston: South End Press, 2000. Folbre, Invisible Heart.

Nancy Fraser, Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Post-Socialist” Condition, N e w York: Routledge, 1997, p. 43.

184

60

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

For an argument in favor o f a revaluation o f “work,” see Gwendolyn Mink, Welfare’s End, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.

61 62

63

Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Families Hardest Hit: Effects of Welfare Reform on Homeless Families, Chicago: CCH, 2000. Los Angeles Coalition t o End Hunger and Homelessness, Welfare to Worse: The Effects o f Welfare Reform in Los Angeles County, 1996-2000, L o s Angeles: CACEH&H, 2000. Tennessee Justice Center, Who's OffFirst? A Look at the Impact of “Families First” and the Effects o f Welfare Reform in Tennessee, Nashville: TJC, n . d .

64

65

Hunger Action Network o f New York State, Bridging the Gap— "Transitional Benefits: What Are They? A n Overview and Survey of 15 Counties, Albany: HAN-NYS, n. d. Community Voices Heard, Time Limits or Time Bomb? AssessingNew York

City Welfare as theFive-Year Time Limit Approaches,New York: CVH, 2001. 66

67

Jean Bacon, Laura Russell, and Diane Pierce, The Self-Sufficiency Standard: Where Massachusetts Families Stand, Boston: Wider Opportunities for Women, 2000. Rebecca Gordon, Cruel and Unusual: H o w Welfare “Reform” Punishes Poor

Pegple, Oakland: Applied Research Center, 2001, p. 27. For one family’s moving story, see Akiba Solomon, “Savedb y the System: W h y are so many

kids o f color taken into the child welfare system?” Colorl ines, Fall 2002. 68

This 1s the

contemporary version o f a historical p r o b l e m i n the

shown b y Linda Gordon,

US, as

The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction,

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.

69

Gwendolyn Mink, “Violating Women: Rights Abuses in the Welfare Police State,” Losing Ground, p.103.

70

The centrality o f race t o the welfare story is well documented in K e n N e u b e c k and N o e l Cazenave, Welfare Racism: Playing the Race CardAgainst

America’s Poor, N e w York: Routledge, 2001. 71

Susan Gooden, “All Things N o t Being Equal: Differences in Caseworker Support Towards Black and White Welfare Clients,” HarvardJonrnal ofAfrican American Public Policy, vol. IV, 1998, and “Race and Welfare: Examining Employment Outcomes o f White and Black Welfare Recipients,” Journal ofPoverty, vol. 4, no. 3, 2000.

72

But Make the Road By Walking does i n their fine report, System Failure: Mayor Ginliani’s Welfare Systems 1s Hostile to Poor andImmigrant New Yorkers, Brooklyn: Make the Road By Walking, 1999. This is also the finding o f the Coalition for a n Accountable and Respectful H R A , A Tragedy o f

Errors: The New York City Human Resources Administration Fails New York's Needest Residents, New York: Make the Road by Walking, New York City AIDS Housing Network, and Urban Justice Center-Human Rights Project, 2000, as well as by CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities, Eating Welfare: ayouth conducted report on the impact o f welfare on the§ ontheast

Asian community, New York: CAAAV, 2000.

Workfare

185

73

Idaho Community Action Network and Northwest Federation o f Community Organizations, Left Alone: State Barriers Prevent Idaho Parents from Accessing Child Care Program, Boise: ICAN and NFCO, 2000.

74

Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network, Immigrant Fami/ Access to Food Stamps in Santa Clara County: A Preliminary Assessment, San

Jose: SIREN, 2000, and N e w York Immigration Coalition, Welfare Reform

and Health Care: the wrong prescription for immigrants, New York: NYIC,

2000. 75

Social Control: Welfare Policy and Race,” From Poverty to Punishment: How Gary Delgado and Rebecca Gordon, “ F r o m Social Contract t o

Welfare Reform Punishes the Poor, Oakland: Applied Research Center, 2002, p . 39. The point about sanctions being the main reason for the decline in

the welfare rolls comes from a study by

two

conservatives, Robert

Rector and Sarah Youssef, The Determination of Welfare Caseload Decline, Washington, D C : Heritage Foundation, 1999. For context o n the racism o f the administration sector, see Maya Wiley, “Getting O u r Due:

Enforcing Fairness i n the Welfare System,” From Poverty to Punishment. 76

Sanford Schram, “Race and State Welfare Reform Choices: A Cause for

Concern,” From Poverty to Punishment, pp. 100-01. 77

PUEBLO’s Living I n c o m e P r o j e c t , Criminalizing the Poor: the buman casualties of welfare reform, the unjustprosecution of welfare overpayment in Alameda County, Oakland: PUEBLO, 2000.

78

I have relied for this section o n Martha F. Davis, “Legislating Patriarchy,”

Families:

From Poverty

to Punishment and Daniel HoSang,

Failing O u r

A State-by-State Report Card on Family Supports Under Welfare

79

Reform, Oakland: Center for Third World Organizing, 2002. Wade Horn and Andrew Bush, Fathers, Marriage and Welfare Reform, Indianapolis: H u d s o n Institute, 1997.

80

Lawrence O’Rourke, “Bush Welfare Plan will push love, marriage,”

Sacramento Bee, February 25, 2002. 81 82 83 84 85 86

87

Mimi Abramovitz, “Foreword,” Failing Our Fansiles, p. 10. G o r d o n , Cruel and Unusual, p . 18. Delgado and G o r d o n , “ F r o m Social Contract t o Social Control,” From

Poverty to Punishment, p. 30. GAO, “Challenges in Saving for a ‘Rainy Day,” Washington, DC: GAO, 2001. Bill Berkowitz, “Welfare Privatization: Prospecting Among the Poor,” From Poverty to Punishment. Alan Greenspan, “The American Economy in a World Context,” thirty-fifth Annual Conference on Bank Structure and Competition o f the Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago, May 6, 1999. Jacob Schlesinger, “Charting the Pain Behind the Gain: Wages Barely Budged Over Decade,” Wall Street Journal, October 1, 1999.

186 88

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

“Surge in Corporate Tax Welfare Drives Corporate Tax Payments D o w n to Near Record Low,” Citizens for Tax Justice, April 17, 2002,

89

and details in Fat Cats and Running Dogs. James Dao, “Pentagon Seeking A Large Increase in Its Next Budget,” New York Times, January 7, 2002. The budget figures are from “US

Military Budget climbs t o $360 billion,” Council for 90

a

Livable World,

Washington, DC, 2002. George W. Bush (with Karen Hughes), A Charge to Keep:My Journey to the White House, N e w York: HarperCollins, 1999, pp. 229-30.

91

Alexandra Marks, “Spike i n welfare rolls reignites debate over safety

net,” Christian Science Monitor, February 7, 2002. 92 93 94

Leslie Kaufman, “Economy Dips While Welfare D r o p s i n Cities,” N e w

York Times, August 31, 2002. Robert Pear, “ 5 0 Senators Ask Daschle for Debate o n Renewing Weltare Law,” New York Times, September 12, 2002. Robert Pear, “House Endorses Stricter Work Rules for Poor,” New York Times, February 14, 2003.

95

Helping Religious Groups Help the Needy,” New York Times, January 26, 2001.

96 97

Bush, A Charge to Keep, p. 232.

Frank Bruni and Lauri Goodstein, “ B u s h ’ s Favorite Project:

I n Pakistan, for instance, the US government egged o n the World Bank

as it helped crush public institutions in the 1980s. By 1995, the year o f the downfall o f the Pakistani rupee, the U N reported that almost two-thirds o f the adults in the country suffered from illiteracy, and among women, the number r o s e t o three-quarters. T h e very rich s e n d their children t o expensive private schools and then overseas for education, but the rest o f t h e population m u s t m a k e d o i n the madrassas, the faith-based schools

often funded by Saudi money and generally the purveyors o f conservatism. Despite the well developed critique o f Taliban-like policies in Pakistan, in October 2000, U S policy analyst and former State

Department man Stephen P. Cohen wrote, “Some madrassas, or religious schools are excellent.” “Others,” h e wrote, “are hotbeds for

jihadist and radical Islamic movements,” b u t these, he emphasized,

ate

only about 12 percent o f the total and they “need t o be upgraded t o offer their students a modern education.” WallStreet Journal, October 23, 2000. 98

Julie Mason, “Bush’s Strategy t o Win Black Votes Bypasses NAACP,” Houston Chronicle, July 12, 2002.

99

Barbara Miner, “Politics Trumps Religion: Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative,” RacelVire, Oakland: Applied Research Center, October 2002.

1 0 0 Robert Pear, “Particulars Slow Compromise o n Extension o f Welfare

Law,” New York Times, October 15, 2002. 1 0 1 “Welfare Organizers Strategy Roundtable,” ThirdForce, May/June 1995;

Gwendolyn Mink, “Feminists, Welfare Reform, and Welfare Justice,” Sojourner, October 19983.

Workfare

187

1 0 2 Andre Gorz, A Strategy for Labor, Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, pp. 6-8, n o t e d i n Schram, Words o f Welfare, p . 193. 103 Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, “ A Strategy t o End Poverty,”

Nation, May 2, 1960. 1 0 4 For some background, see Jess Champagne, “Left at the Center,” New

Journal, April 24, 1998. 1 0 5 Edward Ericson and D a n Levine, “The Scoop: Making a Difference,”

HartfordAdvocate, April 5, 2001. 1 0 6 Martha Moore, “Amid suburban push, a surprise from Philly,” U S A

Today, March 11, 2001. 1 0 7 F o r a n excellent expose o n h o w stadiums are a part o f corporate welfare,

see Joanna Cagan and Neil DeMause, Fzeld of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money into Private Profit, M o n r o e : C o m m o n Courage Press, 1999.

1 0 8 Dennis Culhane (with Wong, Eldridge, Koppel and Metraux), A »

Evaluation ofthe Homelessness Prevention Program in Philadelphia, Philadelphia: Oftice o f Housing and Community Development, 1999; Culhane (with R. Kuhn), “Patterns and Determinants o f Shelter Utilization Among Homeless Adults in New York City and Philadelphia: A Longitudinal Analysis o f Homelessness,” Journal ofPolicy Analysis andManagement, vol. 17, no. 1, 1997; Culhane (with Lee and Wachter), “Where the Homeless

Come From: A Study o f Prior Address Distribution o f Families Admitted t o Public Shelters in New York City and Philadelphia,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 7, no. 2, 1996; Culhane (with Lee), “Locating the

Homeless: A Philadelphia Case Study,” Geolnfo Systems, July 1995. 1 0 9 Andrea Fine, “Philadelphia Launches Dragnet t o Rid the ‘Badlands’ o f Drugs,” Christian Science Monitor, July 7, 1998. 110 H e r b e r t L o w e , “ J u m p Street’ Gets t h e Spotlight,” Philadelphia Inquirer,

June 7, 1998. O f the $85 million project called Harlem Center (on Lenox and 125% Street), Reverend Calvin Butts told Peter Noel, “Many pieces

o f land in Harlem have been undeveloped for years until recently. And o n e c a n c o u n t a t least 4 0 0 j o b s t h a t h a v e b e e n created as a r e s u l t o f n e w

“I think we’re beginning t o claim the community,” h e pointed out. “You can’t say ‘reclaim’ because we have never really owned Harlem. We are beginning t o claim it.” Butts’s position drew fire from many African Americans, such as Reverend A l Sharpton: “My economic challenge t o him was that i f he really wanted t o talk black economics, he construction.”

ought to get us a black commercial bank so that we could lend brothers

and sisters money t o go into business and for mortgages. I did n o t ask him t o give us a supermarket that Pathmark [a supermarket developer] is going t o end up owning. Pathmark owning a supermarket in Kast Harlem is n o t economic development.” Record Shack owner Sikhulu Shange told the [7lage 170ice “the community businesses have been left o u t from d a y o n c . They give l o a n s t o the megastores, b u t not t o us. Well

188

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

we're n o t going t o stand for that forever.” T o b a c k u p this small business

sentiment, City Councilor Bill Perkins n o t e d , “Gentrification 1s a two-edged sword. I ' m glad t o see Harlem U S A [one o f the megastore

projects]; it’s nice t o have a mall. But that’s n o t community investment. That’s n o t

building a

future.” Paul Keegan, “ W h o O w n s H a r l e m ? ” In,

August 1, 2000, and my “Racialization o f Risk: Desi Developers on the A Train,” Little India, July 2001. 111

I'm

drawing o n the excellent essay

by Willie

Baptist a n d

Mary

Bricker-Jenkins, “ A View from the B o t t o m : P o o r People and Their Allies Respond t o Welfare Reform,” Losing Ground, the K W R U website

[www.kwru.org/educat/orgmod2.html], and especially from Willie Bishop, “ O n the Poor Organizing the Poor: The Experience o f

Kensington,” February 1998. 112 The wide-ranging declaration was split in 1966 into the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention o f Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I n

1976, as

sufficient states ratified the convention, i t

into effect. The US ratified the Convention on Civil and Political Rights 1n 1992, but has only signed and not ratified the Convention on went

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 113 Baptist and Bricker-Jenkins, “ A View from the Bottom,” p. 207. 1 1 4 Ibid, p. 2006. 1 1 5 Most o f m y material comes from in-depth interviews (held i n 2 0 0 1 and

2002) with the statt o f many o f the GROWL organizations and from WWW.ArC.01g.

116 I n 1966, when Sargent Shriver o f LBJ’s Office o f Economic

Opportunity held a news conference, 60 welfare recipients, mainly women o f color, shouted him down. “Tell us where the poor are being

helped,” they chided him. Shriver left the building. 1 1 7 Jennifer Gonnerman, “Food Fight,” 177/lage 170ice, April 14, 2000. 1 1 8 Dana Ginn Parades, “GROWL: Fighting Fierce for Welfare Rights,” C T O Times, vol. 3, no. 2, May/June 2000, pp. 1-3.

MOVEMENT whose side are you on? the side o f the busstop woman trying t o drag her bag u p the front steps before the doors clang s h u t 1 a m o n her side

1 give her exact change and him the old man hanging by one strap his work hand folded shut as the b u s doors 1 a m o n his side

when h e needs t o leave 1 ring the bell 1 am on their side riding the late bus into the same someplace 1 am on the dark side always the side o f my daughters the side o f my tired sons.

— Lucille Clifton’ A*

years ago, as t h e tumult o f t h e anti-globalization movement

struck the world, a young Lefty from N e w York City, Max Mishler, h a d a n insightful observation. I n h i s first year i n college, h e saw t w o sets

o f students who should be natural allies, but who barely communicated with each o t h e r . T h e r e are those w h o d i d community service, w h e t h e r

offering mentorship t o students i n the area, working a t a soup kitchen, providing E S L assistance, b u i l d i n g h o m e s for H a b i t a t for Humanity,

sitting b y t h e p h o n e s at a rape crisis center, o r going d o o r t o d o o r for a community service agency. H a r d - w o r k i n g students s u c h as these t o o k

time off from their busy schedules and often did this work as v o l u n t e e r s even as t h e y c a r r i e d o n e o r t w o waged (or w o r k - s t u d y ) j o b s to

help s u s t a i n t h e i r

t i m e a t c o l l e g e . T h e s e c o n d l o t o f students

joined

190

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

political organizations, organized campaigns for social justice, attended

marches and rallies, collected signatures for petitions, and did the everyday work o f making the movement possible. There were, and are, o f course, students w h o overlap between the t w o l o t s , but they are few

and far between. Many political students look down a t the reformism o f the community service students, and the latter think the former are all b l a t h e r a n d n o a c t i o n . M a x felt t h a t t h e c o m m u n i t y

service

students needed s o m e politics a n d the political students needed t o d o s o m e community service. T h e s e are dialectical opposites that need t o

be united. These “political” youth helped push the US movement t o join the planet’s charge against global corporations. The 1999 anti-WTO protest in Seattle was the debut o f this new thrust within the US, and it

reappeared during the election campaign in 2000 (in Philadelphia and in Los Angeles), as well as at the IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington, D C , then in Quebec (during the deliberations over the

Free Trade Zone o f the Americas), and finally, in New York City (in a muted fashion during the 2002 World Economic Forum). These mobilizations momentarily pressured organized labor t o revive coordination for international solidarity and environmental movements t o temper their anti-productivism when confronted by peasants from the S o u t h . T h e long-term effects are less clear than the immediate show o f camaraderie (although the personnel from the globalization movements formed the corps o f the anti-war mobilizations 1n 2003). The mobilizations are indicative o f the sentiment against capitalist globalization. T h o u s a n d s o f people travel long distances i n this wasteland o f mass p r o t e s t t o offer their bodies against the corporations a n d imperialism for a h o s t o f different reasons: frustration with the lack o f democracy i n the international

agreements, anger a t the lapse o f environmental a n d l a b o r regulation,

general displeasure with corporate culture, and for a few, eagerness t o

in t h e construction o f a movement against capitalism.” In early 2001, journalist and activist Michael Albert took the

participate

temperature o f the North American sector o f the anti-globalization movement.

While he

disobedience, Albert pointed t o movement for justice.

the militancy o f the post-Seattle civil a host o f problems with this part o f the

celebrated

Movement

191

Stagnation o n t h e Streets

I f the North American anti-globalization movement signaled its re-emergence as a mass force a t Seattle, the numbers o f people at

subsequent gatherings began t o decrease, this before the year o f

9/11.

This 1s n o t t o say that the mobilizations are a test o f t h o s e w h o support

t h e movement, because frequent mobilizations can only b e carried forward b y sections o f the p o p u l a t i o n that are mobile, p e o p l e w h o can travel across t h e country for

civil

disobedience, get arrested,

do jail

time, then p a y bail t o take the b u s t o t h e next d e m o . There are m a n y

others who support the aims o f a refashioned globalization, b u t w h o do n o t come o u t t o the mass demonstrations. Those with children, those w h o n e e d t o maintain whatever jobs they find, those w h o have elders t o

care for, and others, are less able to travel t o protest than the young, middle-class college students o r hard-core activists whose lives are geared around political work. I’ve often felt that w h e n w e estimate t h e

numbers at a protest w e should multiply 1t b y three o r so t o capture those w h o are there i n spirit, b u t whose children are napping, whose parents need t o b e dropped off at a n event, o r whose bosses refused t o allow

them one more sick day. I n her cogent reminder o f w h y there was so little

color in Seattle, movement intellectual Elizabeth Martinez notes: In personal interviews,

activists

from the B a y Area a n d t h e

Southwest gave me several reasons for [people o f color a t

Seattle being only about five percent of the total demonstrators]. Some mentioned concern about the likelihood o f brutal police repression. Other obstacles: lack

o f funds for the trip, inability

to

be absent from work

during the week, and problems i n finding child care.’ Given that t h e contingent class i s largely made up o f p e o p l e o f color, t h e

problems o f contingency make the mobilization all the more difficult. The problem is n o t simply the secular issue o f getting the less mobile to the demos. “ I worry,” writes Albert, “that we may be creating seeds for an enlarging operational disconnect between the movement and certain types o f organizing, and therefore between the movement and

the uninvolved but potentially receptive public.”* The “movement” has fashioned i t s o w n language, i t s o w n m o d e o f communication (listservs o n the Internet), a n d its o w n circles o f trust—this 1s o f course

understandable in these hard times, but it does n o t facilitate outreach.

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

192

This is perhaps what Albert means by “operational disconnect.” Those w h o demonstrate are certainly physically detached from the contingent class, a distance that has b r e d insularity i n its disregard for the everyday

reform fights that are an integral part o f the struggle. Furthermore, the

“movement” develops its militancy with no concern for the demands that might draw in the v a s t bulk o f the population: there 1s no point in being ideologically right i f y o u cannot a t the same time translate those

positions into the everyday struggles o f

the contingent

(but m o r e o n

that below). W h a t has happened i s that “the movement” has c o m e t o b e

defined b y “the mobilization,” and this has m a j o r class implications for

how the movement in general works. The “movement” draws people because i t has become cool: at A16 (April 16, 2000), I m e t a group o f high school friends in Washington, D C , w h o had borrowed the car o f one o f their parents, driven down for the weekend from Pennsylvania,

and seemed happy t o be there, in the afterglow ofSeattle. Finally, one might say, the Left is getting cool, but this is n o t the kind o f movement that

will necessarily outlast its five minutes o f fame. As Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair argue:

Demonstrations flow out o f organization and are only a

tool 1n a political campaign or movement. Demonstrations didn’t e n d the w a r i n Vietnam. Demonstrations are only

part, sometimes a small part, o f long years o f movement building and political campaigning a t multiple levels. There can be a point w h e n demonstrations achieve nothing, a n d i f

evident failures, are capable o f demoralizing and trivializing

any given campaign.”

The organizations o f the contingent go t o large demonstrations as

well, but these are n o t the primary focus of the movement. Leaders of the contingent go t o these demonstrations t o revive their enthusiasm for much larger changes, build alliances across regions, learn about struggles elsewhere, and perhaps make unusual connections t o put pressure on their local power structure. Who is at the Frontline?

The

veterans

o f the Seattle-type dynamic, Albert notes, have

created “ a culture that i s hostile t o the p e o p l e w h o i t ’ s trying t o

organize. We're n o t going t o have that whole a r o u s e d left get langer a n d

Movement

193

larger until it involves 35 t o 40 percent o f the population, with the r e s t mostly just standing b y the side and a few opposing it, i f we are

antagonizing m o s t citizens.”® The problem is deeper than this, because w e are n o t simply organized as “citizens,” b u t also as classes. I n the eyes

of the anti-globalization folks, the enemy is clear (IMF-World Bank-US Military) and the allies are clear (the People, those who come

to

the

demonstrations), b u t the class reality o f our times does n o t seem clear

nor 1s there any apparent analysis o f h o w the opposition m u s t be clear

about the class dynamics within it. Certainly there 1s a tradition within the US Left that argues on behalf o f the students as a major revolutionary force, indeed that the white color wage-workers are also workers and therefore have parity alongside the working class.” Those w h o show u p at

the demonstrations, then, form the frontline o f the struggle. Barbara E p s t e i n p o i n t s o u t that m o s t o f the anti-globalization

protestors within North America are more “attracted t o

the

movement’s culture and organizational structure than t o anarchism as a

worldview,” indeed, that for many the main target 1s “corporate power, n o t capitalism.” Anarchism, as style, s h e argues, 1s attractive t o young

people who feel burnt o u t by what they see as the failures o f the Old Left and the New Left. Because o f the lack o f faith in these traditions and because o f the lack o f steam from organized labor, “many activists i n the anti-globalization movement d o n o t see the working class as the

leading force for social change.” All p e o p l e , 1n a mass struggle, have t o unite against the D o w

Joneses, b u t

certain p e o p l e , the contingent, must

be in the l e a d o r

else

w e will e n d u p replicating the structures o f power and privilege. T h e

struggle is about the creation o f leadership, it is about the generation o f a program o f social revolution from the bottom up. History shows us that any m o v e m e n t that starts white, ends white, and any movement

that starts without a class focus, ends i n the throes o f conservative reaction, and furthermore, any movement o f m e n pretty m u c h

descends into a b o y s ’ c l u b . I f w e are n o t clear a b o u t the necessity o f

who is

to

lead and where the frontlines are located, we will n o t be able

enlarge the m o v e m e n t into the working class. To my mind, then, the character of the d e m o n s t r a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s holds within them the reason for the deracinated hostility o f the mobilized. Those who go t o the demonstrations think that they are a t the forefront o f the struggle, whereas the frontlines are held each day to

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

194

by the contingent class. In his 1956 essay, “Our Struggle,” Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote, “Montgomery has demonstrated that we will n o t run from the struggle.” Reflecting o n this line, feminist scholar

Elisabeth Armstrong writes: Using the definite article in “#e struggle,” [King] refers t o the civil rights movement i n its complex entirety; as a result, struggle takes on an added significance in the essay’s title. “Our

struggle” invokes b o t h the battles against racial

exploitation and oppression and the movement formed t o sustain those battles. S#uggle, i n this heightened sense, alludes t o the relationship between the consensus-building

and instrumental activity o f struggle and political organization. Struggle includes the process o f h o w those minute a n d

daily efforts

inform the

as a larger entity. Importantly, the

civil rights

term

movement

includes how that

movement can then transform the disparate actions into substantive racial justice. Struggle, i n this latter aspect, raises the question that wracked the later

‘movement:

What,

organizationally,

civil rights

constitutes

an

expansive vision o f racial justice?’

I f the movement 1s n o t about the incremental work o f struggle and if it relies upon the demonstration for succor and victories, then it loses the capacity t o organize the contingent class, t o build leaders among the

contingent, t o allow the contingent t o lead us into a reorganization o f society. The question, then, is n o t just about gaps that have opened up between those who demonstrate and those who don’t, but between those who think they are a t the frontlines when they t o s s the tear gas

canisters back

at

the police and those who face routine political

disenfranchisement, economic displacement, social disdain, and yet

spend their days in their own forms o f fight-back. Build Capacity, Build Socialism

I f activism 1s t o show up and shut down this or that meeting, the only program one would need is a road map. Mike Albert, again: The absence o f unifying goals, o f shared long-term commitment, and o f attention t o communicating these forthrightly a t every opportunity weakens n o t only o u t prospects o f organizing usefully toward a distant end, but 2

Movement

also our near

term

efforts

to

195

reduce pain today. Today’s

activism, for w a n t o f revolutionary designs and spirit, is often

ill-informed,

frequently lacks integrity, and virtually

never incorporates the kind o f logic, solidarity, and spirit that can sustain long-term involvement by suffering constituencies.°

The “movement” is n o t unified 1n its lack o f a program. There are t h o s e w h o c o m e as parts o f “interest groups’ with well developed plans and programs o f action: u n i o n s , environmental groups, communists, and feminists. T h e n there are t h o s e w h o are driven b y a deeply anti-institutional tendency w h o d o n o t w i s h t o formulate a program, institutional procedures, o r even a leadership: mainly the networks o f

anarchists, the libertarians, some greens. The coalition between the

“Teamsters” and the “Turtles” is a fragile one, led mainly by their opposition t o corporate power rather than i n favor o f this o r that positive strategy. I n this sense t o o , the movement i s deeply limited, a n d

indeed i t 1s unclear whether it should be called a “movement” or simply a “mobilization.”!!

T h e progressive p o l e i n the U S i s certainly

strengthened b y the protests that have developed a veneer o f the cool for y o u t h : so that i t 1s n o w socially important among progressive youth t o p r o t e s t r a t h e r than b e cynical. However, the urge t o p r o t e s t i s n o t the

same as t h e urge t o fashion another world.

A n anti-globalization

m o v e m e n t t h a t is n o t rooted i n the liberation

o f the contingent tends toward a dismissal o f the state-form as the

h o r i z o n o f demands. “Today,” wrote farmer activist José Bove, “people

mobilize

without

wanting t o

take over state institutions, a n d

maybe this is a n e w w a y o f conducting politics. T h e future lies i n changing daily life b y acting o n a n international l e v e l . ” ' * T h e anti-state

s e n t i m e n t does n o t so m u c h r e s e m b l e the anarchist argument that the

form 1s corrupt and must therefore be smashed (a position that 1s endorsed by Lenin, but with a lag time); rather, what we see here 1s a n state

argument for t h e avoidance o f t h e state i n the struggle for justice. Barbara

Epstein writes o f this strand: A n a r c h i s m has t h e m i x e d advantage o f b e i n g r a t h e r vaguc

i n terms

of i t s

prescriptions for a better society, a n d also o f

a certain intellectual fuzziness that allows 1t t o incorporate both Marxism’s protest against class exploitation, and liberalism’s outrage a t the violation o f individual rights. 1

196

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

spoke with one anti-globalization activist w h o described

the anarchism o f many movement activists as “liberalism o n steroids”’—that is, they are in favor o f liberal values,

human rights, free speech, diversity—and militantly so."

While we know that the WTO-IMF-WB is undemocratic, we don’t get an account o f h o w t o make institutions accountable. T h e state, after

all, 1s a

formally accountable institution i n a democracy and the people are within their constitutional rights t o make demands o n the state. I t i s important t o

lodge one’s demands toward this institution t o build capacity for the

in his analysis o t the Porto Alegre summit makes an analytical distinction between those who creation o f a just global democracy. Michael Hardt

work t o “reinforce the sovereignty o f nation-states as a defensive barrier

against the control o f foreign and global capital,” and those w h o “strive toward a non-national alternative t o the present form o f globalization that

is equally global.”!'* While this may be so in the style of the slogans,it is not clear what the latter m a y look like in programmatic terms: what program demands can the latter make apart from get rid of the entire class o f elites, gue se vayan todos!T h e best o f those w h o do not want t o relinquish the state institutions as the horizon o f accountable justice do believe in the creation o f a “democratic globalization,” and their programmatic demands strive t o build state capacity toward such a n eventuality. T o d o any less i s t o

abdicate the field o f political action.

Keeping U p With the D o w Joneses describes the political world o f the contingent class a n d i t m a k e s the linkage between the local struggles

within the US as well as the global shifts since the 1970s. That the members o f the contingent class are survivors i n the structural adjustment o f the U S i s a direct link t o t h o s e farmers a n d workers

across the world whose howls o f anger at the WTO-IMF-WB are n o w well known. W e need to draw o u t these connections in our local battles, so that a fight against a dirty incinerator located near a working-class

community o f color in Providence, Rhode Island, 1s called “Another Bhopal” (as Direct Action for Rights and Equality did in 1994, the tenth anniversary o f Union Carbide’s reckless terrorism o f the people o f that Indian city); o r a n engagement against prison construction might be linked, wia Cheney’s firm Halliburton, with the base construction in Central Asia or China. Programs are created in struggle, in the midst o f the fight for everyday rights and toward the creation o f capacity for the contingent.

Movement

197

I n a debate with a fellow South African Leftist, Ruth First criticized the bend t o revolutionary puritanism which is fluent on important notions o f revolution, but which fails t o make connections i n political practice between immediate demands which

mobilize, o r more spontaneously ignite mass struggles, and

the longer-term programmatic revolutionary alternative society.

conception

I f w e wait around t o dratt the pertect program

of

the

for struggle a n d b l u e p r i n t

for a future society, we will abandon the process o f social change and sit o n our hands. Programs develop from the heart o f the struggle, as the

fights sharpen points o f contradiction and reveal new lines o f advance. Furthermore, First argues:

[TThe p o i n t

a b o u t the practice

of

mass struggles, i s that

revolutionary programmes have t o be won n o t only in the head, but in the streets, townships, factories and countryside, a n d b y engaging i n struggle, n o t abstaining

from it because it does n o t

start

with a perfected long-term

programme.

Those among the contingent who are i n organizations are at work building capacity for the class t o make a push toward socialism. The fight for a living wage, against prisons, for a revaluation o f work and

welfare: these are the main avenues for the contingent class’s battle for the resources t o take the struggle deeper. Here there are concrete

victories, there is t h e opportunity t o organize people into power, a n d

there is the hope that this drive, with a strong political ideology, will be able t o s t a n d up i n t h i s l o c a l sector against

Wall Street a n d its

allies.

198

Movement

Lucille Clifton, “Whose Side Are You On?” Quilting: Poems 1987-1990, Rochester: B O A , 1991, p. 18. The voice o f the North American movement is Naomi Klein. Her N o Logo: Taking A i m a t the Brand Bullies, N e w York: Picador, 1999 offers a clear analysis o f the problems and o f the demands o f the renewed movement, and het Fences and Windows, N e w York: Picador, 2002

provides a useful summary o f the texture o f the movement itself. Elizabeth Martinez, “Where Was the Color in Seattle? Looking fot reasons why the Great Battle was so white,” ColorLines, vol. 3, no. 1, Spring 2000. Michael Albert, The Trajectory of Change: Activist Strategies for Social

Transformation, Cambridge: South End Press, 2002, p. 12. Alexander C o c k b u r n and Jeffrey St. Clair, 5 Days that Shook the World,

London: Verso, p. 9. ~

Albert, Trajectory of Change, p. 45.

from M a r c u s e would d o . F o r a theoretical justification for this line, see Oscar Berland, “Radical Chains:

T h e literature 1s extensive, b u t anything

T h e Marxian C o n c e p t o f Proletarian Mission,” Studies on the Left,

September-October 1966 and Martin Nicolaus, “Proletarian and Middle Class in Marx: Hegelian Choreography and the Capitalist Dialectic,” Studies on the Left, January—February 1967. Barbara Epstein, “Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement,” Monthly Review, vol. 53, no. 4, September 2001. Elisabeth Armstrong, The Retreatf rom Organization: U S Feminism Reconsidered,

10

Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002, pp. 91-92. Albert, The Trajectory of Change, p. 119. John Lloyd’s rather staid attempt t o downplay the movement 1s correct, perhaps o n one point, which is that while the movement says that “Another World is Possible,” too frequently organizations and participants fail t o seriously articulate what that world may look like. There is a “damn it all” tendency that is a privilege for the movement in certain sections o f the overdeveloped world. John Lloyd, The Protest Ethic: How the Anti-Globalization Movement Challenges SocialDesocracy, London: Demos, 2001. Where Lloyd fails us is that he does n o t know the tenor o f the anti-corporate, anti-imperialist struggle in the exploited zones

o f the world, not just in the former colonies and semi-colonies, but also within the overdeveloped world, among the working class o f color. 11 12 13 14 15

Eric Mann, Dispatchesfrom Durban, Los Angeles: Frontlines Press, 2002, offers an excellent overview o f the limitations o f our movement. José Bové, “Revolting Choice,” Guardian, June 13, 2001. Epstein, “Anarchism.”

Hardt, “Today’s Bandung?” p. 114. Ruth First, “After Soweto: A Response,” Review of African Political Economy, January/ April 1978, collected in Ruth First, 17vices ofLiberation, Ed. D o n Pinnock, Pretoria: HSRC Publishers, 1997, p . 125.

)

INDEX A

Albelda, Randy, 150

“ A Strategy t o End Poverty” (Piven and Cloward), 139

Albert, Michael, 190-92, 194-95 America Works, Inc., 162 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 80, 102 American Dream, 9, 23, 31, 36

Abankwah, Adelaide, 110 Abramovitz, Mimi, 160

activism: by Asians, 42, 45-50, 52-55, 54, 66n110; by blacks, 88, 114-15, 137,167, 179nn9, 16; against China, 57n4, 96-938;

American Enterprise Institute, 174 American Federation o f State,

County, and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), 1, 34, 86 American Medical Association, 30 171-73, 190-94, 197; o n globalization, 3, 189-93, 195-96, Amnesty International, 90, 116, 126n58 198n10; grassroots, 174-77; tor anarchism, 193, 195-96 immigrants, 44; on poverty, 24,

by contingent class, 133-34,

70, 139-40, 166-69, 171-72; tor welfare, 24, 133-34, 137-40, 166-69, 171-77. See also unions

Adams, Larry, 33 Adamson, Madeleine, 138 Afghanistan, 45 AFL-CIO: activism of, 1 - 3 , 12, 35,

39, 50-51; on immigration, 44-45; o n labor categories, 62n73; protectionism of, 3, 57n4, 96-98 African American Ministers I.eadership Council, 165

Anti-Drug Abuse Act (19306), 82 Applied Research Center, 150, 154, 157, 161 Arabs, xvii—xviil, xx, xxvinl0, 70, 109-10 Arizona Correctional Industries, 105 Armstrong, Elisabeth, xxiv, 194 Arnspriger, David, 102

Aronowitz, Stanley, 61n51 Ashurst-Summers Act, 105 Asian Immigrant Women

Advocates (AIWA), 45-50, 66n110

African Americans. See blacks A i d t o Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), 89, 137, 143, 147,150

Aid t o Needy Children—Mothers Anonymous, 137-38 A I D S , 34-35, 109, 157 air traffic controllers’ strike, 36, 38 Akram, Mohammed, 110

Asian L a w Caucus, 47

Asian Pacifica Sisters, 48 Asians, 41-42, 45-50, 52, 54 Attica Prison riots, 115 Atwater, l e e , 7 5

B Baldus, David, 83

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

200

Bane, Mary Jo, 144-46 Bapust, Willie, 171-72 Barnet, Richatd, 87

17, 86 Bush, Andrew, 159 Bush, George H., 75, 76, 126n58

Bell Curve, The (Murray), 146 Bell, Daniel, 39 Bennett, Willie, 73-74

Bush, George W.: on economic issues, 10, 17-18, 65n100, 96; election of, 116; o n homelessness, 29; o n law and order, 75, 80, 123n24; o n welfare, 64n85, 158-60, 163-65

Berg, Joel, 163

Big Sea, The (Langston), 17 Black Panther Party (BPP), 114-15, 167 Black Radical Congress, 88

Blackmun, Harry, 94

blacks: activism of, 88, 114-15, 137, 167, 179nn9,16; i n

contingent class, 27, 87-88; disenfranchisement of, 116-17; ghettos, 77, 87, 137, 187n110; labor issues, 17, 24-25, 48, 85-806, 151; law and ordet, 69-71, 76-79; multiple oppression and, xv; prisons, 17,

79-82, 89-90, 92, 114;

unemployment of, 87-88, 125n45; welfare and, 136-37, 147-48, 153-54. See also racism

Business Coalition for US-China Trade, 96 Business Roundtable, 96 business unionism, 1, 2, 15, 32-33, 39 Butts, Calvin, 187n110

C Caferro, Mary, 160 Calderén, Norma, 152 Caldwell, Minnie, 90 California Coalition for Battered Women in Prison, 117 California Coalition for Women Prisoners, 117

Campaign t o End Child Poverty,

Blair, Tony, 148 Bloodin the Eye (Jackson), 115 “body-shoppers,” 54

166-69 Carey, Ron, 36-37, 38 Carter, Bunchy, 114

Bové, José, 195 Bowen, Barbara, 138 Boyd, Theresa Thomas, 165

Casey, Michael, 34

Boyle, Gene,

xiv

Brennan, William, 84 Brenner, Robert, 14

Bricker-Jenkins, Mary, 172

Cato-Institute, xix

Caymen Islands, 13, 16 Center for Third World Organizing (CTWO), xxiii, 48, 173-74 C e n t e r for U r b a n Community

Services, 30

Buchanan, Patrick, 96, 98

CEOs (Chief Executive Officers),

Buckley, Wiliam S., 76-77

10-12 Certain, Joseph, 170 Chamber o f Commerce o f the

Buffett, Warren, 16

Bureau o f Labor Statistics (BLS),

201

Index

United States, 12, 38, 96 Chang, Grace, 152

o n law and order, xvii, 69-71, 74, 76, 79-80; o n welfare, 13,

Charge to Keep, A (Bush), 163

133-35, 144-406, 148, 164-065,

Chavez, Cesar, 71 Chavez-Thompson, Linda, 1-2, 3, 44 Cheney, Dick, 100, 196

Chicago v. Morales, 78 childcare, 33-34, 152-54, 157, 164, 176 Children. See families Children’s Defense Fund, 146 Children’s Health Insurance

Program (CHIPS), 30, 64n85 China: activism against, 57n4,

96-98; emigrants, 109; globalization and, 22, 95-98; military of, 163; penal labor in, 33, 95-98 Chinese Progressive Association,

46 Ching Yoon Louie, Miriam, 49 Christian Church Matters o f the Heart, 165 Christian Coalition, 73 Chung, Angela, 158

Chung, Connie, 75 Civil Rights Act, 85 Clamor, 51 Clark, Jim, 7 Clark, Mark, 114 class: activism and, 192-93; domestic labor, 24, 168; underclass, 136, 146-47, 180n23; working, xx1—xxiv, 8, 18, 153, 175, 196. Clifton, Lucille, 189 Clinton, Bill: o n economic issues,

2-3. 10, 29, 38, 87-88, 96-97;

181n32 “Clinton’s Leap in the Dark” (Reich), 133 Clorox America, xi1—x1v, xxvn4 Cloward, Richard, 24, 138-39, 141, 166, 179n16 Cockburn, Alexander, 192 Cohen, Stephen P., 186n97 Coleman, Dovie, 138 Colgate Palmolive,

107

Colombia, xvi, 82 ColorLines, 174

Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAYV), 42 communism, 166-67, 195 Community Voices Heard, 151, 154

Community Work and Training (CWT) program, 140—41 computer industry, 50-55, 182n46

Conference o f Mayors, 90 Connecticut Teachers’ Union, 166-67 consumerism, 4—5 contingent class: activism

by,

133-34, 171-73, 190-94, 197; blacks in, 27, 87-88; globalization and, 86, 91, 196; living conditions of, xiv, 4, 24, 27-31, 86, 125n48; prisons and, xx1, 86, 88-91, 104;

unemployment and, 87-88, 133; unions and, 3-4, 28, 36-39, 54, 62n73; welfare and, 130, 140-41, 143-45, 159-061;

202

Keeping Up With the Dow Joneses

women and, 27-28. See also

Dean, Amy, 51

service industry

death penalty, 72, 83-84, 125n40 debt, 3-4, 8-9, 19, 58n18

“Contract With America,” 77, 84 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment o r

DeFazio, William, 61n51 Deleon, Kathy, 128n87 Delgado, Gary, 138, 150, 157, 161

Punishment, 112

Democratic Leadership Council,

Cornell Company, 109 Cornu, Sharon, 33 corporations: activism against, 190, 1 9 5 - 9 6 ; globalization and,

xix,

22, 113; greed of, 36, 48-49; military and, xxvn4, 12-13;

prisons and, 100-106, 110-11; regulation of, 13; subsidies for, xvii—xx, 96-98, 161-62; taxes

and, 13, 15, 28, 162.

CorrectionalBuilding News, 100 Corrections Corporation o f

America (CCA), 31, 101, 102,

109, 112 Corrections Today, 101 Cox, Christopher, 98 Cox, Robert, 21 Crenshaw, Kimberly, x v

crime. See law and order; prisons Critical Resistance, 88, 117, 119-21 Cruz, Rodrigo, 55 Culhane, Dennis, 170

Current Population Survey, 27-28 Curtis and Associates, 162 Communication Workers o f

America (CWA), 54

144 Democratic Party, 206, 71, 96, 134-36, 164-67 Denier, Greg, 95-96 Desai, Bhairavi, 41, 43 Design-Build, 100

Desis Rising U p and Moving (DRUM), 110, 121 Determination of Welfare Caseload Decline (Rector and Youssef), 185n75 devolution, 161, 164

Dhine, Lulseged, 110 Dimascio, Dorothy, 138 Direct Action for Rights and

Equality (DARE), xx1, xxiv disabilities, xiv, 149, 151 disenfranchisement, 116-17 Doering, Edith, 138 domestic labor: childcare, 33-34, 152-54, 157, 164, 176; class and,

24,168 domestic violence, 30, 54, 85, 141,

159-60 Douglass, Frederick, 113 Dow, Charles, 5

D

Dow Jones Industrial Average, 5, 16

Daschle, Tom, 164 Davis, Angela Y., 69, 88, 114-15, 118-19 De-Bug, 36, 50-51

downsizing, 27, 38, 63n78 Drexel Burnham Lambert, 102 drug war, xviii, 17, 69, 80-83, 90 D u Pont, Pete, 9-10

203

Index

Dugan, Eleanor, 47 Dukakis, Michael, 75 Duke, David, 93

1 5 2 - 5 4 , 1820406; marriage,

Duncan, Ruby, 138

147-48, 158-61, 164; poverty in,

Durant, Kenneth, 110 Durazo, Maria Elena, 44

37,135; TANF, 1406, 149-51, 153-55, 156-61; violence 1n, 30, 54, 85, 141, 159-60; welfare for, 141, 147-48, 152-54, 164, 179n16

E Economic Opportunity Act (1964), 2 4 , 1 3 7141 ,

Edelman, Marion Wright, 146 Edelman, Peter, 146, 162 education, xxi—xxiv, 74, 119, 155-57, 176 Egoibe, Osabeda, 110

Egypt, 76 Eichenwald, Kurt, 75

Ellwood, David, 144-46, 181n35 Embargo Act (1807), xx Emmerson, Kate, 138

employment. See labor

End of Work, The (Rifkin), 61n51 Enron, 5,10, 111, 162, 175 environmental issues, 97, 190, 195-96

30-31; law and order, 69-72, 89-90; living wage, 58n20,

Family and Child Services, 154 Family Assistance Plan, 139, 179n16 family wage, 58n20, 152-54, 182n46 FBI, 109, 111, 127n65 Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), 106, 108 Federal Reserve, 8-9, 16 Federation o f Southern Cooperatives, xxiii

Feld, Barry, 90 Fifteen Secrets ofSaving (RICI), 104 First, Ruth, 197

Flynn, Raymond, 122n7

Esmor Correctional Services, 111-12 Evans, Linda, 94 Export-Import Bank, xix

Folbre, Nancy, 152 Food Stamps, 134-35, 137, 143, 150, 157 Ford Motors, 96, 162 Fordism, 21-22, 86 Fortune, 10, 12

=

Fraser, Nancy, 152

Epstein, Barbara, 193, 195-96

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 105 families: A F D C , 31, 89, 137, 143, 150; domestic labor in, 24, 3 3 - 3 4 152-54, 157, 164, 168, 176; education in, xxi—xxiv, 74, 119, 155-57, 176; healthcare,

“Free Mumia,” 33, 83, 115 free trade, 3, 106, 190 Free Trade Area o f the Americas (FTAA), 190 Freedom Bus, 133, 172 Friedman, Milton, 16, 180n25 Friedman, Thomas, 7 Friedmann, Alex, 102, 103

204

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

G

Gompers, Samuel, 39

Gage, Eli, 100 Gainsborough, Jenni, 102

Gonzales, Henry, 98

Gamble, Denise, xxi Gandhi, Mohandas K., xvi Garment Workers Campaign,

45-49 Gates, Bill, 16 General Accounting Office (GAO), 20, 134, 148 General Agreement o n Trade and

Taritts (GATT), 106

Gonzalez, Elizabeth, 53

Good Jobs First, 101 GoodMorning America, 29 Gooden, Susan, 151, 156 Gordon, Linda, 137 Gordon, Rebecca, 154, 157, 161 Gore, Al, 96, 135 Gorz, Andre, 166 Gowens, Pat, 150

Grassroots Organizing for Wefare

Leadership (GROWL), 174-77

General Electric (GE), 11, 162

Great Britain, xvi—xvi, 148, 163

General Motors (GM), 96, 108, 129n95, 162

Great Society Programs, 86

Georgia Citizen’s Hunger

Greenspan, Alan, 16, 17-18, 162

Coalition, 150

Gephardt, Dick, 45 Germany, xv, xviii, 14, 163 ghettos, 77, 87, 137, 187n110

Gregg v. Georgia, 83 Gritlin, Todd, 32

Guantanamo Bay Camp X-Ray, 112

Gifford, Kathy Lee, 108

Guilded Age, 10, 13, 14, 16

Gilder, George, 146-47 Gingrich, Newt, 113, 131n110, 154, 165 Giuliani, Rudy, 40-43, 150-51

Gupta, Vinita, 54

Global Exchange, 49 globalization: activism against, 3, 189-93, 195-96, 198n10; China and, 22, 95-98; contingent class and, 86, 9 1 , 196; corporations

and, xix, 22, 113; free trade and, 3, 1006, 190; labor and, 20-23, 57n4, 96, 98, 129n95; prisons and, 96, 118-19; social issues, 86-87, 91, 148-49, 162;

structural adjustment and, x x v n 491, , 148 Goldberg, Eve, 94 Goldwater, Barry, 141

H H1B visa, 54 Halliburton, 100, 196 Hamilton, Alexander, xx

Hamilton Family Center, 89 Hampton, Fred, 114 Hardt, Michael, 196

Harrigan, Tony, 30 Harrington, Michael, 24

HartfordAdvocate, 169 Hawes-Cooper Act, 105 Hayward, Richard, 93 healthcare, 28-31, 64n85, 137, 143, 149 Henry, Marcia, 138

Henwood, Doug, 57n7

205

Index

Heritage Foundation, 148, 174 Hernandez, Bertha, 138 Herrnstein, Richard, 146-47 Hersh, Seymour, xvi Hewlett-Packard, 52, 103 Hicks, Marvin, 74 Hitler, Adolf, 74 Hochtief A G , 100 Hoffa, James P., 39, 96 Hoffman Plastic Compounds 17. National Labor Review Board, 44 homophobia, xx Honkala, Cherri, 173 Horn, Etta, 138 Horn, Wade, 148, 159-60 Horton, Willie, 75 Hotel Employees and Restaurant

Employees (HERE), 33-34, 44, 45 housewifization, 19-20

housing: affordability of, 28-30, 35; homelessness, 29-30, 43, 134, 153-54; racism in, 58n10, 85;

172 Huang, Johnny, 97 squatting,

Huerta, Dolores, 145 Huggins, John, 114 Hughes, Langston, 17 Human Rights Watch, 91, 112, 115-16 hunger, 134-35, 137, 143, 150, 157, 163 Huston, Eric, 74

44-45; as detainees, 109-12; exploitation

immigrants: amnesty for,

of, 40-41, 55-50, 88; labor

issues, 39-45, 46-50, 52-55, 66n105; welfare and, 156-57 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 43-44, 109-12 Imperial Foods, 23 income t a x . See taxes India, 42, 52-54, 125n40, 155, 182n47 Indian Peoples’ Action, 155 individualism, xx, 23, 25, 29 inflation, 16-17

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), 7-8 Internal Revenue Service (IRS), xix, 43 International Brotherhood o f Teamsters, 12, 36-39, 36-39, 65n103, 96

International Longshore and Warehouse Union, 33

International Monetary Fund (IMF), 3, 190, 196 Iraq, xvii—xviil, xx, xxvinl0 Ivens, Molly, 10

J Jackson, George, 114-15, 117 Jackson-Vanki Act, 95 Jaicks, Lisa, 34 Abu Jamal, Mumia, 33, 83, 115

James, Hulbert, 133 Japan, xv, xvii, 14, 81, 163 Jayadev, Raj, 50, 51-53

Jedi for Women in Salt Lake City, 154-55 Jericho Movement, 115 Jermany, Catherine, 138 Jessica McClintock, Inc., 46-49 Jeter, Frankie, 138

Jo Foo, Lora, 47

206

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Jobless Future, The (Aronowitz and

L

DeFazio), 61n51 labor: by blacks, 17, 24-25, 85-80, Jobs, Steve, 11 151; conditions for, 3, 15, 21, Johnson, Lyndon, 164 30-31, 54; contingent, 3, 10, 15, jonesing, 112 27-28, 37, 39, 54, 86-87; Journal ofAlcohol and Drug Education, downsizing, 27, 38, 63n78;

82

Journal ofPrisoners on Prisons, 114,

117 Jump Street project, 171 Justice Department, 82, 90, 92-93,

109-10 Justice for Janitors, 2, 39-40

K Kajima Corporation, 66n105 Karan, Donna, 49 Kassindja, Fauiya, 110

Kaufman, Kelsey, 92 Keegan, Paul, 187n110 Kellogg, Brown & Root, 100

Kennedy, John, 24 Kensington Welfare Rights Union

(KWRU), 133-34, 171-73

Keynesianism, 14, 85, 99 Khan, Mafruza, 101 Khurana, Rakesh, 11 Kicks, Alice, xx1v Kidd, Marion, 138 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 69, 70-72, 138-39, 194 King, Tina, 169 Kirkland, Lane, 1, 39 Kolender v. Lawson, 79 Kondratiev Wave, 5 Korea, 45 Kozlowski, Dennis, 1 1 Kutesa, Emmy, 110 Kuwait, xvii, xxvin10

globalization of, 20-23, 57n4, 96, 98, 129195; b y immigrants, 39-45, 46-50, 52-56, 66n105; b y Latinos, 24-25, 125n45, 151; in Mexico, 20, 57n4, 98, 129n95; penal, 33, 94-98, 103-8, 128n87; productivity, 19, 21, 24-25, 61n51, 129n95; reserve, 31, 64n88, 1606; in service industry, 2,21, 25-20, 66n105, 125n40;

structural adjustment and, xv—xvl1, 14, 25, 86, 148, 170, 1906; sweatshops, 19-26, 40-44, 46-50, 57n4, 61n52; worktare, 31, 140, 150-57, 162, 164; working poor, xiii—xiv, 18, 22-25, 136-37, 154. labor movement. See unions Laborer’s International Union, 43

laoga: system, 95-97 Laogga: (Wu), 95 Latin America, 21, 53

Latinos: gangs of, 71, 78; labor issues, 24-25, 125n45, 151; prisons, 17,79, 81, 89-90, 92, 114; profiling of, 78-79; welfare and, 136 Latras, Marika, 110 Lavosiere, Jacques de, xxvn4

law and order: “Crime Bill,” 71-72, 76=77, 85-86, 99, 102; criminalizatio n in, 73-78, 81-83;

death penalty, 72, 83-84,

Index

125n40; police and, xx1, 73, 77-82, 170; prioritization of, XVi—XIX;

war o n drugs, xvi, 17,

69, 80-83, 90. Lawson, James, 45

Lease Drivers’ Coalition (LDC), 42 Lee, Barbara, 48 Lee, Patricia, 45 Lenin, Vladimir lllich, 195 Leonhardt, David, xiv—=xv Levine, Dan, 57n6, 169 Lincoln, Abraham, 13 Linton, Rhonda, 138 Lipietz, Alain, 21 living wage, 58n20, 152-54, 182n46. See also wages

Lloyd, John, 198n10 lobbying, 12-13 Logan, Steve, 109 Long-Scott, Ethel, xxiu Los Angeles Manufacturing Action

Project ILAMAP), 52 Ios Angeles Times, 46 Losing Ground (Murray), 146 Loukakou, Lilian, 110

Ioury, Glenn, 87 Lucky Sewing Company, 46 Luxemburg, Rosa, 166

£7 Make the Road By Walking, 156

mandatory sentencing, 81-82 maquiladoras, 20, 98, 129095

Mar, Warren, 44 Marable, Manning, 88 Marci, Bonnie, 154 marriage, 147-48, 158-61, 164

Marshall, Thurgood, 83 Martinez, Elizabeth, 191

207

Martinez, Matthew, 145 Marx, Karl, 64n88

Mattera, Philip, 101 Matthiessen, Peter, 71 Maximus, Inc., 161 McAlinden, Sean, 129n95 McCaffrey, Barry, xvii—xviii, 82

McCain, John, 13 McCarthy, Margaret, 138

McCleskey v. Kemp, 84 McCleskey, Warren, 83-84 McDavid, Deanna, 74 McDonald, Timothy, 165

McKinney, Cynthia, 32 McVeigh, Timothy, 75 Meany, George, 1 Medicaid, 30, 137, 143, 149 Mexico: emigrants, 53, 109; globalization and, 20, 98, 129n95; labor in, 20, 57n4, 98, 129n95; war against, 114 Microsoft, 103, 162 Mies, Maria, 19

militarism: corporations and, xxvn4, 12-13; spending on, xvi—xi1x, xxvn8, 1 8 2 8 162-063; o f US, xii—xi1v Mills, Charles, 125n48 minimum wage, 9-10, 24-25, 35.

Mink, Gwendolyn, 155 Mishler, Max, 189-90 Missouri Prisoners Labor Union (MPLU), 107 Mistretta v. United States, 94 monetarism, 14, 16 monopsony, 20 Morgenson, Gretchen, 7, 8

Most Favored Nation status (MFN), 95-96, 98

208

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses N e w Deal, xvi, 35

Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 71, 139 [La Mujer Obrera, xxii, 46 multiculturalism, xxi—xxu

New York City Coalition Against

Murray, Charles, 146-47, 174

New York Stock Exchange, 0

Hunger, 163

Muslims, xvi—xviii, xx, xxvinl0, 70, N e w York Taxi Workers Alliance 109-10

Mystikal, “Ghetto Child,” Unpredictable, 6 9

N N-Group, 102

NAACP (National Association for the Advancement o f Colored People), 48 Nader, Ralph, 13 NAFTA, 98

Nanyonga, Yudaya, 110 Nation, 139

National Alliance for Fair Employment (NAFE), 26-27 National Association for Manufacturers, 12, 38, 96 National Fatherhood Initiative, 148 National Institute o f Corrections, 85 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), 38 National Mobilization Against

Sweatshops, 49

(INYTWA), 40-43 New York Times. o n labor issues, xiv, 15, 47, 86; o n terrorism, 75; o n wealth, 7 Newton, Huey, 114 Nickens, Helen, 156 Nike, 41, 49, 96, 108 Nixon, Alice, 138 Nixon, Carol Miriam, 35 Nixon, Richard, 80, 139-40, 179n16 Noel, Peter, 187n110 North Korea, 163

Noyce, Bob, 55

0 Olivio, Carmen, 138 Olney, Peter, 52 Operation Sunrise, 170 “Organizing the N e w Otani Hotel

i n Los Angeles” (Zamudio), 66n105 Osman, Saleem

Otake, Ray, 50

National Organization for W o m e n

Other America, The (Harrington), 24

(NOW), 48 National Welfare Rights

Out o f Control Lesbian Support

Organization (NWRO), 133, 139-40, 142, 179n16 nationalism, xx, 206, 42 Native Americans, 81, 114, 155, 177 neoliberalism, xv, xvil, Xix—xx, x x v n g18, , 96

Committee, 117

Out of theJungle (Russell), 65n103

P Pakistan, 42, 186n97

Papachriston v. City ofJackson, 79 Parades, Dana Ginn, 176 Parenti, Christian, 99, 102, 106

209

Index

Parks, Rosa, 47 Pastreich, Bill, 138 Paul, Ron, xix pension benefits, 37 people o f color: Arabs, xvii—xviil, xx, xxvinl0, 76, 109-10; Asians, 41-42, 45-50, 52, 54; trom India, 42, 52-54, 125n40, 155, 182n47; Native Americans, 81, 114, 155, 177; welfare and, 136, 143, 156-57.

families, 37, 135; globalization and, 87, 91, 162; hunger, 134-35, 137, 143, 150, 157, 163; living conditions, 10, 23-24, 30-31, 120; marriage and, 160; war on, 137, 164; working poor, xui—xiv, 18, 22-25, 136-37, 154. Powell, Colin, xvii—xviu Pratt, Geronimo, 114 Pricor, 102 Primus, Wendell, 146 Federal Prison Industries

People Organized t o Win Employment Rights, 152

Enhancement (PIE) Act, 106 Prison Industry Authority (PIA),

Pennington, Scott, 74

People United t o Build a Better

Oakland (PUEBLO), 158 Perkins, Bill, 187n110 Perot, Ross, 6 Personal Responsibility and W o r k

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), xvii, 13, 133-34, 144-46, 161-64

106

Prison Moratorium Project, 120-21 prisons: abolition of, 117-21; class issues, xxi, 86, 88-91, 104; corporations and, 100-100, 110-11; disenfranchisement and, 116-17; economic issues, 31, 84-85, 88, 99-102, 127n73;

Philadelphia Inquirer, 180n23

expansion of, 72, 84-385,

Phillips, A.W., 180n25 Phillip’s Curve, 16, 180n25 Piana, Libero Della, 85 Piven, Frances Fox: o n poverty, 24, 139; o n welfare, 137, 141, 166, 175, 179n16

99-100; families and, 72, 89-90; globalization and, 96, 118-19;

Pokorak, Jeffrey, 83 police. See law and order; racism; political prisoners, 114-15 Poor People’s Movement (Cloward and

Piven), 179016 Populist Party, 13, 14 poverty: activism on, 24, 70, 139-40, 166-69, 171-72; blame for, 24, 88, 91, 169; e x t e n t of, 9, 16, 58n20, 167, 170, 182n47;

immigrant

detainees,

109-12;

management of, 91, 94, 101-3, 106, 111-12; penal labor in, 33, 94-98, 103-8, 128n87; racial issues, xx1, 17, 79-82, §9-90, 92, 114-15; rape in, 91-92, 115-16; reserve labor and, 31, 166; subsidies for, 101-2, 107-8,

128n77; u n e m p l o y m e n t

and,

x1v—xv, 88-89 productivity, 19, 21, 24-25, 61n51, 129n95 profiling, racial, 78-80

Protest Ethic, The (Lloyd), 198n10

210

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Public Policy Istitute, 55 Pulaski, Charles, 83

Puranic, Sandhya, 54

Putting People First (Clinton), 144

146-48 Roach, Stephen, 4, 38 robber barrons, 10, 13-14, 16 Robertson, Sandra, 150, 175, 177

Robideau, Janet, 155, 177

R racism: criminalization as, 73-78, 81-83; in government, 33-384, 92-93, 125n40; in housing, 58n10, 85; police and, xxi, 73,

Rockefeller, John D . , 13 Rockefeller, Nelson, xvii, 141-42 Rodriquez, Cecilia, xxiii, 46 Roosevelt, Franklin D., xvi, 35, 106, 134, 136

77-82, 170; prison and, xxi,

Rorty, Richard, 32

88-93; slavery, xx, 48, 94; war o n drugs, xvii, 17, 69, 80-83,

Rosenburg, Susan, 114

90; in welfare system, 136-37, 146-47, 151, 153-58, 162 rape, 91-92, 115-16 Rathke, Wade, 138 Raza, Ahmed, 110

Reagan, Ronald: on social issues, xvi, 29, 70, 141, 141-43;

structural adjustment and, xv=xvl, xxvn4, 14, 80, 91, 148; unions and, 38 Rector, Robert, 148, 174, 185n75 Reed, Bruce, 144 Reich, Robert, 20, 25-26, 133-35 Rendell, Mark, 171

Report on Manufacturers (Hamilton), XX

reproductive rights, 142; 180n23 Republican Party, 77, 96, 146, 164-65, 169 Responsible Fatherhood Act, 159 “Restore Teamster Power”

(Russell), 65n103 Rhode Island Correctional

Industries (RICI), 103-4 Rifkin, Jeremy, 61n51 right-wing, 12, 76, 97, 141-42,

Ross, Andrew, 53 Russia, 163

S Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, 74 Sakhi for South Asian Women, 54 Sampson, Tim, 138 sanctions, 149, 153-54, 157-59, 185n75 Sanders, Beulah, 138 Saudia Arabia, xx, 76

Scalia, John, 110 Scheer, Robert, 73 Schlosser, Eric, 100 Schram, Sanford, 157

Seale, Bobby, 167 Seattle, Battle of, 52, 190-91 Sen, Rinku, xxii Sentencing P r o j e c t , 116

9/11 (September 11, 2001): economy and, 4, 10, 163; immigrants and, 44, 54, 109-10,

121; military and, xvii, 18; p o l i t i c asnd, 75-76 Service Employees International Union SEIU), 1, 34, 39-40, 50

211

Index

service industry: labor in, 2, 21, 25-26, 66n105, 125n46; SEIU, 1, 34, 39-40, 50; wages 1n, 20, 31, 148-50 Shakur, Assata, 114 Shakur, Mutulu, 114 Shange, Sikhulu, 1870110 Sharpton, Al, 187n110 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 13 Sherrod, Shirley, xxii

Shriver, Sargent, 183n116 Shrub (Ivens and Dubose), 64085

structural adjustment: globalization and, xxvn4, 91, 148; labor and, xv—xvi, 14, 25, 86, 148, 170, 196;

poverty and, 162 Stuart, Charles, 73, 74, 122n7 Stucker, Robert, 12 Sung, Kam, 49 Supreme Court, 78-79, 84, 94, 104, 140 Sweatshop Warriors (Ching Y o o n

Louie), 49 sweatshops, 19-26, 40-44, 46—49, 57n4, 61n52. See also labor Sweeny, John, 1-4, 57n4, 97-98

Silverstein, Ken, 12, 102 Sinclair, Upton, 14 slavery, xx, 48, 94 Smith, Andrea, 118 Smith, Susan, 73

T

Social Security Act, 136-37 SoledadBrother (Jackson), 114-15

Taliban, 186n97 Tarbell, Ida, 14

Solomon, Alisa, 109-10 Solow, Robert M., 133 Soros, George, 6 South Africa, 81 Splain, Mark, 138

Tax Reform Act (1986), xviii

Tatt-Hartley Act, 38, 65n100

corporations and, 13, 15, 28, 162; cuts in, XIv—XV, XVIlI—XIX,

taxes:

14-106, 18; history of, 13, 59n34;

Standard and Poor’s 500, 5, 16 standard o f living, 2-3, 10. Stark, Peter, 164 states’ rights, 161, 164

prisons and, 99, 108; welfare reform and, 166-69 Taxi and Limosine Commission (TLC), 40-43, 40-43 Taylorism, 21, 86 Telecom, 8

Steffens, Lincoln, 14

Temporary Aid t o Needy Families

stock market, 4-8, 10-12, 16, 54, 57nn6-7

(TANF), 146, 149-51, 153-55, 156-61 textile industry, 19, 21, 35, 45-49, 104

St. Clair, Jettery, 192

“Stock Markets” (Levine), 57n6 stock options, 10-12, 54 Stone, Harlan, 13 Street, John, 171 Street Terrorism Enforcement and

Prevention Act (STEP), 73 Strom, Lyle E., 82

“There Is N o Alternative” (TINA), XVI

Thigpen, Morris, 85 Third World, xxiii, 3, 22-23, 48, 173-74

212

Keeping Up With t h e Dow Joneses

Thompson, Tommy, 150, 174

immigrant issues, 3, 39-45, 46-50, 52-55; prison issues, 33, 96-98, 107; social issues, 3, 32-36, 150-51; strikes, 36-39, 40-44. 52, 65n100, 129n95.

Thoreau, Henry David, 1 1 4

Tillmon, Johnnie, 133, 138, 140, 142, 180n23

Time, 29, 72 Limes Literary Supplement, 133

United Auto Workers (UAW), 1,

Toney, Mark, 173, 176-77 Trade-Related International

34, 129n95 United Farm Workers’ Union, 145 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 96

Property Rights agreement (TRIPs), 21-22 Transit Workers Union, 43

Triangle Shirtwaist, 23 Trossman, Steven, 38 Trumka, Richard, 2, 3

Trump, Donald, 6 Turner Construction, 100 Turner, Jason, 174 Tyco International,

11

United for a Fair Economy, 12 United Nations (UN), 106, 112, 1 2 5 n 4 0140, , 171

United Parcel Service (UPS), 36-39, 65n103 Universal Declaration o f Human Rights, 106, 140, 171 Urban Institute, 1 3 4

US Conference o f Mayors, 29

U

US Patriot Act, 110

underclass, 136, 146-47, 180n23.

unemployment: o f blacks, 87-88, 125n45; contingent class and, 87-88, 133; insurance, 130; prison and, xiv—xv, 88-89; rate of, xiv, 15, 17, 125n45; wages and, 15, 180n25. See also labor Unger, Craig, 111 Union o f Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees

(UNITE), 35 Union Survival Strategiesfor the Twenty-First Century (AFL-CIO), 62n73 unions: business unionism, 1-2, 15,

32-33, 39; contingent l a b o r and, 3-4, 28, 36-39, 54, 62n73; democracy and, 33, 65n103;

history of, 14-15, 57n4;

V Valdez, Frank, 91 Vargas, Marina, 53 Veblen, Thorstein, 13 Vecinos Unidos, 166-68 Vietnam, xvi, 53, 70, 80, 192

Village 170ice, 109, 187n110 Violent Crime Control and L a w Enforcement A c t “the Crime Bul,” 71-72, 76-77, 85-86, 99, 102 Volker, Paul, 14

WwW Wackenhut Corrections Cotp., 1012 109, 110 Wackenhu t, Richard, 110 wages: decreases in, 27, 38, 87;

Index

213

151, 153-58, 162; reproductive inequality i n , 11, 15, 24; living rights, 142, 180n23; rollback of, wage, 53n20, 152-54, 182n40; as low, 20, 53, 96, 140, 144, 28, 31, 140-42, 144-406. See also minimum, 9-10, 24-25, 35; i n welfare reform prison, 94, 104-5, 128n87; in Welfare Bill (1996). See Personal Responsibility and Work service industry, 26, 31, 148-50; Opportunity Reconciliation Act stagnation of, xvi, 2, 15, 27, 29; unemployment and, 15, 180n25; “Welfare 1s a Women’s Issue” (Tillmon), 180n23 welfare reform and, 31, 140, 144, 148-51. See also labor welfare reform: activism, 24, 133-34, 137-40, 166-69, bin Wahaad, Dhoruba, 114 171-77; devolution and, 161, Wal-Mart, 20, 97 164; PRWORA, xvi, 13, Walker, Gilbert, 102 133-34, 144-406, 161-064; Wall Street, 5-0, 10, 37 Wall Street (Henwood), 57n7 sanctions, 149, 153-54, 157-59, 185n75; TANF, 140, 149-51, Wall Street Journal, 5,162, 186097 153-55, 156-61; time limits for, Wallace, Herman, 115 144-45, 163, 181n32, 181n35; war o n drugs, xviii, 17, 69, 80-83, 90 values and, 136, 142, 147-438, war o n poverty, 137, 164 158-60, 164-065; wages and, 31, Washimgton Post, 95 140, 144, 148-51; workfare, 31, Washington Limes, 92-93 140, 150-57, 162, 164. We Are the Ones We Are Waiting For (Sen), xxi Welfare Warriors, 150 wealth: distribution of, 7-8, 10, 24, Wellstone, Paul, 97, 135 Wen H o Lee, 97-98, 127n65 52, 167; lobbying and, 12-13; West, Guida, 179n16 tax c u t s and, XIv—Xv, XVII—XIX, 14-16, 18 Wharton, Edith, 14 White, Morgan, 52 Wealth and Poverty (Gilder), 146 Who Owns Harlem (Keegan), Welch, Jack, 11,12 187n110 welfare: blacks and, 136-37, Wiley, George, 138 147-48, 153-54, 179n16; class Wilkerson, Robert King, 115 and, 136, 140-41, 143-45, 159-61; education and, 155-57, Williams, Conessta, 23 Williams, Vanessa, 180n23 176; globalization and, 80, 148-49; Medicaid, 30, 137, 143, Wilson, William, 87 Winter, Gregory, 89 149; participation rate, xiv, 163, women: activism of, xii—xiv, xxiii, 185n75; people o f color and, 66n110; domestic labor, 24, 136, 143, 156-57; prison and, 33-34, 152-54, 157, 164, 168, 88; racism in, 136-37, 146-47,

214

K e e p i n g U p With t h e D o w Joneses

176; domestic violence, 30, 54, 85, 141, 159-60; feminism, 195; marriage, 147-48, 158-01, 164; prison and, 17, 25, 89-92;

Youth Building Immigrant Power

reproductive rights, 142,

Zamudio, Margaret, 66n105 Zucchino, David, 142

180n23; sexism against, X x , 53; wage labor of, 23, 25-28, 53, 135-36, 153-54. Women’s Economic Agenda

Project, xxii Woodfox, Albert, 115-16 Woodward, Louise, 125n40 Woodworth, George, 83 Woolery, Rose, 162

Work and Welfare (Solow), 133

Work Experience Program (WEP), 151

Work Incentive (WIN) program, 141

Work ofNations, The (Reich), 25 workfare, 31, 140, 150-57, 162, 164

working class. See class; contingent class; labor

Working for Equality and Economic Liberation, 160 working poor, xiii—xiv, 18, 22-25, 136-37, 154 World Bank, 19, 186n97, 190, 196 WorldCom, 5, 10, 162 Wu, Harry, 95, 96, 103

Y Yale University, 167 Yokich, Stephen, 129095 Young, Cynthia, 106-7 Young Shin, 45-47, 48 Younger, Paul, 138 Youssef, Sarah, 185n75

(YBIP), 49

Z

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Vie Prashad 1s associate professor and director o f International Studies a t Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. H e 1s the author o f the widely acclaimed Everybody Was Kung F u Fighting: Afro-Asian Connections and the Myth o f Cultural Purity (Beacon, 2001) a n d

Karma of Brown Folk (Minnesota, 2000), both chosen as one o f the 25 b e s t b o o k s o f the year (2001 a n d 2 0 0 0 respectively) b y the Village vice. O t h e r b o o k s b y P r a s h a d i n c l u d e Fat Cats and Running Dogs: The Enron Stage o f Capitalism (Common C o u r a g e , 2 0 0 2 ) ; War Against the Planet: The Fifth Afghan War, U S Imperialism, and Other Assorted Fundamentalisms

(Lettword, 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d Untouchable Freedom: A Social History o f a

Community (Oxford, 1999).

Dalit

ABOUT SOUTH END PRESS

Sou

E n d Press 1s a nonprofit, collectively run b o o k publisher with

more than 200 titles in print. Since our founding i n 1977, we have tried t o m e e t the needs o f readers w h o are exploring, o r are already

committed to, the politics o f radical social change. Our goal is

to

publish b o o k s that encourage critical thinking and constructive action

o n the key political, cultural, social, economic, and ecological issues

shaping life in the United States and in the world. I n this way, we hope t o give e x p r e s s i o n t o a w i d e diversity o f democratic social movements

and t o provide a n alternative t o the products o f corporate publishing.

Through the Institute for Social and Cultural Change, South End Press w o r k s with o t h e r political media projects—Alternative Radio; Speakout, a speakers’ bureau; and Z Magazine—to expand access t o

information and critical analysis.

T o o r d e r books, please send a check o r money order t o : South E n d

Press, 7 Brookline Street, #1, Cambridge, M A 02139-4146. T o order by credit card, call 1-800-533-8478. Please include $3.50 for postage and handling for the first book and 50 c e n t s for each additional book. Write o r e-mail s o u t h e n d @ s o u t h e n d p r e s s . o r g for a free catalog, o r v i s i t o u r website a t www.southendpress.org.

RELATED TITLES FROM SOUTH END PRESS Lost Ground: Welfare Reform, Poverty, and Beyond

Randy Albelda and Ann Withorn, Editors. ISBN 0-89608-658-5, $18

Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies that Work for A l l o f U s

Holly Sklar, Laryssa Mykyta, and Susan Wetald

ISBN 0-89608-683-6, $12 Criminal Injustice: Confronting the Prison Crisis

Elihu Rosenblatt, Editor 0-89608-539-2, $18 Sweatshop Warriors:

Immigrant Women Workers Take O n the Global Factory

by Miriam Ching Yoon Louie I S B N 0-89608-638-0, $18 Disposable Domestics:

Lmmigrant Women Workers in the Global Economy

Grace Chang

0-89608-617-8, $18 Policing the National Body:

Race, Gender, and Criminalization Jael Silliman a n d A n a n n y a Bhattacharjee, Editors

I S B N 0-89608-660-7, $18 T o order

books, please

send a check o r m o n e y o r d e r to: S o u t h E n d

Press, 7 Brookline Street, #1, Cambridge, M A 02139-4146. T o order by c r e d i t c a r d , c a l l 1 - 8 0 0 - 5 3 3 - 8 4 7 8 . Please i n c l u d e $3.50 for p o s t a g e a n d h a n d l i n g f o r t h e first b o o k a n d 5 0 cents for e a c h additional book.