Bernie Backs a Wobblie Whopper: The Burgerville Workers Union

Burgerville workers marching on April 26. (WNV / Shane Burley), from Waging Non Violence.

An interesting thing has happened across the pond, an American Presidential candidate has supported an organising campaign by the Industrial Workers of the World. Something that hasn't happened since the 1910's and the days of Eugene Debs when the Socialist Party split from the American section of the Industrial Workers of the World.

The Burgerville Workers Union:

Portland, OR – In a historic move, workers at Portland-area fast food chain Burgerville announced at a rally in the Clinton Street Theater on April 26th that they were forming a union, the Burgerville Workers Union, in affiliation with the Portland branch of the IWW. They marched from the theater to the Burgerville location at Southeast 26th and Clinton to present their demands:

• an immediate $5 an hour raise
• affordable, quality healthcare
• a safe and healthy workplace
• fair and consistent scheduling with ample notice
• a supportive, sustainable workplace including paid maternity/paternity leave
• free childcare and transportation stipends

A typical Burgerville worker makes only $9.60 an hour, and is typically scheduled just 26 hours a week, just under the 30 hours a week which would make them eligible to receive benefits. That equals out to about $990 a month before taxes. To put that into perspective, the average apartment rent in Portland is $1,275 a month for a one bedroom apartment, and most apartment complexes require prospective tenants income to exceed 3 times the amount of the rent.
“Most people can’t even afford to have an apartment. In Portland, everyone knows that the cost of living is insane. It basically took me a second job to be able to have a place of my own. I couldn’t afford it with what Burgerville pays me,” said Greg, Burgerville worker and union member.
Other workers cited problems with management’s uncaring attitude toward their employees: “I need to be able to take a sick day without fear of retaliation,” stated Robert, a Burgerville worker at the Powell location.
The workers forming the Burgerville Workers Union represent a cross-section of the community – young people, seniors, mothers, fathers, students, and grandparents. They put passion into their work, and want to improve their workplaces for themselves, their co-workers, and the community.
“We’re trying to make Burgerville a better place – I just want to be able to do my job and be paid a living wage. This is going to make Burgerville better, by having happy employees that work hard and are proud of their jobs” said Debbie, Burgerville Worker Union member.
The Burgerville Workers Union is supported by the Portland IWW and endorsed by a coalition of local unions and community groups, including ILWU Local 5, IATSE Local 28, SEIU Local 49, Portland Association of Teachers, OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon, Portland Solidarity Network (PDXSol), Portland Jobs with Justice, Blue Heron Collective (Reed College), Portland Central America Solidarity Committee, Alberta Cooperative Grocery Collective Management, Hella 503 Collective, Marilyn Buck Abolitionist Collective and People’s Food Co-op.

Here's some more information about the Union.

And here's a short video put out by some of the Union members about work conditions and the need for the campaign.


As previously stated this campaign has been singled out by one of the candidates in this seemingly never ending race to the Oval Office.

The candidate is of course Bernie Sanders, here's what the next Commander in Chief (maybe, possibly, well there's a chance at least) has to say on the matter:

FRANKFORT, Ky. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Saturday released the following statement praising the union organizing efforts of the workers at Burgerville, a restaurant chain in Oregon and southern Washington.

“I applaud the workers of Burgerville in Oregon for forming a union. What these workers are calling for is not radical. In the richest country in the history of the world, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. $9.60 an hour is a starvation wage. The workers at Burgerville deserve a living wage of $15 an hour. They have a right to flexible work schedules, affordable health care, and healthier working conditions. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

“Over the last thirty years, we’ve seen unprecedented growth in income inequality in this country. We have a rigged economy held in place by a corrupt system of campaign finance. That’s why workers, like those at Burgerville, must be able to form a union and collectively bargain for higher wages and stronger benefits.
“The Burgerville Workers Union is a perfect example of the type of political revolution that we need: people coming together and demanding real change to improve the lives of working people. As I’ve said on this campaign, this election is not about me, it’s about people from all walks of life coming together. And I am confident that when this happens, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.”

In addition the Young Turks who've become an unofficial arm of the Sanders Campaign also talked to the Burgerville Workers and gave them a kinda endorsement.



I think the Sanders statement and the Young Turks video are interesting as they seem to have not quite understood what the Burgerville Workers were talking about in the way they were meant. They certainly don't know anything of the IWW. Both the statement and the video talk about campaign finance and political corruption. Whereas in Union video above and the brief interview segment the Workers were talking about the economic relationships of workers and the company within a community. The two don't really gel.

To elaborate, the Burgerville Workers aren't actually fighting for a new law increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour. They're just pushing for a wage increase of $15 per hour, this struggle is between the workers of Burgerville and the owners of Burgerville, politicians corrupt or otherwise don't really factor into this dispute. But what about the bigger picture? Well the Union is saying something very different on that as well.

In many ways it’s not the fault of Burgerville or its owners. They operate within a low wage economy that accepts paying workers near minimum wage as the norm to squeeze everyone for maximum profit. This is an economy where over the last 40 years productivity has increased over 70% while wages have increased by under 10%, and where following the Great Recession the strongest job growth has been low wage work. The reason for this is clear: This is capitalism, a structure that prioritizes growth and profit over human need and development. We, Burgerville workers, are not merely facing Burgerville, we’re facing a whole structure that’s bent on pushing us to the edge of what we can bare.

We understand this larger structure. But we also realize that it is produced by people, no matter how large or unchangeable it seems. Burgerville produces it by choosing to go along with the rest of their peers and paying us meager wages; even workers produce it ourselves when we accept the boss’ authority over our work and accept wages far lower than the value of what we produce. We all produce this structure and we all face a choice: Do we allow it to continue or do we fight to end it?

They talk about minimum wage but aside from a comment about it currently being the lowest accepted point the context is completely different to what Bernie Sanders and Cenk Uygur use. The Union is talking about the role of wage labour in capitalism, the lower the wage paid the greater the economic exploitation. And the solution put forward by the Union isn't campaign financing reforms or political leadership its workers coming together the fight the system as a whole.

More and more workers are choosing to fight. We are inspired by garment workers in Cambodia, factory workers in China, and our fellow fast food workers across the United States. Workers across the world are standing up and demanding better lives and winning respect.

I think the workers in the Young Turks video were doing a pretty good job of stirring their interview in this direction. Its a shame that it was cut short so the trio in the studio could plug their own  pressure group the Wolf PAC. What's happened here is that American Liberals have seen an intiative by American workers and read their own narrative into it. And by offering their support they've ended up trying to usurp the original meaning of the campaign. I'm sure its unintentional but its still a problem. I believe the Young Turks videos main effect is to show the gulf between Liberal reformers and Revolutionary Workers.

And of course I should stress that a wage increase is only one of the demands of the Burgerville Unions current campaign.

• affordable, quality healthcare
• a safe and healthy workplace
• fair and consistent scheduling with ample notice
• a supportive, sustainable workplace including paid maternity/paternity leave
• free childcare and transportation stipends

I think its important to keep these other issues in mind here and in all similar cases as I've noticed a tendency for the monetary issues to dominate the discussions around strikes and labour campaigns. Usually feeding into a warped narrative about greedy workers getting ideas above their station. I think that narrative is bunk, though rather telling about the position of the working class in this society.

So here's my full and unconditional statement of support for the workers at Burgerville. I make this statement in the full knowledge of what the Burgerville Union is, and what it is aiming to achieve. IF you feel the same way then head over to their support page.

SPEW and Me

In Britain for some reason the most common and longstanding strain of leftism is Trotskyism. This has always been a bit of a mystery to me because even the Trotskyists loathe Trotskyists. Off the top of my head theirs the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), Socialist Party in England and Wales (SP/SPEW) the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) Solidarity (also in Scotland) the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), Workers Power(WP), the Workers Revolutionary Party(WRP) and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CGPB) and I must be forgetting at least a dozen and have never heard of several more. Many have very bad reputations and reputations are all I know them by, with one exception.


I do actually have a bit of personal experience with one Trot group, and curiously enough it was the one that had a fairly decent reputation in some circles. That was SPEW often know as just the Socialist Party, but I'll keep referring to them as SPEW because I don't like them being associated with Socialism, and I hope I'll adequately explain why that is below. Here's a list of the times I encountered the Socialist Party in England and Wales.

A mini disclaimer, apart from the last incident this is all from memory and happened several years ago, so do bear in mind that I'm going to be a bit hazy on the details.

In 2011 I was at a UCU picket at the University of Hull, in addition to striking lecturers some local TUC council members, me and a mate we also had a few unaffiliated Socialists and the student section of the SP. It was a standard negotiation picket, a petition to sign support, banners saying UCU and “honk if you support hardworking lecturers” you know, not exactly building the barricades. The Student section turned up with a megaphone, but instead of manning the picket tried to get everyone to form some kind of rally chanting about Cairo and Wisconsin, and some third place I really don’t remember, Athens maybe?. When it didn't work they just left, as in walked off leaving the rest of us very confused. Now that was not a very good first impression, but I just wrote it off as a bunch of over enthusiastic students not really understanding the reality of these things.

A year later in Grimsby the SPEW as a party tried something similar at a Fireman’s Brigade Union protest, they were forcefully told to knock it off or be banned from any other FBU event. It was rather embarrassing; now they just take part in the protest but  afterwards try to encourage people to attend an additional meeting they set up nearby. I've never taken them up on the offer so don't how well attended this side meetings have been but if their election results are any indication the strategy hasn't worked very well.


And when TUSC was formed the group spent months fighting with the local Labour party over control of the Union branches, the fight was purely about officer elections and affiliations, and of course financial support for the local council elections, even though TUSC only put up one candidate a year at the time, though to be fair to them in recent years they've put up a few more.  The attempt failed and back fired pretty badly, since it meant that the few SPEW union branch officers they did have were isolated and had their reputations sunk because the ordinary members resented them wasting time trying to use them for political fights.

This is embarrassing stuff and it didn't endear me to them in anyway, but SPEW are a national organisation and so maybe I've just had some bad luck? Well no, I also have experience through a friend of a friend of an incident when the SPEW as a national organisation behaved in a very disruptive and opportunistic way.



For me the most egregious example of a SPEW highjacking was what happened to the National Shop Stewards Network. I wasn't directly involved in this but friends were so I learnt quite a bit about the group and its breakdown and the role of the SPEW. It was also a very public falling out so I was able to look up a few things and refresh my memory. This for me was the event that soured me on the party as a whole, I don't think I was every really in danger of joining them but it after this it meant I didn't have any time for them at all.

The NSSN was a network for shop stewards in various unions across the country, hence the name. More importantly it had succeeded in growing in some parts beyond a contact list into actual working groups and so had a physical presence. The SP had put a lot of effort into this network that had been founded by the RMT union in 2006 and for awhile had received quite a bit of credit from Trade Union types. However in 2011 it soon became clear that the SPEW were only interested in the NSSN because it was supposed to be just another front for the Party and as such all non SP members ended up resigning.

Effectively killing what had been a fairly active support network for the sake of party strategy. If you go to the NSSN website today its indistinguishable from a leftist blog site, all the news is about demo marches, "building the pressure" and solidarity (best wishes) with groups and people but no actual practical steps for any of them. The only times it does discuss strikes or workplace actions its by Unions on their own at best its a newsletter, about actions going on independently of itself. In contrast the old group was full of updates and news about workplace struggles, like for example the Yorkshire and Humberside bulletin from 2009.

I don’t bring up the NSSN because I have an attachment to it, I don't really. While it was doing some interesting things it remained firmly a creature of the Trade Union movement. Conservative, defensive and dominated by officers and staffers, even though it proclaimed that it's main goal was building the rank and file. I think on balance the old NSSN was better than what it became for whatever that's worth.
No I bring it up because in addition to my tangential connections to the NSSN it exposes the SPEW as just another opportunistic group concerned with its own influence. By the time SPEW had decided to exert controlling influence on the NSSN it had already agreed to join the anti cuts struggle. The problem and the reason for the split revolved around the question of how. The majority non SPEW officers agreed that the NSSN should be part of a wider anti cuts movement independent of any of the other organisations. 

 Source
“The NSSN Conference on 22nd January will feature an important debate about the network's role in the anti-cuts movement, which is likely to be decisive in determining the organisation's future. The meeting of the majority of current NSSN Officers held on 5th January unanimously agreed that the NSSN should seek to build unity between the existing anti-cuts bodies and to oppose any attempt to further fragment the developing but still fragile anti-cuts movement. We urge all NSSN supporters and like minded trade unionists to attend our conference to help ensure that the NSSN plays a positive role in unifying the emerging anti-cuts movement and in building support for the sort of industrial action that will be crucial to beating back the coalition's attacks.”

Emphasis mine.

However SPEW wanted the NSSN to join its own anti cuts organisation that was being setup at the time.

Source

“The purpose of this Conference is to put before shop stewards and workplace reps a proposal to set up a working class trade union based campaign that is able to intervene on a clear no-cuts programme in the forthcoming battles.”

Emphasis mine.

Both sides of the dispute NSSN officers on one side(SPEW blamed one Dave Chapple a CWU shop steward in particular) and the SPEW Executive Committee (which to me is telling*) claimed the opposition was unrepresentative, and while I’m no stranger to a fight between two dishonest groups equally as terrible, after the dispute came to ahead it was followed by mass resignations which does suggest that the NSSN officers did have a majority. Though many of the 80 who left may have been motivated more by anti SPEW feelings than pro NSSN officers feelings.

On the 22^nd of January meeting the SPEW members dominated and forced through their proposal. This meant that from 23^rd of January the NSSN had to work to setup a project of the SPEW, understandably the non SPEW members didn’t feel like working for a political party they weren’t members of and so resigned. And that was all she wrote. This dispute tanked SPEW’s reputation, amongst the trade union constituency, the jewel in the crown for most Trotskyist groups. At least one General Secretary had written an open letter to dissuade them from this plan and the shop stewards informed the rest of the union apparatus. And of course all the other leftist groups wasted no time spreading the information. It’s also clear that the dispute was purely about control, the NSSN had already agreed to resist the public spending cuts in some form so this couldn’t have been motivated by principal, unless we count naked self interest. If the SPEW were genuine in building a powerful anti cuts movement and had no interest in controlling the NSSN they had several options, join an already existing anti-cuts group, or set up their own but keep it independent of the NSSN either option would have allowed them to work with the NSSN on its own terms.

I do feel sorry for the members who put years of effort into the organisation only to have another group wreck it for them. And for any workers who relied upon the NSSN in their workplace struggles because this politicking couldn't have helped. 

A textbook case of highjacking, in hindsight this wasn’t really surprising given that SPEW is the child of Militant. But there you are. I don't really have an overall point here, I just thought it'd be worth sharing my experiences with this group for reference purposes. Though I suppose it might be useful knowledge for anyone interested in joining such an organization. I mean when I first encountered the "Socialist Party" tm I didn't know about their Trotskyist leanings or their dodgy heritage. They talked a good British leftist game about nationalisation and the need for workers militancy etc, which was in tune with my politics at the time.
Fortunately I held off joining until I knew more about them and my education took me in a different direction.


*To elaborate the dispute was publicly between a group of NSSN officers and the SPEW executive committee as a whole and not just the party members who had joined the NSSN. Which confirmed the allegation that the SPEW members were carrying out party orders.

The True Cost of the Royal Family is More Than Pounds and Pence

Youtube educational channel CGP Grey made a video about the Royal Family five years ago, and its below average compared to their usually educational trivia. The poor quality is clearly a result of the presenters bias in favour of the Royal Family, a bias that jumps out of their tone and subject choices.

The first part of the video dealing with the economics of the Royal Family and relations to the rest of the UK (Parliament) is correct though it skips other some interesting and important incidents in that relationship, like the time in 1795 when the Prince of Wales married the Princess of Brunswick and Parliament raised an £65,000 per year to pay off her debts. This was at a time when food riots were common, and starvation threatened thousands of commoners.

But the real issues begin after the video moves beyond this into other areas. Tourism for one, he talks about American tourism and states that it is simply because of the Royal family, and so the Royal Family are responsible for the GDP share that tourism brings in.

This is a common argument trotted out by Monarchists in the rare occasions that the Royal Family is publicly challenged, and as per usual nothing is given to substantiate it.

Because there simply isn't, first US tourists aren't the most common tourists to the UK in 2014 they were in third place behind France (1,980,000) and Germany (1,460,000) with a total of 1,280,000. That's quite a high number but it isn't what is being argued here. And as for why those Americans visit we're given the answer "the Queen". So language and family connections don't factor into this at all hey?

Interestingly in that same year 24 million Americans went to Mexico, and 12 million to Canada, so if governmental systems are the main attractions for tourism and tourist revenue a good reason to keep or change that system, I guess the UK should turn itself into a Federal Republic. Oh and the only thing given as evidence for the importance of the Queen to the Yankee tourist dollar was France. Now according to the statistics I could find, boring Republican Paris is a close second to London, oh and France is global number one travel destination for tourism, having 84 million visitors in 2014. And the UK was beaten by the republican USA, China, Italy, Turkey, and Germany. But Monarchist Spain was third with 65 million tourists so its not all doom and gloom for the Crown.

But enough about tourism, the video gets much worse. At 3:30 the video talks about Royal prerogatives in a dismissive way. Showing a rather simplistic view, yes the Royal Prerogatives are really used by the actual Royal, but they've been used by most governments ever since. A Prerogative is

The Royal Prerogatives are a series of historic powers formally exercised by the monarch acting alone, but which in reality are exercised by government ministers. They enable government ministers to rule virtually by decree, without the backing of or consultation with Parliament, in many areas not covered by statute. A.V Dicey has described the Royal Prerogative as: “the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the crown”.

In relation to foreign affairs, the powers cover:

• the recognition of foreign states;
• the declaration of war;
• the making of treaties;
• the accreditation of diplomats; and
• the deployment of armed forces in the UK and abroad.

In relation to domestic matters, the powers include:

• the appointment and dismissal of ministers;
• the issuing and withdrawal of passports;
• the appointment of Queen’s Counsel;
• the dissolution of Parliament;
• the granting of honours;
• appointments to, and employment conditions of, the civil service;
• the commissioning and regulation of the armed forces; and
• the calling of elections.*

There is also the prerogative of ‘mercy’, which affects the judicial system. It means that ‘pardons’ can be granted in relation to a criminal conviction (i.e. it used to allow the withdrawal of the death penalty), or legal proceedings can be halted against an individual.

Now these powers are used by the Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean the Monarchy is sqeuky clean, the government is still using autocratic powers to subvert the principle of democracy, and given they do require the public consent of the Monarch of the day, that means the Queen/King is still complicit in these acts.

Thanks to the Royal prerogative the UK government can declare war on a whim, and control the civil service. These are very serious parts of the UK governmental system and they stem directly from the Crown. The video alleges that abolishing the Monarchy wouldn't change much and they may be right Republican movement have sometimes deposed one family simply to build another form of tyranny. But sometimes they have succeeded in granting at least limited freedoms. The fact that Royal Prerogatives come from the Royal family would suggest that an attack on the Royals legitimacy would also attack the legitimacy of its powers.

Then at 4:00 the video takes its final most absurd step by coming up with a hypothetical Queen Elizabeth II as global despot. This suggests that the maker of the video genuinely doesn't understand the institution of Monarchy at all really. The Monarchical system is more than the actual Monarch, human beings do not live for ever and so do not rule forever (Unless your name is Kim). Even if the current Monarch is amazing, that's no guarantee that the rest of them in the future will be.

After all King Edward VIII whom actually appears in the video at 02:04 was a Nazi sympathiser and an agent for the Axis powers.

"The active supporters of the Duke of Windsor within England are those elements known to have inclinations towards Fascist dictatorships, and the recent tour of Germany by the Duke of Windsor and his ostentatious reception by Hitler and his regime can only be construed as a willingness on the part of the Duke of Windsor to lend himself to these tendencies."

 "The American understood he was being asked to carry a message to the President, but he was unsure of the exact terms. As he was leaving the governor general's residence, the duke's aide-de-camp spelt it out. He instructed Oursler to tell the President that if he would make an offer for intervention for peace, before anyone in England could oppose it, the duke would instantly issue a statement supporting the move. It would start a revolution in England and, the duke hoped, lead to peace."

Although funnily enough this absurd hypothetical isn't nearly as absurd or hypothetical as the video maker thinks. The House of Windsor is actually very comfortable with the idea of coups and brutal Monarchies. To take one example the Queen is married to Prince Philip, who as most tabloid readers will know is Greek. Greek royalty to be precise, the Greek Royal  Family remains close to the British family despite the embarrassment of being kicked off the throne in 1973. Constantine II was on the guest list for the Queen's diamond Jubilee before protests by the Greek government got him dropped.

 “Constantine is not allowed to go,” a courtier tells me. “If the Queen could invite whom she liked, of course he would be there.” Constantine attended the Duke of Cambridge’s wedding and is a regular guest at the most important royal events. His sister, Queen Sofia of Spain, has been invited to the luncheon.

Why so much hostility, well Constantine II wasn't happy being a constitutional monarch and decided on a little restoration, in 1967 there was a coup by right wing officers, mostly of the rank of Colonel hence the nickname "Colonel's Coup". The King decided to support them, (many generals and the Navy and Air force were loyal to the royal family). Unfortunately by December the relationship between the King and the Junta broke down, so the King decided to run his own coup using the officers and units loyal to him. The counter coup failed miserable merely strengthening the Junta's position so the King and his family fled to Rome. In 1974 the people of Greece would show their appreciation for the King's politicking and the regime it helped create by voting for a republic.





But that was Greece and decades ago, well at the time The Queen with the rest of the government backed the Junta even after the hapless Constantine had fled. Also on the Jubilee guest list were the King's of Romania and Bulgaria. Two houses that supported brutal genocide and oppression in the 20th century.

 Between 1941 and 1944, Romania was responsible for exterminating approximately 300,000 Jews, giving it the sinister distinction of ranking second only to Germany in terms of the number of Jews murdered during the Second World War.

The new legal policy, dictated by the governments of King Carol II and Marshall Ion Antonescu, discriminated against the Jews of Transylvania and Banat, among other groups, on the basis of citizenship. Moreover, it confirmed the intention to apply a "detailed plan" of deportation of the Jews from the above-mentioned areas (The Archive of the Jewish Communities of Timisoara, Doc. 76-78, 1943). Negotiations for these deportations began in November 1941 and were resumed in the spring and summer of 1942. All attempts to persuade the authorities to change this policy failed. An existing prejudice towards Jews as an ethnic group - according to which the Jews of Southern Transylvania could become spies or betray the Romanian interests as speakers of Hungarian and German - played an important role in the hostility against them. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/236-between-hungary-and-romania-the-case-the-southern-transylvanias-jews-during-the#sthash.ulNcVCMV.dpuf

The new legal policy, dictated by the governments of King Carol II and Marshall Ion Antonescu, discriminated against the Jews of Transylvania and Banat, among other groups, on the basis of citizenship. Moreover, it confirmed the intention to apply a "detailed plan" of deportation of the Jews from the above-mentioned areas (The Archive of the Jewish Communities of Timisoara, Doc. 76-78, 1943). Negotiations for these deportations began in November 1941 and were resumed in the spring and summer of 1942. All attempts to persuade the authorities to change this policy failed. An existing prejudice towards Jews as an ethnic group - according to which the Jews of Southern Transylvania could become spies or betray the Romanian interests as speakers of Hungarian and German - played an important role in the hostility against them. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/236-between-hungary-and-romania-the-case-the-southern-transylvanias-jews-during-the#sthash.ulNcVCMV.dpuf

The new legal policy, dictated by the governments of King Carol II and Marshall Ion Antonescu, discriminated against the Jews of Transylvania and Banat, among other groups, on the basis of citizenship. Moreover, it confirmed the intention to apply a "detailed plan" of deportation of the Jews from the above-mentioned areas (The Archive of the Jewish Communities of Timisoara, Doc. 76-78, 1943). Negotiations for these deportations began in November 1941 and were resumed in the spring and summer of 1942. All attempts to persuade the authorities to change this policy failed. An existing prejudice towards Jews as an ethnic group - according to which the Jews of Southern Transylvania could become spies or betray the Romanian interests as speakers of Hungarian and German - played an important role in the hostility against them. - See more at: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/236-between-hungary-and-romania-the-case-the-southern-transylvanias-jews-during-the#sthash.ulNcVCMV.dpuf

Oh and there was a time when a commonwealth government was overthrown by the military in 1975 that had no protests or condemnation. That nation was the little known Australia, and the reasons for the coup involved the royal relationship.

 Australia briefly became an independent state during the Whitlam years, 1972-75. An American commentator wrote that no country had “reversed its posture in international affairs so totally without going through a domestic revolution”. Whitlam ended his nation’s colonial servility. He abolished royal patronage, moved Australia towards the Non-Aligned Movement, supported “zones of peace” and opposed nuclear weapons testing.

 Sir John Kerr, the Governor General (the crown's representative to Australia) with the support of MI6 and the CIA deposed the elected Prime Minister Gough Whitlam using the powers of the Crown.

 The democratic process destroyed using the powers of the Monarch. Every Monarchist should ask themselves, if the Queen is happy to hobknob with brutal autocrats, and have her powers used to topple elected governments, would she really be opposed to the same happening here?

Of course the greatest fault of the video is that the whole thing is a massive strawman. The objections to the continuation of the Monarchical system are not those presented in the video. Here's what Republic the largest and most prominent Republican group in Britain has to say on the matter.

It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

And because we can’t hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The Queen can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.

The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.

It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.
And because we can’t hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.
Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The Queen can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.
The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.
- See more at: https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want#sthash.sJ6Vh5Jy.dpuf

And in not one second of this video are these costs of the monarchy responded too.

*We now have fixed terms of five years, however there are two exceptions for an earlier election and they both require the consent of the ruling Monarch. 

Donald Trump and the American Working Class

The American elections are heating up, but I'm not going to talk about that here, instead I wish to talk about something that I feel is far more instructive to what we can expect from a Trump Presidency. Personally speaking I think the best measure of a politicians intentions real values, and leadership style and priorities is by their actions and not their rhetoric. To hell with "I'm _______ and I approve this message" and the obligatory "Paid for by a committee that's backing a rival to the politician we've just been attacking". Actions speak louder than words, or at least they should. Strangely politics is the one area where this isn't always true.

Now longtime readers will know I've opposed Donald Trump on principal for a number of years, I still think his actions in Scotland and Aberdeen in particular expose the man's priorities, ruining the lives of the local population so he can build another shrine to his own vanity. But today I have another example, Mr Trump is a businessman, and like all good capitalists he has a workforce. This workforce is organising because because Trump and his management haven't quite got around to making his own workforce great at all, never mind again.

I am a housekeeper at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. This past December, a majority of employees like me at Trump Las Vegas voted YES to a union. But Trump's company has refused listen to us and honor the results of our election.
Instead, they've blocked negotiations through legal challenges – which so far have gone nowhere. A federal officer recently recommended that the company’s list of objections be "overruled in their entirety" – and that the NLRB certify the union.Instead of sitting down to negotiate a fair contract, Trump company lawyers are still fighting to overturn the election.
If Donald Trump wants to “Make America Great Again,” he should start by negotiating a deal with his us – his Las Vegas hotel employees – just like his company did for workers at Trump Toronto in Canada.
Just last year, Trump workers in Canada voted for a union and have since negotiated their first contract – a deal that gives workers much like us a chance to provide for their families, keep their kids healthy, enjoy job protections and security, and one day retire with dignity.

Even the smallest slither of a concession from a businessman takes month's even years of organising and campaigning before it'll even come close to seeing the light of day. Toronto has organised successfully but the upper management stubbornly resist its spread.

This week Donald Trump’s hotel in Las Vegas is facing more heat for its labor record. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued another federal complaint against Trump Ruffin Commercial, LLC, alleging that the company unlawfully terminated one employee and discriminated against another based on their union support, and promised employees job opportunities if they abandoned the union.
Trump’s company has driven an aggressive anti-union campaign since workers began organizing at the Trump Las Vegas in 2014.  The complaint issued this week is the third one brought by federal government against Trump Las Vegas alleging unfair labor practices. In prior complaints, federal officials have alleged that Trump’s hotel company engaged in the following unlawful activities: 1) maintaining rules prohibiting workers from communicating with one another and the public; 2) interrogations and surveillance; 3) intimidation of employees by Trump management and security staff, including a manager physically pushing employees; and 4) suspensions and a threat to fire union supporters.

 Trump's company treats its own workforce like hostile children in need of control and harassment. The concessions made to the Canadian workforce are welcome, but I can't help noticing that the darling of American Nationalism treats foreign workers better than those from the Fatherland, but to be fair to the man cross class rhetoric combined with anti worker policies are standard practice with all major nationalist movements, so he's really just going along with the flow here.


I mean he's not been coy about demonising migrant workers and taking a patriotic guise to American Labor, which is probably why he's been attracting so much support from those white supremacists and ghosts, and yet his actions and the actions of his company say the opposite.

Reuters reports that in just the last month Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida applied for 70 visas for foreign workers because they could be paid lower wages than American workers, even as Trump hit the campaign trail denigrating Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers. Since 2000, Trump-affiliated companies have sought 1,100 temporary visas for foreign workers, and most of the requested vias were approved.

The Las Vegas workers took part in the protests in Chicago


If Trump is this callous and dismissive of his own workforce, the very people who made his fortune that he's now using to run a Presidential campaign, then how will he react towards American workers whom haven't done anything for him?

His workers already live under a Trump Presidency, as the capitalist he controls their means of existence and daily routines,  they know what his policies are like and most of them hate it, this should be very instructive to the entire American population, and yet I don't belief its received much coverage.

Oh and if your reading this and are American and don't like Donald Trump much, then I urge you to support the workers of Donald Trump's companies in their protests and organisation attempts, no matter what happened come election day a stronger more combative workforce in Trumps corporate empire will only be an improvement. Of course everyone should be doing this for all workers everywhere but given the situation giving extra support to Trump staff makes sense.

Far East Ostalgia: Thoughts on the bizarre love affair of hardliner “communists” with the Kim Dynasty

For a good few years now I’ve been annoyed by this bizarre phenomena that is the North Korean fan club. I couldn’t understand why a group that prides itself on being “Pure” and deeply committed to the revolution and the ideal of workers state would waste so much time defending the honour of the Kim dictatorship. Making dictators that oppose one or more Western power look like the best thing since sliced bread isn’t anything new for this sorry shower, but even for them the DPRK should be a bridge too far.

This is a “Democratic People’s Republic” that isn’t Democratic even in the liberal Bourgeois sense –though that hasn’t stop them before- hell it isn’t even a republic. It’s a monarchy founded with 20^th century baggage. While the Kings of old had court advisers they have a Politburo, instead of lesser nobles there’s Korean Workers Party chiefs, the knightly orders are replaced with the Special Operations Forces, and the role of the witch hunter is filled by the State Security Department that hunts down heretics from the Cult of Personality surrounding the Kim trinity, Kim Il Sung the Father, Kim Jong il the Son and now Kim Jong Un the holy ghost (he is everywhere after all). Now I’m being a little flippant, but only a little of all the parallels the comparison to the trinity is the biggest stretch but only because it’s a direct illusion to Christianity and so not really culturally appropriate. A Confucian comparison would be better, but my knowledge of Confucius begins with wall calenders, vaguely racist "Confucius say" jokes and that film released in 2010.

North Korea is so backward it lacks even the progressive tint that’s used as the foundation for the lines taken by so many “anti-imperialist” post 50’s tankies. I’ve seen dozens of documentaries on North Korea, many of which have interviews with members of the government and military, and all of their comments are filled with rampant nationalism, and bombastic militarism. On rare occasions one of them briefly mentions socialism, but it’s never expanded on and always came sandwiched between nationalist platitudes. I’ve also read a number of books on North Korea and even frequent the Korean Central News Agency website (the official English language site that reports from North Korean government)  I’ve never seen or heard them use any of the usual tropes and holy words all the other regimes did that these wannabe despots trip over themselves to praise. Hell by their own admission they rejected Karl Marx and the socialist concept of class, rejecting the two classes in conflict, in favour of national harmony between 55 class categories. Yes that’s right, North Korean society is based on total loyalty to the nation state, and has stratified its citizenry into 55 categories, based on occupation, family positions, and even ancestry is taken into account. 

Indeed, it started taking the works of Communist thinkers whose work contradicted and challenged the North Korean state out of wide circulation in the 60’s. “Books on Marx disappeared from library shelves about this time(1)as well. People could read Marx only in a few select libraries, and scholars had tio produce a reason for reading him.” 

Amusingly, the cult of Kim Il Sung also supplanted this crowds number one idle Stalin. “Three years after Stalin’s death, his cult of personality was officially denounced at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. This de-Stalinization influenced the DPRK as well: Stalin’s portraits were removed and the Soviet songs were to be performed in the new, edited variant. For example, if under Stalin North Koreans sang “Our toast is for the Motherland, our toast is for Stalin, our toast is for the banner of victories,” after 1956 the toast was supposed to be proclaimed not for Stalin, but for the party.

In the mid-1950s Kim Il Sung, who after Stalin death’s felt much more confident, started a campaign against Soviet influence, emphasizing the need for everything that is Korean and national. Since Stalin was neither Korean, nor national, his image began to wither away. It was not done very fast, and what is now Victory Street in Pyongyang kept its old name – Stalin Street – up to the 1970s. And in the late 1960s the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin were removed from libraries and access to them was restricted: Kim Il Sung had no need for predecessors. After the DPRK became politically independent from the Soviet Union, Stalin still remained in the North Korean political discourse, but he occupied the place similar to that of Kim Il Sung in Stalin’s USSR: the leader of a friendly, but clearly a “junior” state, a positive figure which, as such, bowed to the world leader.”(2) 
And the regime has continued dropping bit by bit the old associations with any none Korean leftist.

Now would be the time were I bring up North Korea’s murderous regime and oppression of its population including its proletariat. But there isn’t any point because that’s true of every regime this crowd has championed. Of all the features of the North Korean system, its brutality towards its own citizen is by far its most typical feature.

It’s not really a surprise that these so called radical communists and militant socialists are nothing of the sort. Prick them on this and they’ll quickly pull up a North Korean state document maintaining that the DPRK is a socialist state, or Kim Jong Il’s speeches or books where he talks about the importance of “Socialist Construction” etc. But all that does is expose their own blatant ignorance of socialism. Poke them about authoritarianism and they’ll bring up the elections, rather hypocritically as many of these people will quickly denounce elections in western nations as shams, and in North Korea every eligible political party takes part in the same front with the Workers Party of Korea, meaning that elections in North Korea are even more pointless than usual. 

However the extensive lip service paid by the regimes of old to “socialism” international revolution and the working classes gave them enough jargon to camouflage themselves. North Korea doesn’t give them much room to do this, its isolationist instead of internationalist, and its preoccupation is reunification of Korea and building up its military industry at the expense of living standards for the average North Korean, both nationalist pursuits in place of workers liberation. These cheerleaders of the Dear Leader still try to paint North Korea as a model Socialist society, but the gulf between reality and their arguments is so vast and so noticeable that they don’t wash with anyone not already inducted, and makes them look callous and delusional.

But why this brutal cold war relic in particular? Why doesn’t China, Laos, Vietnam or Cuba command the affections of this crowd? Especially since they all make a much better show of continuity with the good old days? Well the answer may lie in the combination of militaristic posturing and state control of the economy.  Of all the other “Communist countries” left the one that could compete with North Korea for the affections of this crowd (though why they’d want to I don’t know) was Cuba. And what is Cuba famous for? A leadership clad in Olive green army fatigues shouting angrily at the US, state control of all production including sugar cane cultivators, and sponsoring revolts in Africa and Latin America. However since the 90’s Cuba has progressively followed a more market orientated economy, and conciliation with the USA. And it’s been years since Cuban soldiers have been seen carrying out nefarious schemes in the third world. Che Guevara still has some pull but overall the enthusiasm for the sunshine Stalinist state has dimmed amongst the ranks of the hard liners. 

Compare this to North Korea, a regime that repeated threatens its neighbours and the US with missile, nuclear missiles and maintains a stranglehold on the economy. When I first started visiting youtube the only “socialist” videos I found for years, were footage of Soviet mayday parades with thousands of soldiers, tanks and missiles. I have also seen many of these pro NK types take time out to specifically congratulate the North Koreans on nuclear weapons tests and rocket launches. This from the types who shrilly denounce NATO and the US armed forces. I have also seen these Kimchi jingo’s celebrate the execution of Jang sun-Taek because he was apparently a capitalist sell out.   So that covers the military fetishism, what about standing up to the markets?

Well like most things concerning North Korea reality shows the official line to be wishful thinking at best and outright lie at worst. The North Korean economy much like its claims to democracy and socialism only helps proves how out of touch the cheerleaders of the Great General are. I could launch into a lecture about the collapse of the ration system in the 90’s during the famine, privileges for heads of industrial and agricultural concerns, the existence of wage labour, the state taking surplus profit from economy to invest elsewhere, the state operating like a corporation, the establishment of state owned companies, and the thriving black market which tarnishing the ideal of a fully planned economy, but I don’t really need to. North Korea doesn’t really oppose market capitalism or private finance. It welcomes them provided the terms of the deals made benefit its overall aims. North Korea’s mobile phone network was built by an Egyptian company Orascom, which joint owns a public/private partnership company called Koryolink. A public private partnership was the key pillar to Tony Blair’s economic vision, and is usually seen by tankies as the first crack in the walls of a “socialist economy” when it occurs elsewhere. Nor is it the only example 

 In the past, China persuaded North Korea with various joint venture projects arguing that, “You have nothing to lose from these projects. Although it’s based on market principles, ultimately it’s beneficial for both parties.” North Korea on the other hand maintained the stance, “You (China) invest and we will manage,” holding on to management rights of these companies. However, for this very reason Chinese companies were reluctant to directly invest in North Korea. Even after contracts were signed, large -scale investment did not transpire due to poor management.

However, North Korea finally yielded to China’s request, handing over major management rights to Chinese investors. This recent move is analyzed as an attempt to attract more foreign investment to actualize North Korea’s goal of building a “Strong and Prosperous Nation” by 2012. With large-scale management rights transferred to the Chinese companies for joint ventures, the DPRK-China economic cooperation volume is expected to grow.

There's also official commitments by the DPRK to protect foreign investment.

Indeed the DPRK is so eager to encourage investment in North Korea, that it set up the IKBC (The International Korean Business Centre) and advertises its services through the Korean Friendship Association the official mouthpiece of the North Korean fan club. 

The IKBC sales pitch includes the following:

Lowest labour cost in Asia.
Highly qualified, loyal and motivated personnel. Education, housing and health service is provided free to all citizens. As opposed to other Asian countries, worker's will not abandon their positions for higher salaries once they are trained.
Lowest taxes scheme in Asia. Especially for high-tech factories. Typical tax exemption for the first two years.
No middle agents. All business made directly with the government, state-owned companies.
Stable. A government with solid security and very stable political system, without corruption.
Full diplomatic relations with most EU members and rest of countries.
New market. Many areas of business and exclusive distribution of products (sole-distribution).
Transparant legal work. Legal procedures, intellectual rights, patents and warranties for investors settled.

So an official arm of the North Korean government is other monopoly capital schemes, corporate tax cuts, and guarantees the loyalty of its workforce? How's that for socialism?

So why the lack of alarm in this case? Well the North Korean state is still the main force in the North Korea’s economy and it’s not squeamish about taking severe action against those who failure to deliver, so this goes away to reassuring them. Several companies that do actually invest in North Korea have been alleging being ripped off. But realistically speaking, I  think they just don't want to see it. I know some of these fellows turned a blind eye to Fidel Castro’s early reforms or justified them as pragmatic, and ended up condemning his brother Raul for continuing the reform process. North Korea still lags behind the alternatives, especially China and Vietnam so it’s the last stop on the line. If North Korea goes “revisionist” or “capitalist roader” then that’s it. This is a loose coalition of people made up of those who for decades have deflected criticism by simply pointing to examples of “actually existing socialism” so without an actual example of “actually existing socialism” they have no more platform. The other big trend in this group are the extreme anti western “progressives/socialists/anti-imperialists” who also have few options else left now since all the other anti western “modernisers” have either capitulated to the western order or been overthrown. Well Assad’s still clinging on in Syria, and it’s possible a Conservative shift in Iran could reopen wounds.  There’s also Putin, but his brand of conservatism and capitalist economics will keep all but the most desperate from rallying around him now.  He's even increased his criticism of the Soviet Union so no one but those strange Russian nationalists whom dress like 1940's red army officers will stick around.

There is another question here, does any of this matter? I would say yes but admit this North Korean caucus is a minor problem. Compared to all the other obstacles and outright threats we face. Though Korean Friendship Association et al  have raised funds for North Korea and been used as an intermediary for business deals and who knows where that money goes? Their existence and visibility is also an embarrassment  for individuals and groups identified with socialism or communism from interacting with the public. Explicitly Anarchist groups don't have that problem, but that's mostly because in the mainstream anarchism is still associated with Individualistic Terror.   But the equation of socialism and workers power with Juche and the Workers Party of Korea is an issue, just like how it was when the Soviet Union was around. Now North Korea isn’t as imposing and omnipresent as the Soviet Union or China during Mao’s day, but it has and will pop up in places. There are parts of the world where North Korea is quite well known and where this problem will be more pronounced, South Korea and Japan spring to mind, but also parts of Africa where North Korea has some involvement via trade and aid. There are Kim Il Sung study groups and societies in countries like Nigeria and Tanzania(3). 

 Yes of course. There are so many North Koreans here. They are in Nigeria helping us, in our health care system, with our agriculture.  They also provide technical experience and there are also some joint ventures between Nigerians and North Koreans. These joint ventures are in chemicals, fertilizers, agricultures, furniture, marble, mostly from granite (the North Koreans are very good in this), hospitals in Yobe, Adamawa, Zamfara, Enugu, Nasarawa, Delta, Rivers and Borno as well as Lagos states.The three DPRK doctors that were killed were working in Yobe state, which is in the northeastern part of Nigeria. As you may aware, the northeastern part of Nigeria is the hot bed of the insurgency in Nigeria.

 

And here in the jolly old UK we have the Communist Party of Great Britain Marxist Leninist (CPGB-ML) a group that champions North Korea among other things. Again I must confess my ignorance, despite encountering them several times online, I've never had the pleasure of meeting these folks in the flesh, indeed I've can't recall seeing a banner or group participating in the TUC marches I used to go too. But that doesn't necessarily mean they're not a force in another region. Although to be fair to North Korea, the CPGB-ML has many other daft ideas, and still champions a few of the other progressive strongmen like Assad and Castro.

So I think that these embarrassing “comrades” can be considered an active problem, and added to the list. Unfortunately I don’t have much in the way of a practical solution; the one positive I can say about these people is their dedication to the cause. More the pity they’ve chosen such a rotten banner to fly. They’ll keep on banging the (war)drum until the regime itself goes away or is no longer to their liking. Public criticism of North Korea and other “progressive” dictatorships might help a little but making it a priority given the low level of trouble this lot have caused (unless of course you’re in an area where there’s a pro NK group of some size) would be a mistake. You may think that’s hypocritical of me having written all this, but it’s not a priority for me either, I wrote this at work during a break from my other projects, and felt compelled to because as a NK watcher I encounter these people regularly and get tired of their callous and ignorant bile.

 1: From Exit Emperor Kim Jong Il, “this time” refers to the March 25^th purge in 1967 of a “liberal” Kapsan faction of the party and the expansion of censorship and the positioning of Kim il Sung as the Supreme Leader.

2: From an article by Fyodor Tertitskiy on NKnews https://www.nknews.org/2016/01/the-image-of-stalin-in-north-korea/

3:In addition to material and military aid, North Korea has built a number of governmental buildings and national stadiums for various African countries.