Content uploaded by Kim Scipes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kim Scipes on Mar 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Kim Scipes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kim Scipes on Jun 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Globalization from below:
Labor activists challenging the AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program
Kim Scipes
Purdue University North Central, USA
Note: This is final version of this paper that was sent to the editors, where subsequent editing
was done, so it is not the final version. This article was published in Critical Sociology,
Vol. 38, No. 2 (March 2012): 303-323.
Abstract
Building on Alberto Melucci’s argument that to understand a social movement, we must
look at the period before emergence as a social movement, this paper examines labor activist’s
efforts to reform the foreign policy program of the AFL-CIO: has sufficient groundwork been
laid that a serious possibility of an alternative globalization movement can emerge from within
US Labor?
This paper discusses general efforts to challenge the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy program.
It examines the work of US Labor Against the War (USLAW) since its founding in 2003, the
California State AFL-CIO’s formal repudiation of the AFL-CIO foreign policy program in 2004,
and then efforts at the 2005 National AFL-CIO Convention to keep California’s “Build Unity
and Trust With Workers Worldwide” resolution from being fairly discussed at the convention.
Based on evidence presented, it then evaluates whether there is an alternative globalization
movement emerging within US Labor or not.
Keywords:
sociology, social movements, Labor, labor movements, AFL-CIO, labor imperialism, USLAW,
WWSC
Introduction
The “anti-globalization” movement exploded into US public consciousness in Seattle at
the end of 1999, and part of the impact was due to the presence of labor unions in the protests.
At that time, great hope was expressed by activists that the alliance between “Teamsters and
Turtles” would join the power of the labor movement with the environmental movement on a
continuing basis and that, together, these would further propel forward the global movement for
social and economic justice (which was how the activists’ conceived this movement).
Unfortunately, this never happened.
While Labor’s role in the Seattle protests was vastly overstated—it was basically an
effort to pressure the Clinton Administration into inviting AFL-CIO President John Sweeney “to
Globalization from below Page 2
the table” of global political-economic discussions, and went much further than ever intended on
the streets of Seattle—it still suggested that something was happening within Labor beyond just
getting Sweeney a seat; maybe things weren’t as “stable” as tradition might suggest.
This suggestion, it is argued herein, is the more correct interpretation: there is something
happening regarding globalization within the labor movement. This “something” is small, it is
not consolidated; yet it seems to be resonating—and expanding. And certainly, it is not
controlled by the established leadership of the unions, although established leaders have been
able to limit it to date. This “something” is a globalization project from below, an effort
ultimately to join the opposition movement to the top-down corporate-military globalization that
has spread worldwide.1 This alternative globalization project within Labor has emerged and is
struggling to consolidate itself, despite opposition from established leaders, ultimately seeking
hegemony over labor movement politics.2 Arguably, this alternative globalization project has the
potential to develop into an actual social movement and, if its potential can be realized, it will
attain hegemony over US Labor politics—radically transforming the AFL-CIO foreign policy
program from combating international labor solidarity to actively building this solidarity, with
workers, peasants and all seeking a better world—thereby, making a substantial contribution to
the advancement of the global economic and social justice movement.3
The question addressed in this paper is this: has the groundwork been laid sufficiently
for the alternative globalization movement within the AFL-CIO to emerge and ultimately
challenge the established labor leadership for political hegemony? And, if so, how can we
understand these developments so as to help us better evaluate comparable developments in and
around other social movements?
Understanding social movement emergence
The argument is that analysts must understand the processes by which a movement
emerges, and not assume that its entrance onto a scene is when things begin. In fact, the
theoretical aspect of this paper is based on Alberto Melucci’s (1989, 1995) argument that to
understand a social movement, we must look at the period before emergence as a social
movement—it is among the individuals and in the small groups that emerge that we can
understand a social movement. Melucci questions the very basis of much established social
movement research, arguing that a major weakness of this research is that movements have been
generally treated as empirical realities, as though they already exist. He believes researchers
need to recognize the constitutive processes by which they are constructed; i.e., that if one wants
to understand the emergence and development of social movements, one should not treat a
movement as a given, but rather focus on how it has been built. In fact, the central focus of his
research has been to understand the processes of how collective action is created (Melucci,
1995).
Quickly, Melucci sees a two-part model of mobilization, based on creating a collective
identity and then engaging in collective action. People have to join to construct a collective
identity—which he defines as an “interactive and shared definition produced by several
individuals (or groups at a more complex level) and concerned with the orientations of action
and the field of opportunities and constraints in which the action takes place” (Melucci, 1995:
Globalization from below Page 3
44)—and then, together, they have to challenge publicly the status quo at some level, each taking
some personal risk (no matter how large or small) to help advance their political position.
“Collective action,” he writes (1995: 61), “should be thought of as a construct.... Action is an
interactive, constructive process within a field of possibilities and limits recognized by the
actors.” In other words, he sees people coming together, seeking to address a problem, agreeing
to build a group and then emotionally committing to that project, and then collectively carrying it
out. The idea is that each collective action, in turn, generates more interest, more people and
requires development of a more inclusive collective identity from which they engage further in
collective action, ultimately—assuming they are successful—creating a social movement.
Carol Mueller, researching the origins of the women’s movement, supports Melucci’s
approach. Analyzing Melucci’s work through examining the origins of the women’s liberation
movement, she notes that Melucci’s focus is on “submerged networks” or small, separate groups,
engaging in cultural experimentation, concluding that “In these cultural laboratories, new
collective identities are constructed from the expressive interactions of individuals experimenting
with new cultural codes, forms of relationships, and alternative perceptions of the world”
(Mueller, 1994: 237). Further, she notes, “The status quo must be challenged at the cultural level
in terms of legitimacy before mass collective action is feasible” (Mueller, 1994: 239).
Activists challenge the AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program
It is argued herein that, by examining the efforts of US Labor’s foreign policy activists as
they have challenged the AFL-CIO foreign policy program, we can see how they have been able
to win the much larger group of general labor activists to their side and that, together, these two
groups of activists are laying the groundwork to contest Labor’s established leaders for political
hegemony over the labor movement. It is argued that these activists have successfully
challenged the status quo at the cultural level within the labor movement, and delegitimized the
traditional AFL-CIO foreign policy program among general rank and file labor activists
sufficiently so that the two groups can join and work compatibly against the established labor
leadership.
The focus on activists is necessary, although not sufficient:
… it is argued—following Golden (1988)—that researchers can best
understand the development of a labor movement by focusing primary attention
on activists…. Activists play key roles because they are the ones that do the
conceptualizing and thinking for the movement, and through the framing
processes (Snow, et. al. 1986/1997) are the ones who interpret the situation to
members and to the outside public. They also serve as mobilizing agents, without
whom there would be a severely limited amount of conscious collective action.
Therefore, activists—both inside the labor center and throughout the supporting
network—are central to the development of the labor movement as a whole….
At the same time, however, we cannot collapse our understanding of a
labor movement to the activists. No matter how good or how innovative activists
Globalization from below Page 4
are, unless a substantial number of the members respond affirmatively to their
efforts, there is not a labor movement but simply a collection of activists and/or
organizations—and they are not the same (Scipes, 2003: 13-14).
In other words, while recognizing that the affect of activists is important, we are trying
not to claim too much. The focus herein is on the activists: has one smaller group of activists
(i.e., the labor foreign policy activists) delegitimized sufficiently the traditional AFL-CIO foreign
policy program to more general labor activists so they can work together? Or, to put it another
way, has such groundwork been developed that an alternative globalization movement has
emerged, one that ultimately could contest political legitimacy within the US labor movement?
How could we tell if this is correct; how can we “measure” this? When talking about the
labor movement—which organizationally consists of a number of national and international
(having US and foreign members) unions and state-wide labor federations united in a labor
center, such as the AFL-CIO—we must focus on organizational change, and not just individual
actions. For example, a changed political position of a major organizational component would
signify significant movement on a particular issue because of the extensive educational work and
cohesive unification (building unity and solidaristic relations) that must be done beforehand to
cause such a change. It is argued that having an international, national or even state-wide labor
organization (consisting of multiple international and national affiliates) formally repudiate the
AFL-CIO foreign policy program would provide sufficient support to substantiate such a claim.
Should evidence develop of such an event, then the possibility of an emerging alternative
globalization movement is realistic, and not just a labor foreign policy activist pipe dream.
And does the emergence of the US Labor Against the War (USLAW) and the Worker to
Worker Solidarity Committee (WWSC) suggest that the next level of struggle will be at the
organizational level? The question on the table now is this: will USLAW and the WWSC be
able to motivate labor activists across the movement to mobilize sufficiently to formally
repudiate the current AFL-CIO foreign policy program and force its reform?4
Answering that question remains in the future. For this paper, the emergence of the
alternative globalization project within labor is discussed by focusing specifically on efforts to
understand and challenge the AFL-CIO foreign policy program. It is argued that a set of specific
events during the mid-2000s—the founding of US Labor Against the War in 2003; the passage
of the “Build Unity and Trust with Workers Worldwide” Resolution by the California State
AFL-CIO in 2004; and both the passage of the Resolution to “Rapidly Remove” US forces out of
Iraq, and the efforts to keep any affirmative discussion of the California State AFL-CIO’s “Build
Unity and Trust” resolution off the floor of the 2005 National AFL-CIO Convention in Chicago
—mark a key “juncture” in the struggle to reform the AFL-CIO foreign policy program. These
events suggest that, together, the possibility of ultimate success has become real.
The literature on both AFL-CIO foreign policy and labor internationalism is discussed to
provide an intellectual background to current developments. Then, US Labor Against the War
(USLAW) is discussed, followed by a discussion of the Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee
(WWSC). Accordingly, after illuminating the processes by which it has been done, the
Globalization from below Page 5
hypothesis that international labor activists have created an alternative globalization project from
below within the labor movement is evaluated.
General background
Unknown to most of the general public, there have been major efforts by union members
to reform the labor movement in a number of different ways over roughly the past 40 years (circa
1968), which have ebbed and flowed since that time.5 One such effort, which is the focus herein,
has been to challenge the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy program. Initially, the goal was to stop the
AFL-CIO from supporting dictators, military coups and U.S. Government efforts against
progressive regimes around the world. However, this has subsequently developed to not only
challenge the AFL-CIO foreign policy program, but to do this in conscious solidarity with
working people around the world which, although not usually enunciated in these terms, means
joining the global movement for economic social justice or, as otherwise known, the developing
“globalization from below” movement.
The efforts to create the new globalization from below project within the labor movement
are rooted in three general processes that have affected the labor movement over particularly the
last 40 some-odd years: intellectual efforts, particularly by those writing on labor history, to
understand the development of the US labor movement, and particularly its imperialist foreign
policy;6 labor activists’ efforts to expose and end this labor imperialism, while trying to build
international labor solidarity (see Scipes, 2010a: 69-82); and general efforts to reform the labor
movement (see, for example, Fletcher and Gapasin, 2008; Early, 2009).7 These three “streams”
combined into a “river” in the mid-1980s to create a number of projects to build conscious
international labor solidarity.
Building international labor solidarity
During the 1980s, there were a number of internationally-oriented projects that were
developed by labor activists and progressive union officials from within the labor movement,
initiated in different areas across the United States, each designed to build international labor
solidarity. The key development was the National Labor Committee in Support of Democracy
and Human Rights in El Salvador (hereafter, NLC). The NLC emerged in opposition to the
Reagan Administration’s support for the reactionary government in El Salvador, and later,
worked to stop the AFL-CIO from endorsing any possible effort by US President Ronald Reagan
to invade Nicaragua. In a detailed analysis of the NLC’s work, Andrew Battista made the
following evaluation:
It was an integral part of the US Central America peace movement that
opposed the Reagan administration and influenced congressional action on
Central America, the most divisive foreign policy issue of the 1980s. The NLC
also challenged the Central America policy and anticommunist international
outlook of the AFL-CIO and sought to chart a new foreign policy for the US labor
Globalization from below Page 6
movement, and thereby provoked the most serious and open policy split in
American labor in several decades. Further, the NLC contributed to the long and
difficult task in rebuilding a strong labor-liberal coalition in American national
policies. Last but not least, NLC was part of a larger and ongoing rift in the
leadership of American labor that lay in the background of the dramatic 1995
leadership change at the AFL-CIO (Battista, 2002: 422).
There were other projects that emerged from the grassroots within the labor movement.
In 1984, Local 10 of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union refused to
unload a Dutch ship, the Nedloyd Kimberly, that was carrying South African cargo when it tied
up in San Francisco—the Local finally gave in after 10 days when a US Federal judge threatened
to fine the Local $25,000 a day if it continued. This activity took place after considerable efforts
in the Local to build support for liberation struggles in Southern Africa, and included
considerable outreach to the various social communities in the Bay Area (Scipes, 1985). There
were a number of projects across the United States, especially at the local level, that were
working to support the anti-apartheid struggles in South Africa.8
There were other, on-going projects. One of the most successful and long lasting was the
Philippine Workers Support Committee (PWSC) initiated by John Witeck, then an AFSCME
staffer in Hawaii. Witeck, who had traveled to the Philippines in 1984 for the International
Solidarity Affair sponsored by the Kilsuang Mayo Uno Labor Center (KMU), had been so
inspired that he got others to do the same and then set up a nation-wide network to build support
for Filipino workers and to mobilize people for speaking tours by Filipino trade unionists. He
published the PWSC “Philippine Labor Alert” for years, eventually reaching 40 issues in 1998.
One of the strongest PWSC chapters was in Boston, where activists developed extensive efforts
to support Filipino workers.
The Labor Committee on the Middle East, developed in San Francisco, was a unique
effort, headed by Jeff Blankfort and Steve Zeltzer. This was an effort to look at developments in
the Middle East from a rank and file perspective, with the goal—unfortunately, yet unfilled—of
getting Labor to break ties with Israel, and to actively support the liberation struggle of the
Palestinians.
American activists—spearheaded by the United Electrical workers (UE), a union not
affiliated with the AFL-CIO—began making connections with Mexican workers, and most
especially with the Authentic Labor Front (the FAT in Spanish) in the early 1990s (Hathaway,
2000: 175-196). This was joined by workers and organizations in the Coalition for Justice in the
Maquiladoras, which united people from the US and Canada with those in Mexico (Bacon, 2004;
Vogel, 2006).
Along with these projects, there was an explosion of writing about AFL-CIO foreign
policy. Not only did this focus on the foreign policy program overall, but there was an
increasing amount of writing on labor’s foreign operations in particular regions—most
importantly, Latin America—but in specific countries as well.9
Globalization from below Page 7
These internationalist efforts—along with general dissatisfaction with the efforts of AFL-
CIO President Lane Kirkland—led to repudiation of Kirkland’s hand-picked successor, Thomas
Donohue in 1995, and the election of John Sweeney to the presidency of the AFL-CIO (Dark,
1999; for details on foreign policy activist efforts, see Bacon, 1995; Buhle, 1999; Battista, 2002;
Shorrock, 2003).
With the 1995 election of John Sweeney to the presidency of the AFL-CIO, the labor
center appeared to have changed its foreign policy “stripes.” One of the things that Sweeny did
was disband the semi-autonomous regional organizations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and
Western Europe, and put them under control of the newly established and centrally-controlled
“Solidarity Center” (officially known as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity
or ACILS). It appeared to have changed its international orientation from “anti-communism” to
“international labor solidarity” (Scipes, 2000).
Sweeney’s election and apparent changes made regarding foreign operations caused
foreign policy activists to shift focus for a while. Yet, by 2000, this started changing as critics
such as Judy Ancel (2000), Peter Rachelff (2000), and myself (Scipes, 2000: 6-7), each
published articles, noting specific problems that continued under the Sweeney Administration.
The biggest problem was the AFL-CIO’s continuing relationship with the National
Endowment for Democracy or NED. The NED was established by the Reagan Administration in
1983 to do overtly what the CIA had previously tried to do covertly (Robinson, 1996; Blum,
2000: 179-183; Golinger, 2005; Scipes, 2005b). The AFL-CIO joined with the international
wing of the Democratic Party, the international wing of the Republican Party, and the
international wing of the Chamber of Commerce to serve as one of the NED’s four “core”
institutes (Scipes, 2005b).
A key development was the April 2002 coup attempt against democratically-elected
Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez—this is the coup attempt that an Irish film crew captured on
tape and was later released as The Revolution Will Not be Televised.10 The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity
Center aided the leadership of the CTV, both in organizing meetings with business and some
political leaders before the coup, and with later denying CTV leadership involvement in the coup
attempt itself (see Scipes, 2010a: 56-66).
Other activists contributed their research to deepening the understanding of AFL-CIO
foreign policy. Around this time, Dean Frutiger (2002) examined labor’s campaign against
China, and argued it was a continuation of their “Cold War” policies, despite the claim that they
had moved beyond them.
Tim Shorrock (2002, 2003) then weighed in with two articles on current AFL-CIO
foreign policy. The latter one was particularly important as it detailed the emerging efforts to
challenge the AFL-CIO foreign policy program from within labor.
Meanwhile, Fred Hirsch pushed forward his own efforts to again try to get the AFL-CIO
to “Clear the Air” about their foreign operations. He had initiated a resolution at the 2002
California State AFL-CIO Biannual convention, and it appeared about to pass, when California
AFL-CIO leaders in attendance offered a compromise: in exchange for “watering down” the
resolution, top-level AFL-CIO foreign policy people would come to California and have a
Globalization from below Page 8
meeting to discuss these issues with labor activists. The deal was accepted. In October 2003—
15 months after the deal was accepted—national-level AFL-CIO foreign policy leaders had a
meeting with over 50 activists from California. These “leaders” basically came and presented a
“dog and pony” show instead of a substantive discussion as had been promised, angering the
activists (Hirsch, 2003). As they had feared something like this when they accepted the AFL-
CIO compromise, the activists retained the right to bring the issue up before the next California
AFL-CIO biannual convention.
However, before the convention, Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger (n.d.) surfaced some
documents regarding developments in Venezuela through Freedom of Information Act requests.
These documents confirmed Solidarity Center involvement in coup preparations (see Scipes,
2010a: 58-66).
At the 2004 Biennial California State AFL-CIO Convention in July, the Resolutions
Committee pulled together a number of related resolutions into one, “Build Unity and Trust
Among Workers Worldwide.” “Build Unity and Trust” included resolutions submitted by
Plumbers and Fitters Local 393 (San Jose), the South Bay Labor Council (San Jose), the
Monterey Bay Central Labor Council (Castroville) and the San Francisco Labor Council, and
was joined by resolutions initially demanding transparency in NED (National Endowment for
Democracy) funding by American Federation of Teachers Local 1493 (San Mateo), the
California Teachers Federation, and the San Francisco Labor Council. In a strong condemnation
of the national level AFL-CIO foreign policy leadership, the resolution was adopted
unanimously by the over 400 representatives of almost 2.5 million organized workers—
approximately one-sixth of the AFL-CIO total membership at the time (before the 2005 split)
(Hirsch, 2004; see also Scipes, 2010a: 79-80). This passed resolution was transmitted for
consideration at the AFL-CIO’s 2005 National Convention in Chicago.
Towards the end of 2004, Harry Kelber, a long-time trade unionist and perennial thorn in
the side of the AFL-CIO’s leadership, published a six-part series on the AFL-CIO foreign policy
program. Kelber examined both history and current operations in his critique (Kelber, 2004).
And just before the National Convention, Kelber published a piece that reported that over 90% of
the Solidarity Center’s funding came from the Federal government (Kelber, 2005a; see also
Kelber, 2005b).
Efforts by the AFL-CIO leadership undercut and reversed “Build Unity and Trust,” and
made the related resolution that went to the floor of the 2005 National Convention one that
praised the Solidarity Center for its work instead of condemning it. When delegates attempted to
challenge the resolution put forth by the Sweeney-controlled Resolutions Committee—i.e., to
support “Build Unity and Trust”—they were undemocratically prevented from speaking by the
Chair of the Convention at the time, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee (Scipes, 2010a: 79-
80).
Changes in the social context
The question begging to be answered here is what happened: why have developments in
the early 21st Century seemed to have “stuck” in ways never before attained? To answer this, the
Globalization from below Page 9
changes in the social context must be considered. Focus is on social changes since the
(Nineteen) “Sixties,” their affects on individuals, and how this has affected people specifically in
the labor movement. The social context, and labor activists’ understandings of it, has
dramatically changed, although the advances have not been linear, nor have they extended to
every person. And then these changes are put in the context of the right-wing “push-back” since
the Sixties—and against the gains of the Sixties.
The key social development in the Sixties was the war in Vietnam—which, in reality,
took place across much of Southeast Asia. Consciousness of this war, simply, was something
shared by every person born in the United States between 1946-late 1951/early 1952; it did not
matter whether one supported or opposed the war, everyone in this “Vietnam generation” was
aware of the war.11 People could not avoid it: not only was every male subject to be drafted into
the military (affecting related spouses, lovers, siblings, parents, children), but the war was on the
TV screen almost every night, especially after about 1967. Some people had to deal with the war
more than others; but everyone was aware of it. Yet the war’s importance had an even larger
cultural impact: it resulted in increased awareness of events outside of the United States,
especially in Latin America, but within developing countries generally.
The war, however, was not the only thing going on. Tied to it—products of the Civil
Rights/Black Power, Women’s, and Gay and Lesbian liberation movements—was the growing
awareness and repudiation of societal oppression based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
Overlapping this was the general social repudiation of the “stultifying” personal culture of the
1950s, which was referred to through the celebration of “sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll.” And these
processes not only affected college students, but extended into the working people’s lives and
communities, and into the US military as well.12 In addition, some “New Left” activists
consciously entered into blue- and white-collar workplaces, and their related unions, thinking
these would be good sites from which to continue their larger personal projects of changing US
society.
Since then, other developments have affected the US social context. Included in this is
the worsening economic situation; the increasing environmental awareness; the growing
awareness of the limitations of the mainstream media; much more exposure to college education/
experiences and associated critical thinking; greatly expanded global travel; and the growing
awareness of limitations of political institutions, especially regarding the ability and willingness
of the government to address needs of the “average person.” And then, there have been the wars
in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the Palestinian/Israeli “conflict.”13
For those who were paying attention to change in the larger social context, they
responded in a number of ways. A considerable number participated in one or more social
movements—whether Civil Rights/Black Power, Women’s, Gay and Lesbian, anti-war,
environmental/ecological movements and/or the resistance movement inside the military—and
some joined established Leftist (“socialist,” “communist,” “anarchist,” “pacifist”) organizations,
where they got training in thinking critically, organizing skills, and communicating.
Yet social movements ebb and flow (Melucci, 1989). Although much of the upsurge
referred to in general as the “New Left” receded after the end of US involvement in the war in
Southeast Asia in 1973, part of the residue of the 1960s is that some people created social
movement (pro-people)-supportive institutions during the upsurge and thereafter that have served
Globalization from below Page 10
as movement “nodes” since then.14 These included additional Pacifica and other radio
stations/networks; alternative publishing ventures, such as the feminist journal Off Our Backs,
South End Press and Z Magazine; food co-ops; collective businesses, such as radical book stores,
bars, bicycle stores, restaurants and bakeries; university-based projects, such as the Center for
Popular Education at Florida State, for both students and the community; alternative health
practices, especially around women’s health, as well as a growing network of sex-positive, pro-
feminist sex shops, such as Good Vibrations in San Francisco; and alternative schools, some of
which even flourished within established school systems, such as Inter-American Magnet School
—which lasted 25 years within the Chicago Public School system—with its emphasis on social
justice and Spanish-language instruction in all subjects.15
Joined with these projects were a growing number of liberation-focused cultural projects
involving music and art. Feminist singers such as Holly Near, Chris Williamson, Geoff Morgan,
and the women involved in creating Redwood Records; radical theater projects such as the San
Francisco Mime Troupe and Ladies Against Women; art projects such as Northland Poster
Collective and Syracuse Calendar Project; and individual performers such as Dave Lippman
(AKA “George Shrub,” the world’s only known singing CIA agent), KRS One, Anne Feeney
and David Rovics, all provided cultural sustenance to activists and their efforts to create a better
world, while contributing their own efforts to the larger project.
And these were in parallel with people trying to create more liberating personal
relationships. Obviously, these were taking place within the growing number of gay and lesbian
and bi-sexual relationships, but it was also taking place in some mostly heterosexual
relationships, such as with the emerging practice of polyamory (simultaneous, multiple honest
sexual relationships).
And at the same time, knowledge developed was being spread to larger audiences. Some
of the people affected by these various processes also went into education, from pre-school to
university. Some have spread their orientation to larger and larger groups of students, both in the
classrooms and through writing textbooks and/or monographs. Others carried out critical
research, and worked to get it published and available to the larger public. Many have trained
their research/writings skills on writing for many newspapers, magazines and web sites. And as
these processes incorporated more and more of a global perspective, this resulted in increasing
global travel, which, in turn, affected families and other relationships. Through these processes,
however unstructured, experiences, ideas and different meanings have been transmitted to
younger generations.
And some of these people who had participated in or had been exposed to these
alternative “institutions” went into the labor movement—either through their jobs or through
employment in union staff positions—or were already there, yet became aware of these
increasing possibilities/opportunities. Yet the biggest problem they were encompassed by—
whether they recognized it immediately or not—was the declining vitality and decreasing density
and power of the labor movement, especially since the early Reagan years.
The question of “how to revitalize the labor movement?” soon was put on the agenda.
The lack of leadership—and especially the lack of militant leadership—became increasingly
obvious. Those concerned about the well-being of the labor movement—for whatever reason—
and who became active in their unions and/or the larger labor movement often initiated or joined
Globalization from below Page 11
union reform projects. Some reform movements targeted national or international unions—
Mineworkers for Justice in the mineworkers, Steelworkers Fightback in the steelworkers, New
Directions in the autoworkers, Teamsters for a Democratic Union in that union—while others
focused on local unions. Other labor activists joined labor-church-community coalitions to try to
get labor involved in labor-related issues in local communities, such as fighting to stop plant
closures and economic dislocation. (This latter approach, in particular, led to labor activists
interacting with those operating in other sectors of society, and so information/knowledge was
shared across internal “movement” boundaries to the benefit of all activists.) Tied to these
efforts was an expanding understanding among activists that workers in the United States needed
the support and solidarity of workers around the world to have a chance to defeat multinational
corporations—and, in turn, that they had to be willing to meet with, learn from, and support
workers’ struggles in different parts of the world.
In short, over time, there has been a growing understanding among those paying attention
that the situation in the United States has been getting worse for most working people. The
economic situation has qualitatively worsened for most Americans (see, among others,
Greenhouse, 2008; Foster and Magdoff, 2009; Scipes, 2009b). Yet, while this understanding has
been growing, so has the recognition that these are global processes and not just individual or
small group “tragedies”; the struggle against NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
was perhaps the turning point (see Bacon, 2004). Working people have been seeking solutions
to their deteriorating situations, and that has included efforts to reform their unions, but these
efforts have been made within the context of a growing, albeit inchoate, understanding of what is
commonly referred to as “globalization.” As one anonymous reviewer of this paper summarized
this: “anti-imperialist labor activists today operate in a context of an ‘anti-globalization’
movement both inside and outside Labor that simply did not exist in the 1980s.”
These efforts were almost always ignored when they were not strongly constrained, if not
virulently opposed, by the powers that be in these unions, regardless of level. Some of these
anti-reform efforts were sincere, in that labor officials believed that outsiders were coming in to
attack and weaken, if not destroy the labor movement, for their own self-interest; however, as far
as this author knows, no efforts were made to destroy unions—most were efforts that challenged
established business unionism, and were efforts to initiate a broader, social justice-form of trade
unionism. Most of these anti-reform efforts, in reality, were efforts to protect jobs, (often high)
salaries and privileges of established labor officials, who were unwilling to make personal
sacrifices for the good of the larger labor movement, despite whatever rhetoric they may have
used. But the end result was that this prevented or constrained development of any new
leadership, and this was even worse in the face of almost no leadership being provided by
established leaders. The labor movement was getting clobbered.
Not giving up, labor activists and supportive academics began building new ways to
communicate across the labor movement. One of the earliest and, to date, most important has
been the monthly newsletter, Labor Notes, and the network that has developed around it; and
their bi-annual conferences have brought folks from across North America (and often,
elsewhere) to meet in-person. Networks of union and university labor educators joined to create
UALE, the United Association for Labor Education. Other communication “nodes” have
included Labor Studies Journal, New Labor Review, Working USA, The Labor Educator, as well
as the more recent WIN (Workers Independent News), Labor Video Project in San Francisco, the
Globalization from below Page 12
TV-radio collaboration Labor Beat/Labor Express in Chicago, and the radio programs, “Building
Bridges” on WBAI in New York City and “Heartland Labor Forum” on KKFI in Kansas City.
These have been supplemented with labor activists using the internet, rank and file publications
and e-mail lists (such as Solidarity News Service), as well as labor reporting in leftist journals
like Socialist Worker.
And as more knowledge about, and opposition to, the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy program
and operations has grown, these and other supportive networks have spread the word.
Yet, these efforts to deepen and widen these projects by labor activists—and the
progressive movement in general—have not gone unchallenged. One of the responses to the
Sixties has been a conscious political program by significant parts of the US elites and their
supporters to ensure that the collectivity that emerged, and the ideology of collective
responsibility to each other, never again raise its “socialist” head (see Scipes, 2010a).
Progressive movements challenging oppression and exploitation have been attacked for
promoting particularly feminism, women’s rights, abortion, homosexuality, and other
“disreputable” goals such as gun control. Concepts that threatened established understandings,
such as that of the US Empire, which challenge the “benevolence” of US rule around the world,
have been ignored or buried. Textbooks in many public schools have been prevented from
sharing the true history of this country. Self-interest has been promoted as the “greatest good,”
and limitations on the free market branded as “socialist.” In short, there has been a powerful
project to create what has been called a “I’ve got mine, screw you, jack” culture and society,
which is ultimately intended to keep people separated, isolated, alone and politically
immobilized. And this has been promoted most virulently by the so-called “commentators” on
Fox News Channel, although many political “leaders” and much of the mainstream media has
accepted many of the limitations of Fox.
These attacks have had a negative impact. They have hindered collectivity, and
especially collective solutions to social problems. They have kept people afraid, separated and
alone—they have engendered mass immobilization. At the worst, they have encouraged the rise
of the “Tea Party” movement, where people engage in collective individualism in vain efforts to
address real problems, instead of attacking the sources of their all-to-real problems through clear
thinking, rigorous analysis, and collective activity.
The combination of vigorous efforts to promote individualism at the expense of
collectivism, and almost no leadership in the labor movement to counteract this individualism
and to address real problems, has only made things worse for labor activists. Still, the labor
activists have continued to press on. And this can particularly been seen in efforts to build
international labor solidarity: it is the growing social networks, with their increasingly dense
nature, that have both supported the building of international labor solidarity, and supported the
increasingly powerful efforts to reform the AFL-CIO foreign policy program.16
With this extensive background provided, it is now time to focus on the efforts within the
labor movement to join the alternative globalization movement, the global movement for social
justice and economic justice. There have been two efforts, one well developed but focused
primarily on building an anti-Iraq and now an anti-Afghanistan War movement within the US
labor movement—US Labor Against the War (USLAW)—and the other challenging the AFL-
CIO foreign policy program overall, which is much less developed, the Worker to Worker
Globalization from below Page 13
Solidarity Committee (WWSC). And while these efforts are not opposed or in contradiction to
each other—in fact, there are long-established relationships and activities among some of the
people involved in both—most of the attention is placed on USLAW, which has made
substantial political and organizational gains within the labor movement. However, it is argued
that because of the nature of the WWSC’s political challenge to the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy
program, this needs to be considered as well.
Alternative globalization within Labor: US Labor Against the War
With its initial meeting in January 2003, USLAW was formally founded in Chicago in
October 2003, at what was called the “National Labor Assembly of US Labor Against the War.”
USLAW was established as an organization based on a network of labor organizations across the
country that were opposed to the US war in Iraq (Fletcher, 2003; see Onasch, 2003). One of the
key decisions, resulting in considerable legitimacy within the labor movement, was that USLAW
established itself as an organization based on mandated support from rank and file union
members, and not merely the efforts of activists or even progressive elected union leaders. As of
mid-2005, USLAW had grown into a coalition of “over 110 unions, central labor councils, state
federations and other labor organizations” (Zweig, 2005: 62).
USLAW has been quite active since its founding, playing a key role in getting “…
unions, central labor councils, and state federations representing more than four million workers
[to pass] resolutions since 2003 opposing the war in Iraq and calling for an end to the occupation,
withdrawal of US troops, and redirection of resources to domestic social needs” (Zweig, 2005:
61-62). In other words, activists and leaders within USLAW have acted within the parameters of
the US labor movement to challenge traditional AFL-CIO support for the US Government’s
foreign policy.
A major activity by USLAW was its very successful Iraqi labor leaders’ tour across the
United States in early-mid 2005, and this was followed by subsequent tours in 2007 and 2009.
In 2005, USLAW brought labor leaders from the three main Iraqi labor centers to the US, and
took them to over 25 different locations, allowing these labor leaders to tell their stories about
labor organizing in Iraq and accounts of the war directly to American audiences. At the same
time, Americans—mostly labor activists and supporters—were able to talk (through interpreters)
directly to Iraqis, and to ask questions that they had about the Iraqi labor movement and the war.
A key development in USLAW’s short but powerful existence was getting the AFL-
CIO’s 2005 National Convention to pass a resolution demanding that US troops be “rapidly
returned” from Iraq (USLAW, 2005). The significance of this cannot be underestimated: not
only did this, in effect, overturn an AFL-CIO Executive Committee resolution (Chicago Indy
Media Center, 2005)—impressive in and of itself—but this was the first time in its history that
the US labor movement has challenged US foreign policy while at war, and demanded that the
troops be brought home rapidly (Zweig, 2005; see also Sears, 2010).
Yet, at the same time, and while the National Convention is constitutionally the highest
governing body of the AFL-CIO, this resolution was basically ignored by the leadership of the
Globalization from below Page 14
AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO certainly has not followed up and implemented this resolution, either
in whole or in spirit.
USLAW, however, has continued to do very important work. In 2009 alone, USLAW
sent delegates (including two Iraq war veterans, representing Iraq Veterans Against the War)17
representing 186 affiliates and participated in the First International Labor Conference in Irbil,
Iraq on March 13-14 (USLAW, 2009a). They sponsored a tour of Iraqi labor leaders who ended
up attending the National Convention of the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in September,
and where USLAW was able to win passage of Resolution 16, calling for “Speedy Withdrawal”
from Iraq and to defend Iraqi labor rights (USLAW, 2009b). And they sponsored a successful
National Assembly in Chicago in December, where they brought labor leaders from Iraq,
Pakistan and Venezuela who spoke to the conference (along with a representative of the
emerging Iranian labor movement). At the National Assembly, USLAW passed resolutions to
end the US wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, called for a US economy that provides
good jobs and promotes peace, opposed military advertising in our schools, endorsed March 20,
2010 antiwar demonstrations demanding the immediate withdrawal of all US military forces
from Iraq, expressed solidarity with working people of Palestine and Israel, and demanded an
end to settlements in the West Bank and to end the siege of Gaza. They also decided on an
extensive 2010 plan of work and action (USLAW, 2009c; see also Lydersen, 2009).18
In short, USLAW is doing excellent grassroots organizing within the US labor
movement, while working to build conscious solidarity with workers and unions globally.
Alternative globalization within Labor: Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee
While recognizing and applauding the success of USLAW, it is argued that the work of
the Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee (WWSC) cannot and should not be overlooked. It
is important because it challenges the AFL-CIO foreign policy program as a whole, and
particularly challenges the AFL-CIO’s relations with the US Government’s National Endowment
for Democracy (NED). In other words, taking a more pointed ideological approach than does
USLAW, WWSC’s efforts have complimented and possibly helped advance USLAW’s efforts in
some small ways. Yet the efforts of the WWSC are important in and of themselves.
Nonetheless, the WWSC has been outside of the mainstream labor movement, focusing on
mobilizing activists and not confining itself to the parameters of the labor movement; choices
that have made it more critical—and, admittedly, much more marginal.
Challenges to the AFL-CIO foreign policy program have been carried out by a number of
people over the years, although they have lacked an on-going organization. By themselves,
however, they could be dismissed as mere “gadflies.”
It was the actions in California that transformed the struggle against the AFL-CIO foreign
policy program: when the California AFL-CIO unanimously condemned AFL-CIO foreign
policy leaders’ efforts in June 2004 (Hirsch, 2004), it gave organizational backing to the
multiplicity of individual activists’ efforts. In other words, the struggle went from being that of
involved activists to one where representatives of one-sixth of the entire AFL-CIO national
membership repudiated the foreign policy program of the national organization.
Globalization from below Page 15
It was activists in the Latin American Solidarity Coalition (LASC) however who took
this project to the next level. Appalled by AFL-CIO operations leading to the attempted coup in
Venezuela in 2002—and aware of long-time AFL-CIO efforts to control labor throughout the
Hemisphere—a number of activists within LASC got the Coalition to allow them to protest AFL-
CIO foreign policy at the 2005 AFL-CIO National Convention in Chicago. Bringing some of
their own people, and their own determination to build solidarity with the people of Latin
America—specifically challenging US foreign policy—LASC members worked to build a
demonstration at the Chicago convention. While challenging AFL-CIO foreign policy in
general, the Chicago coalition brought together Latin American solidarity activists and contacts
—a number from outside of Chicago, from places like Philadelphia and Tucson—together with
labor people and other local activists.
In addition to building a local movement, there were a number of interviews given, and
articles written, to continue the challenge overall. At the same time, over 5,000 packets were
sent to labor organizations across the country, signed by the San Jose Central Labor Council
leadership, encouraging them to support the California resolution at the convention.
As stated above, these activities were such that the AFL-CIO and Solidarity Center
leadership felt threatened sufficiently to respond in an anti-democratic fashion, working to
subvert the challenge against them.
At the 2005 AFL-CIO National Convention, the Chicago Coalition brought together over
100 people on the hottest day of the year—103 degrees Fahrenheit—to march over a half mile
and then demonstrate outside of the Sheraton Hotel, where Convention delegates were housed.
The Coalition demanded that the AFL-CIO adopt California’s “Build Unity and Trust with
Workers Worldwide” resolution (Geovanis, 2005; Kaufman, 2005).
At the Convention, however, the AFL-CIO leadership decided not to let this resolution be
discussed. As stated, the Resolutions Committee—under control by John Sweeney and chaired
by his ally, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee—advanced a reactionary resolution to the floor,
praising the Solidarity Center for its work. While under consideration, Chair McEntee allowed
several speakers to support the reactionary resolution. When opponents—those who supported
the California resolution—sought their turn at the microphone, McEntee called out to the
audience, “Did I hear someone call the question?” A few delegates responded affirmatively, and
McEntee gaveled the matter shut, never allowing any real discussion of the issue on the floor.
The reactionary resolution was then passed by the Convention (Scipes, 2005c).
Despite McEntee’s actions, activists felt successful about what was accomplished at the
Convention; however, it was not until later that the activists decided how to advance. There was
a decision to try to formalize this work into an organization called the Worker to Worker
Solidarity Committee (WWSC). The decision was later made to meet again at the founding
conference of the Venezuelan Solidarity Network in March 2006 in Washington, DC (see
Azikiwe, 2006; Kaufman, 2006).
At the conference of the Venezuelan Solidarity Network, WWSC members held a couple
of workshops and formally launched the organization. They decided to picket the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), and they threw a picket line up in front of its offices on 15th
Street on March 6. Approximately 50 activists chanted and made their presence known to the
Globalization from below Page 16
NED (see Ikeda, 2006). Then these activists decided to go to “another end of the funding
pipeline,” and the demonstration was moved to the AFL-CIO headquarters on 16th Street, where
the activists threw up another picket line.
The scene shifted to Detroit in May 2006, where WWSC members organized a very
successful workshop about the organization and their work over the previous year. Activists
from unions as diverse at SEIU (Service Employees International Union), AFSCME (American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees), IBEW (International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers), AFT (American Federation of Teachers), IAM (International Association of
Machinists), UE (United Electrical workers), OPEIU (Office and Professional Employees
International Union), UAW (United Auto Workers) and CWA (Communication Workers of
America) attended the workshop, expressing considerable interest in building support for
challenging the AFL-CIO foreign policy program.
The struggle to challenge the AFL-CIO’s foreign policy program has reached a new level
politically, although organizationally, the WWSC has seemed to dissipate over the past couple of
years. Whether this network will reconstitute itself over the upcoming period or not remains an
open question at this time. Nonetheless, key people apparently are in touch with each other, so
there is hope that they will continue to influence future discussions (Scipes, 2010a: 80-82).
Synopsis
This account of the extensive efforts combined together in this paper—especially the
establishment and development of US Labor Against the War, joined with the 2004 California
“Build Unity and Trust with Workers Worldwide” resolution, and then the anti-democratic
efforts by the AFL-CIO leadership at the 2005 National Convention—show conclusively that an
alternative globalization project within US labor has reached the point wherein collective
contestation for Labor politics hegemony is possible. Certainly the emergence, development,
and escalating scale and scope of the work of USLAW since its founding has further advanced
this overall project. Labor foreign policy activists have successfully challenged the status quo at
the cultural level within the labor movement, delegitimizing the traditional AFL-CIO foreign
policy program among general rank and file labor activists. In fact, this foreign policy program
has been delegitimized to such an extent that labor “leaders” had to result to blatantly anti-
democratic acts to keep even a discussion from reaching the floor of the 2005 National
Convention. This suggests clearly that established labor “leaders” recognize the power of this
challenge.
Yet, these activists have gone beyond mere delegitimization. USLAW has emerged as a
significant force within the labor movement, although not yet strong enough to make the AFL-
CIO Executive Council—the real decision-making group in the labor center—actively support its
efforts. The WWSC, while continuing to be much more marginal, has been engaged in on-going
efforts to publicly challenge the AFL-CIO foreign policy program as a whole, and especially its
central relationship with the US Government’s reactionary National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) but, again, its organizational future is much more problematic.
Globalization from below Page 17
Whether these organizations, together or individually, can actually contest for political
hegemony in the labor movement remains to be seen. Much work remains to be done. Among
other things, this would require widespread education of AFL-CIO unionists and the winning of
them to force their leaders to consciously join the global economic and social justice movement,
to help actualize the slogan, “Another World is Possible!”
This will probably require a linking of these international labor solidarity concerns with a
program addressing the problems facing working people in the US that sees the US in a global
context (see Scipes, 2009b) to further develop this work. But the issue now is whether the
activists have the skill and desire to make it happen—not whether it can happen at all.
Sociological reflections
There is a lot to be learned from this study. Most importantly, Melucci’s focus on pre-
emergence processes has been shown to be important: by understanding the processes by which
a social movement emerges, we can observe the creation of a collective identity and see how
they engaged in collective action, and we can better judge their chances for later success.
Creation of a collective identity is important. Understanding this process is important
because it allows us to see how groups come together, create a group position while
understanding their group position as being distinct from and challenging to those established
“leaders,” and it shows that activists make an emotional commitment to reach their chosen goals
that can, in some cases, last over a considerable number of years.
Likewise, taking collective action is important. Publishing articles and books, speaking
publicly, creating organizations, initiating resolutions, mobilizing demonstrations, etc., all
involve risks to one’s personal standing in the labor movement. Yet despite whatever personal
risk was initially involved, collective action has brought the issue to more and more people’s
attention and earned their support. It has caused subsequent activity, which, in turn, has
furthered the process.
However, this case illuminates two things new about creating collectivity. First, while
Melucci is correct on the processes of developing a social movement, creation of a collective
identity (e.g., as labor foreign policy activists) does not have to be a conscious process engaged
in before anyone can take action. As seen in this case, individuals—often and usually operating
alone, and in different parts of the country—took action based on their own moral or political
understandings, and only later, upon finding out that there were other like-minded activists
operating in the same “field,” did they begin thinking of themselves collectively. It was,
however, because of this isolation from each other that required such a long time for this
collectivity to “germinate.” Second, though, this collective identity emerged over distance, and
illustrates that physical closeness is not a requirement for creating a collective identity, the
understanding of common purpose, willingness to work toward the same general goal, and
emotional commitment to the process are central to building collective identity. As time has
gone on, and with each publication or successful action, this collectivity has strengthened, as
have personal connections, and conscious interactions and sharings have developed.
Globalization from below Page 18
We must address Mueller’s contention that “The status quo must be challenged at the
cultural level in terms of legitimacy before mass collective action is feasible” (Mueller, 1994:
239). This study suggests that she is on to something very important: without the research and
publication of findings from multiple cases, as well as an extensive range of efforts to build
international labor solidarity, the ability to win general labor activists to the side of foreign labor
policy activists would not have been much more difficult, if not impossible. Particularly when
challenging things that are embedded in the culture—such as, the idea that labor leaders will
automatically act in the best interests of their members—the more evidence presented to the
contrary, the greater likelihood of winning others to one’s position.
And finally, this study also shows the necessity to consider the larger social context in
which social developments take place—especially over longer time periods—and how its
changing has affected the actors: otherwise, we could not understand in this case how
developments in the early 2000s have been able to “stick” in ways that earlier efforts have not.
Conclusion
In this paper, it has been shown that there have been on-going efforts, particularly over
the past 40 years, to build an alternative globalization movement within labor. These efforts
have succeeded to the point where creating a mass movement is possible: the status quo has
been attacked at the cultural level, and has been delegitimized, and at least two different
organizations have been created to advance this alternative globalization project. Rather than
looking at only what has happened, this paper has illuminated the processes by which this
delegitimization has taken place. It has shown that labor foreign policy activists—a subset of all
labor activists—have been able to win their activist sisters and brothers to the point in which
these activists have formally repudiated the AFL-CIO foreign policy program, at least in
California, although indications are that this opposition is considerably wider than that. It has
also illustrated that through US Labor Against the War and the Worker to Worker Solidarity
Committee, the effort to build a mass movement for alternative globalization within the labor
movement has shifted from the cultural level to the organizational: whether the labor foreign
policy activists can go further remains to be seen, although the work of particularly USLAW
seems to be especially promising.
Finally, returning to our theoretical approach, this case supports Melucci’s argument on
the need to focus on individuals and small groups that emerge beforehand in order to understand
a social movement. While it could be argued that Melucci’s point cannot be confirmed until this
examination is done beforehand and a social movement emerges—and certainly that would be a
stronger argument—we should be careful and not be too quick to dismiss pre-conditioning
activities, such as those discussed herein. The process of developing a social movement can be
distinguished analytically, and whether an actual social movement emerges or not, it does not
negate nor delegitimize the groundwork done in the preceding period, which is necessary for
developing the possibility that a social movement can arise. And should an actual social
movement arise within labor against the AFL-CIO foreign policy program, there is now a good
picture of what it took, over time, to get to that place.
Globalization from below Page 19
Acknowledgements
This article is drawn heavily from Chapter 3 of the author’s recent book, titled AFL-
CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? (Scipes,
2010). Earlier versions of this paper were presented at “Building Bridges: A Labour Studies
Conference,” sponsored by the Labor Studies Program at the University of Windsor in Canada in
February 2007, and at the mid-term gathering, Labor Movements Research Committee (RC 44)
of the International Sociological Association, Barcelona, Spain, September 2008.
The author thanks Teal Rothschild of Roger Williams University and two anonymous
reviewers of Critical Sociology for their help in improving this article.
Globalization from below Page 20
Notes
1 This analysis is based on the understanding that “globalization” has two aspects, not just one
as the mainstream media generally present (Starr, 2005; see Scipes, 2009a). One aspect is
top-down, corporate-military globalization, whose purpose is only to ensure that
multinational corporations have unimpeded access to the entire planet, regardless of the
consequences to and effects upon people and the environment (see, for example, Freidman,
1999; cf. Sanders, 2009). It is this limited and detrimental approach that is presented as
“globalization” in the corporate media.
Yet globalization has another aspect, and that is the bottom-up, grassroots globalization
of women and men around the world, who are seeking another world, a better world, which
is based on global solidarity, ecological and economic sustainability, and economic and
social justice. It is this grassroots globalization—the global social and economic justice
movement—that is fighting the values and the future of corporate-military globalization
(Shiva, 2005; Starr, 2005).
2 The argument is that the established leadership of the AFL-CIO accepts the current top-
down, corporate-military globalization project led by the United States (aka US Empire),
although they demand that the corporations give them their “just due”; a right to organize
workers and bargain collectively (see Scipes, 2010a, b). The alternative globalization project
rejects both the corporate globalization project and the US Empire, and, in active solidarity
with peoples around the world, seeks to establish a new global social order based on
economic and social justice. This would help transform the United States and all countries of
the world (see Scipes, 2009a).
3 This is explicated in Scipes, 2010a.
4 In September 2009, Richard Trumka, formerly President of the United Mine Workers of
America (UMWA) and Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO from 1995-2009, was elected
President of the AFL-CIO, to replace the retiring John Sweeney. It is too early to tell what
Trumka’s foreign policy program will involve, but since he was a key member of the
Sweeney Administration for the last 14 years, it seems logical to expect a continuation of the
Sweeney program for at least a while.
5 The battle over the direction of the US labor movement emerged even before the founding of
the American Federation of Labor in 1886. The struggle to build international labor
solidarity actually goes back to the earliest years of the 20th Century, as labor activists sought
to support the 1905 Russian Revolution. The standard for these early efforts is Nack, 1999;
see also Scipes 2010a. This battle over the direction of the labor movement continued to
1949.
Globalization from below Page 21
However, the expulsion of 11 “left-led” unions from the CIO in 1949 largely removed
many of the proponents of a more encompassing “social justice” unionism from the labor
movement. It was only about 1968 when the issue could again be raised. Focus herein is on
the “post-1968” period.
6 Major works on the AFL/AFL-CIO foreign policy program have included Radosh, 1969;
Scipes, 1989; Sims, 1992; Scipes, 2000, 2005a, 2005b. See Scipes, 2010a, b.
I must ask forbearance of my readers for the considerable use of my own works. I have
published widely on AFL-CIO foreign policy program as well as other topics, and I have
referred to my writings only when other material was not available.
7 The most complete listing of writings on contemporary efforts to reform the US labor
movement that I know of is at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm.
8 To my knowledge, there has not been an overall account of labor efforts within the anti-
apartheid movement in the US.
9 The most complete listing of writings on the AFL-CIO’s foreign operations is at
http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_Foreign_Operations .
10 This 75-minute movie can be viewed on-line for free at http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=5832390545689805144.
11 The media tends to refer to these people as the “Baby Boomers.” The term “baby boomers”
really refers to the large demographic cohort of people born between 1946-64. The
“Vietnam generation” is a sociological sub-set of the larger cohort, and needs to be
recognized as having social developmental processes distinct from the larger cohort.
12 One of the most amazing social movements to develop in the late 1960s-early 1970s, and
which has largely been lost to history, is the anti-war/resistance movement that developed
within the US military, against the war in Southeast Asia and/or the military itself. This is
documented in the 2005 film, Sir, No Sir!, available from Netflicks. Many veterans ended up
in blue-collar workplaces after their military service, and subsequently played important roles
in struggles in the workplace.
Globalization from below Page 22
The actions of African Americans in the struggles against white supremacy, particularly
since the 1950s—whether in particular struggles, day-to-day resistance, teaching whites, and/
or writing about this and related subjects—was exemplary, and still has not been given their
proper respect. It is beyond the scope of this article to do so here, but its importance is
necessary to recognize. These efforts certainly effected the labor movement, and especially
labor activists of all colors. Thanks to an anonymous Critical Sociology reviewer who
encouraged me to make this specific point.
13 Let me be clear here: I am not claiming that these events, other than the war in Southeast
Asia, affected every person, or even that those who were affected understood them the same
way; however, I am claiming that these developments took place, and that those who were
paying attention to their larger social world could pick and choose what to focus on and how
each would be understood.
14 By no means are the following mentions anything beyond my idiosyncratic listing, based on
some of my experiences. This author does not claim that they are representative.
Nonetheless, it gives a small idea of what was taking place across the country although,
obviously, it was stronger in some parts of the country than others.
Also, whether they supported activists in general or were just places that “ordinary
people” could just check out, their very existence and different ways of interacting among the
workers and/or between the patrons and staff seriously suggested that there were realistic
alternatives to the status quo of mind-numbing, unquestioned capitalist consumerism.
15 These new pro-people organizations supplemented previously established ones, such as the
journal Monthly Review or the Pacifica radio station in Berkeley, KPFA, both which were
established long before the 1960s. The point is not to ignore or forget earlier
organizations/institutions, but to point out the explosion of these types of organizations since
the 1960s.
16 We should be careful here: the existence of these social networks does not guarantee
success. What they do is provide support for, in this case, labor activists, so as to help ensure
that the ability to achieve larger social-justice goals is maintained and, ultimately, increased.
The development of leadership—with clear vision, goals, organization, strategic planning,
and campaign development—is likely to be more successful when these social networks exist
than without.
17 IVAW’s web site is at www.ivaw.org.
Globalization from below Page 24
References
Ancel J (2000) On Building an International Solidarity Movement. Labor Studies Journal 25(2):
26-35. Posted in English on LabourNet Germany. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/ancel1.html.
Azikiwe A (2006) Venezuelan Solidarity Conference Draws Over 400 Activists in Washington,
DC: Gathering Establishes Network to Support Bolivarian Revolution. Pan African News Wire,
March 6. Article in author’s possession: URL no longer operative.
Bacon D (1995) Will the AFL-CIO’s New Leaders Change its Old Cold War Policies? URL
(consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45b/074.html.
Bacon D (2004) The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the US/Mexico Border. Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Battista A (2002) Unions and Cold War Foreign Policy in the 1980s: The National Labor
Committee, the AFL-CIO, and Central America. Diplomatic History 26(3): 419-51.
Bigwood J and Golinger E (undated) Documents unearthed by FOIA requests. Documents in
author’s possession: URL no longer operative.
Blum W (2000) Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, pp. 179-83. Monroe,
ME: Common Courage Press.
Buhle P (1999) Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Lane Kirkland, and
the Tragedy of American Labor. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Chicago Indy Media Center (2005) AFL-CIO Executive Council Resolution Draft on Iraq: No
Withdrawal. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/60681/index.php.
Dark TE (1999) Debating Decline: The 1995 Race for the AFL-CIO Presidency. Labor History
40(3): 323-43.
Early S (2009) Embedded with Organized Labor: Journalistic Reflections of the Class War at
Home. New York: Monthly Review.
Fletcher B Jr (2003) When Does Silence Become Complicity? When Does Ignorance Become
Culpability? Presentation at US Labor Against War National Assembly in Chicago, October 31.
URL (consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9614.
Fletcher B Jr and Gapasin F (2008) Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a
New Path Toward Social Justice. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Foster JB and F Magdoff (2009) The Great Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences.
Monthly Review Press: New York.
Friedman T (1999) The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Globalization from below Page 25
Frutiger D (2002) AFL-CIO China Policy: Labor’s New Step Forward or the Cold War
Revisited? Labor Studies Journal 27(3): 67-80.
Geovanis C (2005) Local Activists Oppose Federal NED/AFL-CIO Funds That Hurt Unions,
Democracy. Chicago Indy Media, July 25, with pictures. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://chicago.indymedia.org/newswire/display/60758/index.php.
Golden M (1988) Labor Divided: Austerity and Working-Class Politics in Contemporary Italy.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Golinger E (2005) The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela. Havana: Editorial
Jose Marti.
Greenhouse S (2008) The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Hathaway D (2000) Allies Across the Boarder: Mexico’s ‘Authentic Labor Front’ and Global
Solidarity. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Hirsch F (2003) Report on AFL-CIO International Affairs Meeting. Posted on October 23. URL
(consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.labornet.org/news/1003/hirsch.htm.
Hirsch F (2004) Build Unity and Trust Among Workers Worldwide. July 29. URL (consulted 9
July 2011): http://www.labournet.net/world/0407/hirsch.html.
Ikeda N (2006) Apoyan A Venezuela Frente A Fundacion Para La Democracia. Associated Press
(in Spanish), March 6.
Kaufman C (2005) LASC Works with Labor to Tell the Truth About National Endowment for
Democracy (NED). August. Article in author’s possession: URL no longer operable.
Kaufman C (2006) National Solidarity Conference on Venezuela, March 4-6, 2006—
Washington, DC. Conference Report, March 10. Article in author’s possession: URL no longer
operable.
Kelber H (2004) AFL-CIO's Dark Past, a six-part series. The Labor Educator. URL (consulted 9
July 2011): http://www.laboreducator.org/darkpast.htm.
Kelber H (2005a) 90% of Solidarity Center's Annual Budget Comes from Payoffs by US
Government. Labor Talk of June 29, The Labor Educator. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=8405.
Kelber H (2005b) Who Owns Solidarity Center?: Is AFL-CIO's International Solidarity Center a
Subsidiary of the US State Department? Labor Talk of November 9. The Labor Educator. URL
(consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=9551.
Lydersen K (2009) Forging International Labor Solidarity in Wartime No Easy Task. Working In
These Times, December 6. URL (consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/
entry/5271/international_unionists_and_war/.
Globalization from below Page 26
Melucci A (1989) Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in
Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Melucci A (1995) The Process of Collective Identity. In: Johnston H and Klandermans B (eds)
Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 41-63.
Mueller C (1994) Conflict Networks and the Origins of Women’s Liberation. In: Laraña, E
Johnston H and Gusfield J (eds) New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 234-63.
Nack D (1999) The American Federation of Labor Confronts Revolution in Russia and Early
Soviet Government, 1905-1928: Origins of Labor’s Cold War. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
Rutgers University: New Brunswick, NJ.
Onasch B (2003) US Labor Against the War. Z Net, October 31. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://www.zmag.rg/znet/viewArticle/9613.
Rachleff P (2000) Rupture or Continuity? New Politics 7(4) (New Series): 77-82. URL
(consulted 9 July 2011): http://ww3.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue28/rachle28.htm.
Radosh R (1969) American Labor and United States Foreign Policy. New York: Random House.
Robinson WI (1996) Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention, and Hegemony.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanders B (2009) The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism. Oakland: AK Press.
Scipes K (1985) San Francisco Longshoremen: ‘When that ship came in, we were ready’.
International Labour Reports 9, May-June: 12-13.
Scipes K (1989) Trade Union Imperialism in the US Yesterday: Business Unionism, Samuel
Gompers, and AFL Foreign Policy. Newsletter of International Labour Studies (The Hague) 40-
41: 4-20.
Scipes K (2000) It’s Time to Come Clean: Open the AFL-CIO Archives on International Labor
Operations. Labor Studies Journal, 25(2): 4-25. On-line in English. URL (consulted 9 July
2011): http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/scipes2.html.
Scipes K (2003) Trade Union Development and Racial Oppression in Chicago’s Steel and
Meatpacking Industries, 1933-1955. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Illinois at
Chicago.
Scipes K (2005a) Labor Imperialism Redux? The AFL-CIO’s Foreign Policy Since 1995.
Monthly Review 56(1): 23-36. URL, with references, (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0505scipes.htm.
Scipes K (2005b) An Unholy Alliance: The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) in Venezuela. Z Net, July 10. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5864.
Globalization from below Page 27
Scipes K (2005c) AFL-CIO Foreign Policy: Final Report from the Convention. Z Net, August
2. URL (consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5710.
Scipes K (2009a) It’s Time for a Deep Green Vision for the United States—And the World.
Synthesis/Regeneration: A Magazine of Green Social Thought 48: 8-11. URL (consulted 9 July
2011): http://www.greens.org/s-r/48/48-04.html.
Scipes K (2009b) Neo-Liberal Economic Policies in the United States: The Impact of
Globalization on a ‘Northern’ Country. Indian Journal of Politics and International Relations,
2(1): 12-47. URL (consulted 9 July 2011): http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21584.
Scipes K (2010a) AFL-CIO’s Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or
Sabotage? Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Scipes K (2010b) Why Labor Imperialism? AFL-CIO’s Foreign Policy Leaders and the
Developing World. Working USA, 13: 465-479.
Sears JB (2010) Peace Work: The Antiwar Tradition in American Labor from the Cold War to
the Iraq War. Diplomatic History 34(4): 699-720.
Shiva V (2005) Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, and Peace. Cambridge, MA: South
End Press.
Shorrock T (2002) Toeing the Line? Sweeney and US Foreign Policy. New Labor Review 11,
Fall/Winter: 9-19.
Shorrock T (2003) Labor’s Cold War. The Nation, May 19. URL (consulted 9 July 2011): http://
www.thenation.com/article/labors-cold-war.
Sims B (1992) Workers of the World Undermined: American Labor’s Role in US Foreign
Policy. Boston: South End Press.
Snow D, E B Rockford Jr, S K Worden and R D Benford (1986/1997) Frame Alignment
Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. In McAdam D and Snow DA (eds)
Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamics. Los Angeles:
Roxbury Publishing Co, 235-51.
Starr A (2005) Global Revolt: A Guide to the Movements Against Globalization. London and
New York: Zed.
USLAW (2005) AFL-CIO says, ‘Bring the troops home!’ July 27. URL (consulted 9 July
2011): http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=8626.
USLAW (2009a) USLAW Greeting to First International Labor Conference, Irbil, Iraq, March
13-14. Document in author’s possession. URL no longer available.
USLAW (2009b) 2009 AFL-CIO Convention Calls for ‘Speedy Withdrawal’ from Iraq and
Defends Iraqi Labor Rights. September 17. URL (consulted 9 July 2011):
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=20316.
Globalization from below Page 28
USLAW (2009c) 2009 National Labor Assembly Resolutions and Plan of Work and Action.
December 6. Document in author’s possession: URL no longer available.
Vogel RD (2006) Lessons from South of the Border: Listening to the CJM. MR Zine, November
12. URL (consulted 9 July 2011): http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/vogel121106.html.
Zweig M (2005) Iraq and the Labor Movement: The Remarkable Story of USLAW. New Labor
Forum 14(3): 61-67.
For correspondence: Kim Scipes, Department of Social Sciences, Purdue University North
Central, 1401 S. US Hwy 421, Westville, IN 46391. USA. Email: kscipes@pnc.edu
