Class Unity

Welcome to episode 5, of PoliEdPod. In this episode, we present our interview with author Prof. Brett Christophers, on his book Our Lives in their Portfolios; Why Asset Managers Own the World (Verso 2023). Our conversation covers the contemporary asset market, the rentier economy, and the changing nature of ruling class control over nearly all aspects of life in the 21st century, from basic infrastructure to real estate. We had a great conversation with Brett, and encourage everyone to give it a listen. Further References: Brett Christophers, “Class, Assets and Work in Rentier Capitalism”. https://drive.google.com/file/d/16nuh… If you like what you hear, please leave us a positive rating on your podcast app of choice. And follow us on Twitter/X: @class_unity

Hello friends! Welcome to this special episode of Class Unity: Transmissions. In this episode, we present you a discussion addressing two topics. First, the recent “statement from the DSA union,” complaining about how staffers are going to be laid off because of a lack of money (i.e., membership dues), whilst couching as a labor issue (“critical union jobs” must not be cut “in order to pay for non-union leadership salaries”!). Second, we discuss a recent interaction between Briahna Joy Gray and Chris Hedges about unions, strikes, and general strikes. The unifying thread in both these cases is the “magical thinking on the contemporary left.” The team discuss this all against the background of the massive UAW strike sweeping the US auto-manufacturing belt.

Adam Theron-Lee Rensch, writer of No Home For You Here: A Memoir on Class and Culture, discusses the struggles of the working class community in America. He challenges the liberal frameworks on class and politics, emphasizing the need for a politics that addresses the material conditions of the working class. Topics explored include writing the book during the pandemic, evolution of political consciousness, navigating privilege, deaths of despair, Christianity and the prosperity gospel, and the importance of inclusivity in personal politics.

Discussion on how Marxist theory understands modern history, exploring the economic origins of fascism, the concept of artificial effective demand in the market, the rise of fascism and its relationship with capitalism, the impact of the Great Depression on fascism, downward mobility and its ramifications, and common characteristics of fascism.

Welcome to Episode 7 of Class Unity “Transmissions.” In this episode we are joined by Doug Lain, Commissioning Editor at Sublation Media. Lain is a real veteran of the left podcast scene. From his old philosophy podcast “Diet Soap,” which ran from 2009 through 2014, to his work as host of the Zero Books podcast, Zero Squared, Lain’s impact as a formative voice on the contemporary socialist left cannot be understated. In this show we cover a wide range of topics, including Lain’s recent ban from Elon Musk’s newly “pro-free speech” Twitter (for a joke about RFK Jnr). However, the real purpose of the interview is to revisit an old Tweet of his, from April this year. On April 15, Lain posted three priority issues that, he said, “an independent left” should be focused on right now: Ending the conflict in Ukraine by opposing the very dangerous continuing escalation; Protecting the working class from the consequences from the continuing financial and fiscal crisis that has been expressed through inflation and the banking crisis; Opposing the war on disinformation and the expansion of the security state into the “whole of society.” In recent months, Lain has been particularly strident on the first and the third of these priorities. However, his arguments have not been especially well received (his recent encounter with the Majority Report’s Matt Binder offers a fairly representative example of the disdain many progressives have for Lain’s views). Noting the vehemence of this response, we were curious. And so we decided to invite Lain for a chat. We start by asking Lain what he means by the phrase “an independent left”? We then move onto the first of his priorities, the war in Ukraine. The US left has been strangely quiet on this conflict. Where it has addressed the issue, it has usually been in handwaving fashion, arguing that it is a case of “imperialism on both sides.” We put it to Lain that this is kind of an inversion of Trump’s infamous “very fine people on both sides” comment. Perhaps the imperialism on both sides argument had some empirical application in the lead up to World War I. But Russia has a GDP close to that of Italy. Equally, US foreign policy insiders like Former Ambassador to USSR Jack Matlock, George Kennan, William Burns warned DC policymakers for decades about eastwards NATO expansion, saying in no uncertain terms that Ukraine would be the hardest of red lines for Russia. Moreover, now, as Lev Golonkin reports in The Nation in June, the US is openly funding and arming the Ukrainian military despite the presence in its ranks of openly fascist regiments. It seems clear therefore not only who started this war, and why, but that its moral costs and risks for future catastrophe are unacceptable. So why is the left so adamant in its avoidance of this topic? Lain’s second priority is protecting the working class from the continuing financial and fiscal crisis. Lain argues “there was never any chance to transform the democratic party into a vehicle for socialism.” But where does that now leave us, on the question of socialist strategy? Does he think the Bernie wave is over, and the left is now basically done with parliamentary politics for another couple of generations? As he surveys the landscape of the contemporary left, what hope does he see for a revolutionary politics? The third priority issue for Lain essentially stems from his commitment to a left defense of “bourgeois rights.” Notably, Lain was especially vocal about revelations in the “Twitter Files” earlier this year. The Files were published by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, who were denounced as Trump-aligned “so-called journalists” by Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett (D) for their trouble. They contain countless leaked internal documents, including emails between management at Twitter and various US intelligence agencies. They indicate that the state agencies were putting extensive pressure on the social media company in order to suppress public criticism on topics ranging from the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, to the efficacy of Covid lockdowns, to the involvement of Russia in the 2020 US presidential election. For Lain, the Twitter Files serve only to affirm arguments made recently by Jacob Siegel in Tablet Magazine, that we were witnessing the birth of a “whole of society” censorship apparatus. Strangely, the left has been practically unanimous in diminishing the Twitter Files, with commentators like Carl Beijer declaring “we already knew this,” and countless others describing it as a “nothing burger.” How does Lain explain the strident resistance of so many of the left to taking the Twitter Files seriously? To answer this question, we turn to a recent letter by Lain in Cosmonaut Magazine, “UFOs, Russiagate, and the Spectacle,” where he presents one of his most favored quotes from the French Situationist Guy Debord: “Never has censorship been more perfect. Never has the opinion of those who are still led to believe, in several countries, that they remain free citizens been less authorized to make themselves known whenever it is a matter of choices affecting their real lives. Never has it been possible to lie to them with a perfect absence of consequences. The spectator is simply supposed to know nothing and deserve nothing.” Clearly, censorship has long been an obstacle to the advancement of socialist strategy. It is especially remarkable therefore that, in the moment of this generation’s equivalent of the Valerie Plame affair — that is, the moment where the scale and scope of a political deception becomes so staggeringly obvious that even ordinary folks can see it plainly — the left has been found so wanton in its disregard for basic bourgeois rights. Your host for this episode is Nicholas Kiersey. He can be followed on Twitter @occupyirtheory

“Those who own the country ought to govern it.” (John Jay) “…if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. […] our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. […] [it] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. […] The Senate ought to represent the opulent Minority…” (James Madison) “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” (5th Amendment to US Constitution) Welcome to Class Unity PoliEd Episode 2. In this episode, Christian Parenti joins members of Class Unity to discuss his recent article, “Diversity is a Ruling Class Ideology.” We discuss the relation between oligarchy, minoritarianism, and identity politics. Read Parenti’s article in Compact, here: https://compactmag.com/article/diversity-is-a-ruling-class-ideology Along with Class Unity Transmissions, CU’s podcast stream also includes episodes from CU’s PoliEd programing. For more from Class Unity, please see https://classunity.org/. Enjoy the show!

Hello comrades! Welcome to our sixth episode of Class Unity Transmissions. In this episode, we open with a quick check-in with our comrade Jamal, from CU Chicago, who has been studying the recent strikes in France. Then we move to our interview recorded earlier this year with Armand M, one of the authors of our article from last September, “Gay Particularity, Reconsidered.” In the interview, we discuss some main points from Armand’s piece. We look at how, in the late 80s and 90s, activist organizations such as ACT UP participated in civil disobedience actions against insurance rate increases and worked to expand universal Medicaid benefits to include AIDS treatment. In 1990, when Congress refused to release funds already earmarked for AIDS services, claiming that patients with other conditions were more deserving, ACT UP called for national health insurance. What was it about the ACT-UP era that made the gay rights movement so capable of articulating universalistic political demands? We also look at the struggle for gay marriage, and how it effectively diverted financial resources and political energy away from organizations prioritizing healthcare and employment. Given that the gay liberation movement has not always supported this demand, what changed? Armand discusses the role of “respectability politics” in diverting the struggle from a more traditional leftist perspective. Notwithstanding the importance of access to health insurance and spousal inheritance for partners, Armand suggests that the shift toward gay marriage should be viewed as a conservative turn in queer politics. Next we turn to the historical emergence of queer identity. Postmodern theorists like Judith Butler tend to see politics as essentially a question of identity, and thought. In this light, politics for them is necessarily the question of a slow, patient struggle to change unconsciously held ideas. However, notes Armand, while homosexual behavior has always been present in human societies, “queer” identification is only a very recent phenomenon and its emergence, as we will see, cannot be understood apart from its specific socio-economic conditions of possibility. We also discuss some wider literature around this topic (see links below). For example, we address Roger Lancaster’s piece in Jacobin, “Identity Politics Can Only Get Us So Far.” Lancaster raises the question of how today’s “identity” version of gay liberation struggle orbits this idea of a certain quest for one’s subjective essence. Earlier versions, to the contrary, saw “coming out” as an “indispensable means” for building a political movement. Among other things, this means that earlier liberationists generally took a dialectical approach to sexual categories. We ask Armand how this “pre-Stonewall” idea of a subjective labeling understood from the outset as something eventually to be cast aside connects with Marx’s notion of the eventual self-abolition of the “proletariat.” Other key points raised include the relation of identity-based struggle to CU’s concept of the iron triangle, the limits of aesthetic struggle (“psychosocial emancipation),” and the extent to which Armand’s critique of the limits of contemporary gay liberation struggle might be expanded to other cases. Your hosts for this episode are Nicholas K, Steph K, and Jamal. Here is a list of the readings mentioned in the article: Andrew Davis (2010), “Queer writers/activists criticize marriage-equality movement at forum; discussion with Yasmin Nair and Ryan Conrad,” Windy City Times, http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=29057&ref=nf. John D’Emilio (2020), Capitalism Made Gay Identity Possible. Now We Must Destroy Capitalism, Jacobin, https://jacobin.com/2020/08/gay-identity-capitalism-lgbt. David Faes (2018), “Transgender liberation? A movement whose time has passed,” Platypus Affiliated Society, https://platypus1917.org/2018/11/02/transgender-liberation-a-movement-whose-time-has-passed/. JacksonLewis (2001), “Union Avoidance Training,” JacksonLewis , https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/union-avoidance-training. Roger Lancaster (2017), “Identity Politics Can Only Get Us So Far,” Jacobin, https://jacobin.com/2017/08/identity-politics-gay-rights-neoliberalism-stonewall-feminism-race. For more from Class Unity, please see https://classunity.org/. Enjoy the show!

Greetings, listeners! Welcome to another episode of Class Unity Transmissions. In this episode I am joined by Class Unity members Heph, Sarah R, Julie S, Daniel B, and Jamal. We have two big and closely interrelated topics on the table in this episode. First up is the December 1, 2022, vote by Congress to impose the “TA” (Tentative Agreement) on US rail workers, essentially prohibiting their right to strike. Following this, we move to the difficult question of whether Class Unity should remain within DSA.  As many listeners will know, ten Republicans, four Democrats, and independent Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) voted against the imposition of the TA. Doing so, they were acting to endorse the decision by rail workers earlier in the year to reject the original TA contract. That deal was voted down by four of the largest rail unions in the country, which together represent approximately 55 percent of the unionized rail labor force. Rail workers rejected the deal because it included no paid sick leave provisions, and made no effort to address rank and file complaints about unpredictable scheduling. As many critics observed at the time, including Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (Michigan), the deal was patently unfair. Essential employees had maintained their brutal schedule through the Covid-19 global pandemic, without a single paid sick day, while the rail industry recorded a record-breaking $20 billion in annual profits. As Senator Sanders (D) said on November 30, “if you can’t vote for this, don’t tell anybody that you stand with working families.” What was perhaps more shocking was the behavior of the so-called Squad. Speaker Pelosi’s office had issued a separate resolution which called for the addition of seven days of paid sick leave for rail workers. Yet, as many commentators noted, there was absolutely no way the separate resolution was going to pass the Senate. Nevertheless, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Jamaal Bowman, along with numerous other supposedly progressive politicians, endorsed the separate sick leave resolution — likely as an alibi for having supported the TA. Despite the contortions of supposedly leftist journalists like Ryan Grim, who went so far as to point to a number of small rank and file craft union locals that had endorsed the separate approach, the whole affair marks a massive betrayal of workers by progressive policymakers. Under the legislation, rail workers are ineligible even for the minimum seven paid sick leave days that federal contractors are entitled to under President Obama’s 2015 Executive Order 13706.  Now, a number of DSA chapters, caucuses, and individuals have called for the expulsion of these errant members. However, it is unlikely that they will face any form of discipline by DSA at the national level. This in mind, we turn to our second topic of discussion. Namely, what does it mean that elected politicians endorsed by DSA are acting against labor unions? Moreover, how can Class Unity remain active within an organization seemingly incapable of disciplining its endorsed electeds?  One doesn’t have to follow the track record of DSA-endorsed electeds terribly closely to see the pattern. From their early retreat on the $15 minimum wage, to their epic failure to “Force the Vote” over Nancy Pelosi’s speakership, to AOC’s capitulation on the vote to fund Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, the record is one of abysmal failure. Many socialists have been left wondering whether DSA membership is worth it.  NOTE: This episode was recorded on Friday, December 16, 2022. Listeners should note that on Sunday, January 8, 2023, Class Unity issued a statement announcing that it could no longer continue to be part of DSA. This episode stands as a testimony to the calibre of debate that has been taking place within Class Unity about the challenges facing the American left today, and the question of DSA’s failure as a vehicle to advance our struggle. 

In this very special episode of Class Unity Transmissions, we bring you the last interview ever recorded with Danny Fetonte. Danny was a well-known labor organizer in Texas, with over 30 years of experience. He worked at Bethlehem Steel for 4 years, and spent a decade working in a variety of other industrial jobs. He later became a professional organizer, for the Communications Workers of America (CWA), becoming a member of the union’s national staff in 1986. Moving to Texas, he became an important leader of the DSA chapter in his new hometown of Austin, growing the chapter from a state of more or less total dormancy, to over 700 members by 2017.  Sadly, young DSA members will likely remember Danny not for his lifelong commitment to labor organizing but for a Twitter scandal that destroyed his relationship with the DSA, and left his reputation in tatters. At the 2017 DSA National Convention in Chicago, Danny was successfully elected the National Political Committee (NPC) of the DSA. It was his second time to run for the NPC. A well-known figure in labor circles, Fetonte’s record was widely documented in online spaces. However, as the Convention drew to a close, a vocal group of anti-police online leftists began to claim that Fetonte’s campaign statement was a fraud.  What Fetonte had been concealing, his detractors claimed, was his role as an organizer with the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT), which is a police and corrections officer union, and an affiliate body of Danny’s longtime employer, the CWA.  Now, it was true that Fetonte had not mentioned this fact in his campaign materials. But it was widely available information, and many of the Austin chapter members who were active on the floor in support of him during the Convention were well aware of his resumé. Such facts poured cold water on the idea that Fetonte was somehow hiding his true identity.  Nevertheless, outrage swirled on Twitter, with many saying they would never have voted for him had they known he was involved in police union work. Eventually, on August 10, after days of delay, the DSA’s Interim Steering Committee issued a statement suggesting in no uncertain terms that they were taking a dim view of the matter: “We believe that Fetonte’s omission was uncomradely and out of line with the principles of our organization.” “We believe that Fetonte’s omission was uncomradely and out of line with the principles of our organization.”  The controversy set off a tumultuous debate about the extent to which DSA should be trying to find solidarity with police union organizers, and whether members should make a practice of discriminating against individuals for their career backgrounds.  The Convention closed on August 6. Three weeks later, on August 27, the NPC (absent Danny) voted 8.5 to 7.5 to seat him, because they could not find any basis to remove him for malfeasance. Danny charged that, seeing as he was a duly-elected member of the NPC, a non-profit board, the exclusionary actions of the NPC in the intervening period were both illegal and unethical.  In just a moment, we’ll present our interview with Danny, where he goes into detail on these allegations, as well as detailing the behind-the-scenes involvement of DSA National Director, Maria Svart. Before we hear from Danny, however, it might be useful to take moment to reflect on the legacy and significance of the Fetonte controversy for the contemporary left in America.  Black Lives Matter demonstrations have played an effective role in raising public consciousness. However, as Cedric Johnson noted in a 2019 lecture at ArtCenter College of Design, to achieve real change social movements need real power, and this kind of power cannot be achieved solely through social media debates and dramatic performances at the barricades. Such tactics need to be accompanied by honest, patient, and sustained conversation among activists, victims’ families, and reformist elements within police unions and departments. It is within these spaces, suggests Johnson, that internal dissent can be emboldened, and the ranks of those willing to break the “blue code of silence” can grow.  None of this is to suggest unequivocal support for entrenched police unions. It is clear that some police officers are unfit to work with the public and especially in minority and working-class communities. Yet officers are neither monolithic nor devoid of internal contradictions. As you’ll hear in this interview, Danny Fetonte had an instinct for navigating these complexities in a way that the contemporary left would do well to study.  Danny passed away on October 23, 2022, in Austin, Texas. This interview was recorded on October 9, just two weeks before he died. It was his last media appearance. We want to thank his wife Barbara, and the rest of his family, for their support in making this interview possible. 

Welcome to Class Unity’s Political Education Podcast. This is a new series which we are running on the stream in parallel to other Class Unity programing that you might already be familiar with, such as our “Transmissions” podcast. The goal of our new series is to present material from our Political Education Committee’s ongoing education activity. The Committee organizes events, study groups, and courses to promote popular education on topics such as political economy, Marxian theory, capitalism, and socialism.  Our hope in posting these recordings is to allow listeners to gain some insight into what Class Unity Political Education courses are like. We also hope to build over time a repository of such recordings, to serve as a resource for those who might be reading the material on their own, or simply for those times when someone might be taking a course and be unable to make it to one of the sessions. In our “Introduction to Class Unity” course, members address important aspects of Marx’s explanation of capitalist society in his “Wage Labor and Capital,” along with a number of other important essays.  In this inaugural episode we present a recording of a discussion which took place during one of our recent sessions, focusing on the first two meetings of our “Introduction to Class Unity” syllabus. Joining us for this session are members Thaddeus, Daniel, and Eric S. You’ll also hear from Scott, who is not a member but who is just taking part just because he is interested in the material). If you are interested in joining one of our sessions in the future, we encourage you to follow our Twitter account @ClassUnityDSA. You can also check out the show notes for this episode, where you will find links to a menu of our Education Series offerings, along with a schedule and reading list for the “Introduction to Class Unity” series during which this episode was recorded.  Class Unity Political Education programing is all available for free. So join us to take part in the discussion. All are welcome!  https://classunity.org/2021/08/20/an-introduction-to-class-unity/ https://classunity.org/category/education/