Latino Worker Jobless Rate Under Obama Regime: 12.7 Percent

The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Latino workers in the United States jumped from 11.3 percent to 12.7 percent between April 2009 and May 2009 under the Democratic Obama Regime, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

The official “seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for white male workers also increased from 8.5 percent to 9 percent between April 2009 and May 2009.

For all U.S. male workers over 16 years-of-age, the officially “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate increased from 10 percent to 10.5 percent between April 2009 and May 2009.

For all U.S. workers, the “seasonally adjusted” jobless rate increased from 8.9 percent to 9.4 percent between April 2009 and May 2009.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for African-American female workers over 20 years-of-age also increased from 10.5 percent to 11.1 percent between April 2009 and May 2009; and the official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for all African-American workers increased from 14.4 percent to 14.7 percent during this same period.

The official “seasonally adjusted” rate for all African-American male workers over 20 years-of age was still 16.8 percent in May 2009.

The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for African-American youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age increased from 33.5 percent to 40.1 percent between April 2009 and May 2009, while the “not seasonally adjusted” unemployment rate for Hispanic or Latino youth increased from 26.5 percent to 31 percent during this same period. The official “not seasonally adjusted” jobless rate for white youth between 16 and 19 years-of-age also increased from 18.8 percent to 21.1 percent between April 2009 and May 2009.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ June 5, 2009 press release:

“…Employment fell by 345,000 in May…Steep job losses continued in manufacturing...

“The number of unemployed persons increased by 787,000 to 14.5 million in May…

“The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) increased by 268,000 over the month…

“…The employment-population ratio, at 59.7 percent, continued to trend down…

“Manufacturing employment fell by 156,000 in May…Three durable goods industries—motor vehicles and parts (-30,000), machinery (-26,000), and fabricated metal products (-19,000)—accounted for about half of the overall decline in factory employment…Mining shed 11,000 jobs in May…

“Employment in construction decreased by 59,000 in May…In May, employment fell in nonresidential specialty trade contractors (-30,000) and in residential construction of buildings (-11,000)…

“Retail trade employment was down by 18,000 in May…Employment in wholesale trade fell by 22,000 over the month…

“Financial activities employment continued to decrease in May (-30,000). Securities lost 10,000 jobs and real estate lost 9,000…Employment in information decreased by 24,000 in May… “

The 1969 Weatherman Statement Revisited: Excerpts from Part 9

It’s not likely that the New York Times will mark the 40th anniversary of the June 1969 Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] National Convention in Chicago by reprinting excerpts from the position paper of the Weatherman faction of SDS. So following are some excerpts from Part 9 of this historic position paper (that originally appeared in the June 18, 1969 issue of New Left Notes) which might interest U.S. anti-war activists in 2009—during the current U.S. historical era of “endless permanent war abroad and economic depression at home”:

“How do we reach youth; what kinds of struggles do we build; how do we make a revolution? What we have tried to lay out so far is the political content of the consciousness which we want to extend and develop as a mass consciousness…Yet we are faced with a situation in which almost all of the people whose interests are served by these goals, and who should be, or even are, sympathetic to revolution, neither understand the specific tasks involved in making a revolution nor participate in accomplishing them. On the whole, people don’t join revolutions just because revolutionaries tell them to. The oppression of the system affects people in particular ways, and the development of political consciousness and participation begins with particular problems, which turn into issues and struggles. We must transform people’s everyday problems, and the issues and struggles growing out of them, into revolutionary consciousness, active and conscious opposition to racism and imperialism.

“This is directly counter posed to assuming that struggles around immediate issues will lead naturally over time to struggle against imperialism…This error is classical economism…

“On the one hand, if we, as revolutionaries are capable of understanding the necessity to smash imperialism and build socialism, then the masses of people who we want to fight along with us are capable of that understanding. On the other hand, people are brainwashed and at present don’t understand it; if revolution is not raised at every opportunity, then how can we expect people to see it in their interests, or to undertake the burdens of revolution? We need to make it clear from the very beginning that we are about revolution…

“In every case, our aim is to raise anti-imperialist and anti-racist consciousness and tie the struggles of working-class youth (and all working people) to the struggles of Third World people, rather than merely joining fights to improve material conditions, even though these fights are certainly justified. This is not to say that we don’t take immediate fights seriously, or fight hard in them, but that we are always up front with our politics, knowing that people in the course of struggle are open to a class line, ready to move beyond narrow self-interest.

“…What we must stress is the systematic nature of oppression and the way in which a single manifestation of imperialism makes clear its fundamental nature. At Columbia it was not the Gym, in particular, which was important in the struggle, but the way in which the Gym represented, to the people of Harlem and Columbia, Columbia’s imperialist invasion of the black colony. ..And the Richmond Oil Strike was exciting because the militant fight for improvement of material conditions was part and parcel of an attack on international monopoly capital. The numbers and militancy of people mobilized for these struggles has consistently surprised the left, and pointed to the potential power of a class-conscious mass movement…

“The masses will fight for socialism when they understand that reform fights, fights for improvement of material conditions, cannot be won under imperialism. With this understanding, revolutionaries should never put forth a line which fosters the illusion that imperialism will grant significant reforms. We must engage in struggles forthrightly as revolutionaries, so that it will be clear to anyone we help to win gains that the revolution rather than imperialism is responsible for them. This is one of the strengths of the Black Panther Party Breakfast for Children Program…Probably the American Friends Service Committee serves more children breakfast, but it is the symbolic value of the program in demonstrating what socialism will do for people which makes the Black Panther Program worthwhile.” (end of first section of excerpts from part 9)

(New Left Notes 6/18/69)

The 1969 Weatherman Statement Revisited: More Excerpts from Part 8

It’s not likely that the New York Times will mark the 40th anniversary of the June 1969 Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] National Convention in Chicago by reprinting excerpts from the position paper of the Weatherman faction of SDS. So following are some more excerpts from Part 8 of this historic position paper (that originally appeared in the June 18, 1969 issue of New Left Notes) which might interest U.S. anti-war activists in 2009—during the current U.S. historical era of “endless permanent war abroad and economic depression at home”:

“The contradictions of decaying imperialism fall hardest on youth in four distinct areas—the schools, jobs,…the army, and the…courts. (A) In jail-like schools, kids are fed a mish-mash of racist, male chauvinist, anti-working class…lies while being channeled into job and career paths set up according to the priorities of monopoly capital. At the same time, the State is becoming increasingly incapable of providing enough money to keep the schools going at all. (B) Youth unemployment is three times average unemployment. As more jobs are threatened by automation or the collapse of specific industries, unions act to secure jobs for those already employed. New people in the labor market can’t find jobs, job stability is undermined (also because of increasing speed-up and more intolerable safety conditions) and people are less and less going to work in the same shop for 40 years. And, of course, when they do find jobs, young people get the worst ones and have the least seniority. (C) There are…soldiers under thirty who are…forced to police the world, kill and be killed in wars of imperialist domination. And (D) as a `youth problem’ develops out of this, the…courts enforce curfews, set up pot busts, keep people off the streets, and repress any youth motion whatsoever.

“In all of this, it is not that life in America is toughest for youth or that they are the most oppressed. Rather, it is that young people are hurt directly—and severely—by imperialism. And, in being less tightly tied to the system, they are more `pushed’ to join the black liberation struggle against US imperialism. Among young people there is less of a material base for racism—they have no seniority, have not spent 20 years securing a skilled job (the white monopoly of which is increasingly challenged by the black liberation movement), and aren’t just about to pay off a 25-year mortgage on a house…

“While these contradictions of imperialism fall hard on all youth, they fall hardest on the youth of the most oppressed (least privileged) sections of the working class. Clearly these youth have the greatest material base for struggle. They are the ones who most often…get the worst jobs if they get any, who are most abused by the various institutions of social control, from the army to decaying schools, to the…courts….They are the people whom we can reach who at this stage are most ready to engage in militant revolutionary struggle.

“The point of the revolutionary youth movement strategy is to move from a predominant student elite base to more oppressed (less privileged) working-class youth as a way of deepening and expanding the revolutionary youth movement…This is part of a strategy to reach the entire working class to engage in struggle against imperialism; moving from more privileged sections of white working-class youth to more oppressed sections to the entire working class as a whole, including importantly what has classically been called the industrial proletariat…

“The above arguments make it clear that it is both important and possible to reach young people wherever they are—not only in the shops, but also in the schools, in the army and in the streets—so as to recruit them to fight on the side of the oppressed peoples of the world…” (end of second section of part 8 excerpts)

(New Left Notes 6/18/69)

The 1969 Weatherman Statement Revisited: Excerpts from Part 8

It’s not likely that the New York Times will mark the 40th anniversary of the June 1969 Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] National Convention in Chicago by reprinting excerpts from the position paper of the Weatherman faction of SDS. So following are some excerpts from the first section of Part 8 of this historic position paper (that originally appeared in the June 18, 1969 issue of New Left Notes) which might interest U.S. anti-war activists in 2009—during the current U.S. historical era of “endless permanent war abroad and economic depression at home”:

"In terms of the above analysis, most young people in the US are part of the working class. Although not yet employed, young people whose parents sell their labor power for wages, and more important who themselves expect to do the same in the future—or go into the army or be unemployed—are undeniably members of the working class. Most kids are well aware of what class they are in, even though they may not be very scientific about it. So our analysis assumes from the beginning that youth struggles are, by and large, working-class struggles. But why the focus now on the struggles of working-class youth rather than on the working class as a whole?

“…At this stage, we see working-class youth as those most open to a revolutionary movement which sides with the struggles of Third World people; the following is an attempt to explain a strategic focus on youth for SDS.

“In general, young people have less stake in a society (no family,…etc.), are more open to new ideas (they have not been brainwashed for so long or so well), and are therefore more able and willing to move in a revolutionary direction. Specifically in America, young people have grown up experiencing the crises in imperialism…This crisis in imperialism affects all parts of the society. America has had to militarize to protect and expand its empire…Further, the huge defense expenditures—required for the defense of the empire and at the same time a way of making increasing profits for the defense industries—have gone hand in hand with the urban crisis around welfare, the hospitals, the schools, housing, air and water pollution. The State cannot provide the services it has been forced to assume responsibility for, and needs to increase taxes and to pay its growing debts while it cuts services…The private sector of the economy can’t provide jobs, particularly unskilled jobs. The expansion of the defense and education industries by the State since World War II is in part an attempt to pick up the slack, though the inability to provide decent wages and working conditions for `public’ jobs is more and more a problem.

“As imperialism struggles to hold together this decaying social fabric, it inevitably resorts to brute force and authoritarian ideology. People, especially young people, more and more find themselves in the iron grip of authoritarian institutions…The anti-authoritarianism which characterizes the youth rebellion turns into…a refusal to be socialized into American society. Kids used to try to beat the system from inside the army or from inside the schools; now they desert from the army…

“The crisis in imperialism has brought about a breakdown in bourgeois social forms, culture and ideology. The family falls apart, kids leave home, women begin to break out of traditional `female’ and `mother’ roles. There develops a `generation gap’ and a `youth problem.’ Our heroes are no longer struggling businessmen, and we also begin to reject the ideal career of the professional…We reject the elitist, technocratic bullshit that tells us only experts can rule…Chuck Berry, Elvis, the Temptations brought us closer to the `people’s culture’ of Black America. The racist response to the civil rights movement revealed the depth of racism in America, as well as the impossibility of real change through American institutions. And the war against Vietnam is not `the heroic war against the Nazis’; it’s the big lie, with napalm burning through everything we had heard this country stood for. Kids begin to ask questions: Where is the Free World?...

“The breakdown in bourgeois culture and concomitant anti-authoritarianism is fed by the crisis in imperialism, but also in turn feeds that crisis, exacerbates it so that people no longer merely want the plastic ‘50s restored, but glimpse an alternative (like inside the Columbia buildings) and begin to fight for it. We don’t want teachers to be more kindly cops…” (end of first section of part 8 excerpts)

(New Left Notes 6/18/69)

GM: From Bail-Out To Bankruptcy In 2009

(In December 2008, a short time before the "U.S. Corporate Welfare State" used billions of dollars in public funds to help bail-out the General Motors [GM] corporate executives and their insitutional stockholders by investing in GM's worthless stock under the pretext of "preventing GM from going bankrupt and laying off UAW workers", I posted the following reference to GM's previous corporate welfare grants):

If GM, Ford and Chrysler end up getting a big corporate welfare grant from the “U.S. Corporate Welfare State” before they begin their new wave of 2009 layoffs of UAW members, it won’t be the first corporate welfare grant that the Big Three ever received. As Mark Zepezauer and Arthur Naiman noted in the 1996 edition of their book Take The Rich Off Welfare, in the 1990s the U.S. government gave “GM, Ford and Chrysler—whose combined 1994 profits were almost $14 billion--$333 million a year to develop more fuel-efficient cars;” yet “at the same time, the Big Three” propagandized “in favor of watered-down fuel-efficiency standards.” During the 1990s, Ford, GM and Chrysler also “each used accelerated depreciation to defer a billion dollars in tax payments,” according to the Take The Rich Off Welfare book.

The same book also recalled:

“The extent to which automobiles dominate our lives didn’t just happen by accident—at least part of it was the result of a criminal conspiracy. Back in the early 1930s, most people living in cities got around on electric streetcars. Concerned that this wasn’t the kind of environment in which they could sell a lot of buses, General Motors, using a series of front companies, began buying up streetcar systems, tearing out the tracks, buying buses from itself and then selling the new, polluting bus systems back to the cities—usually with contracts that prohibited purchases of `any new equipment using fuel or means of propulsion other than gas.’ Sometimes the contracts required that the new owners buy all their replacement buses from GM.

“…In 1949—after these companies had destroyed more than 100 streetcar systems in more than 45 cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Oakland, Baltimore, St. Louis and Salt Lake City—GM, Chevron and Firestone were convicted of a criminal conspiracy to restrain trade…”

With regard to the most recent corporate welfare grant to the Big Three proposal, UAW Local 2334 President David Sole in Detroit recently wrote the following:

“Handing more money to the same auto bosses who got us into this mess won’t solve the problems the auto industry faces.

“…They will continue to try to eliminate jobs and cut wages and benefits. Their only concern is maximizing profits, which is what led them to concentrate on making SUVs and trucks domestically, while shipping production of fuel-efficient cars overseas…

“Since the auto bosses have brought the companies to the brink of ruin, the workers, their unions and the communities in which these factories are situated must assert their right to run the plants and replace the bloated, short-sighted executives and the big shareholders who kept them at the helm.

“Worker-community control of the Big Three is the only solution. Under worker-community control the demand for government funds to rebuild and retool the plants to make energy-efficient cars and mass transit equipment could rally wide support.”

(I also indicated in a December 2008 post why the Big Media Monopoly may have been pushing for having the "U.S. Corporate Welfare State" invest so much public tax money in an automobile corporation whose executives were driving the firm into bankruptcy, despite these GM executives' past record of business mismanagement and wasteful expenditures on executive salaries and advertising).

One reason the Big Media conglomerates in the United States might have wanted to see the Big Three transnational automobile companies get a big corporate welfare grant from the U.S. government is that GM, Daimler-Chrysler and Ford have, historically, been among the top buyers of advertising in the U.S. corporate media world. In 1999, for example, GM spent over $2.9 billion on advertising and was the Number 1 advertiser in the United States. That same year, the Number 3 advertiser in the U.S. was Daimler-Chrysler, which spent over $1.5 billion on advertising. And in 1999, Ford spent over $1.1 billion on advertising and was the Number 5 advertiser in the United States.

In 2007, GM spent over $3 billion on advertising and was the Number 4 advertiser in the U.S., while Ford spent over $2.5 billion on advertising and was the Number 6 advertiser in the United States. In addition, over $1.7 billion was spent on advertising by Chrysler, which was the Number 14 advertiser in the United States, according to Advertising Age magazine’s chart for 2007.

The 1969 Weatherman Statement Revisited: Excerpts from Part 7

It’s not likely that the New York Times will mark the 40th anniversary of the June 1969 Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] National Convention in Chicago by reprinting excerpts from the position paper of the Weatherman faction of SDS. So following are some excerpts from Part 7 of this historic position paper (that originally appeared in the June 18, 1969 issue of New Left Notes) which might interest U.S. anti-war activists in 2009—during the current U.S. historical era of “endless permanent war abroad and economic depression at home”:

“…Why should young people be willing to fight on the side of Third World peoples? Before dealing with this question about youth, however, there follows a brief sketch of the main class categories in the white mother country which we think are important.

“Most of the population is of the working class, by which we mean not simply industrial or production workers, nor those who are actually working, but the whole section of the population which doesn’t own productive property and so lives off of the sale of its labor power…

“As a whole, the long-range interests of the non-colonial sections of the working class lie with overthrowing imperialism, with supporting self-determination for the oppressed nations (including the black colony), with supporting and fighting for international socialism. However, virtually all of the white working class also has short-range privileges from imperialism, which…tie them to a certain extent to the imperialists, especially when the latter are in a relatively prosperous phase. When the imperialists are losing their empire, on the other hand, these short-range privileged interests are seen to be temporary (even though the privileges may be relatively greater over the faster-increasing emiseration of the oppressed peoples). The long-range interests of workers in siding with the oppressed peoples are seen more clearly in the light of imperialism’s impending defeat. Within the whole working class, the balance of anti-imperialist class interests with white mother country short-term privilege varies greatly.

“First, the most oppressed sections of the mother country working class have interests most clearly and strongly anti-imperialist. Who are the most oppressed sections of the working class? Millions of whites who have as oppressive material conditions as the blacks, or almost so: especially poor southern white workers; the unemployed or semi-employed, or those employed at very low wages for long hours and bad conditions, who are non-unionized or have weak unions; and extending up to include much of unionized labor which has it a little better off but still is heavily oppressed and exploited. This category covers a wide range and includes the most oppressed sections not only of production and service workers but also some secretaries, clerks, etc. Much of this category gets some relative privileges (i.e. benefits) from imperialism, which constitute some material basis for being racist or pro-imperialist; but overall it is itself directly and heavily oppressed, so that in addition to its long-range class interest on the side of the people of the world, its immediate situation also constitutes a strong basis for...fighting through to revolution.

“Second, there is the upper strata of the working class. This is also an extremely broad category, including the upper strata of unionized skilled workers and also most of the `new working class’ of proletarianized or semi-proletarianized `intellect workers.’…The long-range class interests of this strata, like the previous section of more oppressed workers, are for the revolution and against imperialism. However, it is characterized by a higher level of privilege relative to the oppressed colonies, including the blacks, and relative to more oppressed workers in the mother country; so that there is a strong material basis for racism and loyalty to the system….Another consideration in understanding the interests of this segment is that, because of the way it developed and how its skills and its privileges were `earned over time,’ the differential between the position of youth and older workers is in many ways greater for this section than any other in the population. We should continue to see it as important to build the revolutionary youth movement among the youth of this strata.

“Thirdly, there are `middle strata’ who are not petit bourgeoisie, who may even technically be upper working class, but who are so privileged and tightly tied to imperialism through their job roles that they are agents of imperialism. This section includes management personnel, corporate lawyers, higher civil servants, and other government agents, army officers, etc…

“Fourthly, and last among the categories we’re going to deal with, is the petit bourgeoisie…The petit bourgeoisie consists of small capital—both business and farms—and self-employed tradesmen and professionals…The direction which this opposition takes can be reactionary or reformist…There are various issues, like withdrawing from a losing imperialist war, where we could get support from them…” (end of part 7 excerpts)

(New Left Notes 6/18/69)

The 1969 Weatherman Statement Revisited: Excerpts from Parts 5 & 6

It’s not likely that the New York Times will mark the 40th anniversary of the June 1969 Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] National Convention in Chicago by reprinting excerpts from the position paper of the Weatherman faction of SDS. So following are some excerpts from Parts 5 and 6 of this historic position paper (that originally appeared in the June 18, 1969 issue of New Left Notes) which might interest U.S. anti-war activists in 2009—during the current U.S. historical era of “endless permanent war abroad and economic depression at home”:

“. In reality, imperialism is a predatory international stage of capitalism…

“…When the petit bourgeoisie's interest is for fighting imperialism on a particular issue, but not for overthrowing it…, it is still contributing to revolution to that extent…Someone not for revolution is not for actually defeating imperialism either, but we still can and should unite with them on particular issues…

“What is the strategy of this international revolutionary movement? What are the strategic weaknesses of the imperialists which make it possible for us to win?...

“The strategy…is what Che’ called `creating two, three, many Vietnams’—to mobilize the struggle so sharply in so many places that the imperialists cannot possibly deal with it all. Since it is essential to their interests, they will try to deal with it all, and will be defeated and destroyed in the process.

“In defining and implementing this strategy, it is clear that the vanguard (that is, the section of the people who are in the forefront of the struggle and whose class interests and needs define the terms and tasks of the revolution) of the `American Revolution’ is the workers and oppressed peoples of the colonies of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Because of the level of special oppression of black people as a colony, they reflect the interests of the oppressed people of the world from within the borders of the United States; they are part of the Third World and part of the international revolutionary vanguard.

“The vanguard role of the Vietnamese and other Third World countries in defeating US imperialism has been clear to our movement for some time. What has not been so clear is the vanguard role black people have played, and continue to play, in the development of revolutionary consciousness and struggle within the United States…

“The black colony, due to its particular nature as a slave colony, never adopted a chauvinist identification with America as an imperialist power, either politically or culturally. Moreover, the history of black people in America has consistently been one of the greatest overall repudiations of and struggle against the state. From the slave ships from Africa to the slave revolts, the Civil War, etc., black people have been waging a struggle for survival and liberation. In the history of our own movement this has also been the case: the civil rights struggles, initiated and led by blacks in the South; the rebellions beginning with Harlem in 1964 and Watts in 1965 through Detroit and Newark in 1967; the campus struggles at all-black schools in the South and struggles led by blacks on campuses all across the country. As it is the blacks—along with the Vietnamese and other Third World people—who are most oppressed by US imperialism, their class interests are most solidly and resolutely committed to waging revolutionary struggle through to its completion. Therefore it is no surprise that time and again, in both political content and level of consciousness and militancy, it has been the black liberation movement which has...defined the terms of the struggle…

“…Within this country increased oppression falls heavier on the most oppressed sections of the population, so that the condition of all workers is worsened through rising taxes, inflation and the fall of real wages, and speedup. But this increased oppression falls heaviest on the most oppressed, such as poor white workers and, especially, the blacks, for example through the collapse of state services like schools, hospitals and welfare, which naturally hits the hardest at those most dependent on them.

“This deterioration pushes people to fight harder to even try to maintain their present level…

“…Can the black liberation struggle—the struggle of all blacks in the country—gain…liberation by concentrating on building base areas in the South in territory with a concentration of black population?

“…If the best potential for struggle in the South were realized, it is fully conceivable and legitimate that the struggle there could take on the character of a fight for separation; and any victories won in that direction would be important gains for the national liberation of the colony as a whole. However, because the colony is dispersed over the whole country, and not just located in the black belt, winning still means the power and liberation of blacks in the whole country.

“Thus, even the winning of separate independence in the South would still be one step toward self-determination, and not equivalent to winning it; which, because of the economic position of the colony as a whole, would still require overthrowing the state power of the imperialists, taking over production and the whole economy and power, etc.” (end of parts 5 and 6 excerpts)

(New Left Notes 6/18/69)