Nikolas Kozloff

As an undergraduate at University of California, Berkeley in the late 1980s, I did not visit the nearby city of Oakland very frequently. For the most part, I was ensconced in my own student circles and, to the extent that I got involved in politics, it was the local campus activist scene which drew me in with its focus on Central America and U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in the region. To be sure, Oakland had a radical tradition going back to the 1960s and the Black Panther movement, yet by the time I was in school that era was already a distant memory for many.

If there was any doubt about Oakland's radical stripes, however, then yesterday's general strike will certainly dispel any such notions. Galvanized by tumultuous developments over the past several weeks, in particular a nasty police crackdown on a local "Occupy" encampment, activists moved to effectively shut down the city by carrying out a general strike no less. Activists were particularly incensed by violent police tactics including use of tear gas and even grenades. During nighttime unrest, an Iraq war veteran was hit with a projectile and suffered a skull fracture.
 
Spurred on by the need to end police brutality, defend schools and libraries against local closures, and put an end to overall economic inequality, Occupy Oakland called for a day of action in which the circlation of capital would be blockaded, students would walk out of class, and various occupations would be staged around the city. Oakland is particularly important to commerce as the local port is the fifth largest in the country, and though union officials did not authorize a strike many longshoremen voiced support for Occupy's efforts.

The Unusual Weapon of the General Strike

As I explained in another piece, general strikes are practically unheard of in the United States. Indeed, the Oakland unrest marks the first general strike in the country in 65 years. One notable exception to this pattern of labor docility was the Seattle general strike of 1919, which in my estimation holds profound historic lessons for anti-capitalist protesters in Lower Manhattan. For the most part, however, U.S. labor has shied away from such confrontational tactics, and this has posed a great tactical dilemma for the left according to veteran organizers.

Over the past month or so, I have puzzled over the fact that most of the organizing and political activism has centered upon New York, which is a little unusual. On a purely personal note, I have always been struck by the contrasting political cultures on the east and west coasts. As a New Yorker observing the local scene in the late 1980s, I was taken aback by the greater militancy of protests in Berkeley and San Francisco. In contrast to the Big Apple, where people were isolated from one another and seemed obedient and deferential towards the authorities, Bay Area protesters were less willing to play ball.

It is now Oakland, however, which has come full circle, providing a crucial missing link in the Occupy movement within the Bay Area and indeed farther afield. Peer a little closer and it's not too surprising that the city should be in the radical vanguard. With its long and checkered political past, Oakland has been a path breaker in many ways including class struggle, women's rights and racial justice.

Local Oakland Boy Jack London

It was the celebrated writer Jack London (1876 - 1916) no less who inspired future generations. A local Oakland boy, London was a member of the Socialist Labor Party and to this day his presence can be vividly felt in the city. Currently, Jack London Square is one of Oakland's great landmarks and a symbol of the city's maritime history. Situated in front of a natural estuary leading to San Francisco Bay, the site lies at the heart of Oakland's port operations. As a boy, London spent much of his time on this very waterfront, later taking up an adventurous sea-faring life as an oyster pirate. And it is here in the square that local residents continue to honor London's heritage by observing the general strike.

Though he is most recognized for masculine adventure stories and such works as Call of the Wild and the Sea Wolf, London also penned political fiction like the Iron Heel, a futuristic, dystopian story about America in which corporate interests are on the ascendant. In the Iron Heel, London sought to consolidate his ideas concerning the working class and its struggle against the so-called shadowy "oligarchy." The central protagonist of the book, a socialist named Ernest Everhard, witnesses the fall of the American republic and goes into underground resistance. A highly influential work, The Iron Heel, exerted an impact upon George Orwell who went on to write two of the 20th century's other great political novels, 1984 and Animal Farm.

Through Everhard, London was able to project his own political predictions for the coming decades. In 1937, Trotsky wrote, "Jack London already foresaw and described the fascist regime as the inevitable result of the defeat of the proletarian revolution." In the Iron Heel, London presciently anticipated the growing power of money in politics. Portraying capitalism as a "monstrous beast," London foresaw Reaganomics and the rise of the Republican far right.
In an echo of today's Occupy movement, London warned that the poor can only achieve a level playing field by uniting against the 1% who have inordinate access to the world's wealth and resources. Though the oligarchy kills strikers and citizens, Everhard endures as a kind of personification of the working class ideal. "Far be it from me to deny that Socialism is a menace," London once remarked. "It is its purpose to wipe out, root and branch, all capitalistic institutions of present-day society. It is distinctly revolutionary, and in scope and depth is vastly more tremendous than any revolution that has ever occurred in the history of the world."

Today, London's great-granddaughter Tarnel Abbott continues to walk in the radical footsteps of the notable American writer. During the recent Oakland police disturbances, she wrote "It is true that Jack London is my ancestor, he is my great grandfather, but more importantly, he is a working class hero and a visionary. I looked at the Jack London oak tree in front of City Hall and felt possessed by the spirit of the great man. I thought of him standing there on his soap box making socialist speeches and getting arrested because he didn't have a permit. I thought of him writing Revolution, The People of the Abyss and The Iron Heel. I felt that I was witnessing the Iron Heel of fascism being challenged. I knew that I too had to resist it."

London's Radical Heritage
 
If he had lived to see the day, London would surely have been proud of his great granddaughter as well as Oakland's militant and combative post-war labor movement. In 1946, shortly after the end of World War II, workers gathered in Oakland's streets to support the struggle of women department store employees. The move formed part of a larger national strike wave designed to ensure that demobilization did not serve to erode workers' rights. The epicenter of the Oakland strike, which quickly developed into a general strike, was none other than Latham Square at the intersection of Broadway and Telegraph Avenue, which today serves as an organizing point for the Occupy movement.

Very soon, the strikers instructed all stores except pharmacies to shut down. A carnival-like atmosphere took root in the city with couples dancing in the streets, and Oakland was effectively shut down when 100,000 laborers joined the effort. What distinguished the Oakland general strike from other labor unrest was that it spread from the bottom up without much evidence of official union leadership in the streets. In this sense, the events of 1946 are reminiscent of today's Occupy movement, which is not being formally directed by the rank and file [indeed, since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act one year after the 1946 Oakland general strike, unions have been barred from participating in strikes "in support of other workers," though to be sure many local unions endorsed Occupy's actions within the local vicinity].

Though certainly impressive, the general strike unfortunately collapsed after just 54 hours, called off by a wary and conservative American Federation of Labor. In the end, the city promised to stop sending scab delivery trucks to businesses where workers had been on strike, but female retail clerks didn't get any of the concessions they had sought. Nevertheless, four labor candidates were elected to Oakland's city council in 1947 and the strike had important psychological and symbolic consequences. Put simply, labor demonstrated that workers were willing to take big risks and rebel against top down control, even going so far as to essentially take control over the city itself.

Oakland's 1960s Legacy

Though the 1946 strike was an important forerunner of the Occupy movement, it would be a mistake to view recent disturbances in the city within a strictly labor perspective. Judging from some recent online videos, Oakland's Occupy activists are fairly diverse in a racial sense, perhaps more so than the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In this sense, what is happening in California harks back to the previous activist wave of the 1960s.

Founded in Oakland in 1966, the Black Panther Party played an important role in furthering the growth of black liberation movements. Guided by Oakland's earlier socialist politics, the Panthers espoused revolutionary goals and called for a radical and, if necessary, violent transformation of society. The movement was founded by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, who had met as students at Merritt College in 1962. Their friendship was solidified by a desire to tackle issues such as racism, police brutality, housing discrimination and inferior quality of education.

By the 1960s, Oakland had changed dramatically in a racial sense. Though numerically small in the early twentieth century, Oakland's black population had always displayed a tradition of radical political organizing. In the 1920s, for example, the city had one of the most active chapters of the UNIA or United Negro Improvement Association, an organization headed by the infamous Marcus Garvey. Later, Oakland served as the headquarters of the powerful Sleeping Car Porters Union. Though the city was overwhelmingly white in the early 20th century, World War II accelerated the pace of change by drawing in new workers to the shipyards and defense industries.

By the 1960s, the growing black population had grown incensed by the overwhelmingly white dominated city government and cases of police brutality, which all served to spur on the likes of Huey Newton. Though the Panthers were subjected to FBI harassment and imprisonment, eventually splintering in the early 1970s, the movement had an important impact on Oakland politics. Indeed, Seale himself went on to garner a full 37% of the vote in the city's mayoral election of 1973, and eventually African Americans succeeded in wresting the entire political machine from white Republicans, occupying all major elected positions in Oakland. Moreover, the Panthers inspired other marginalized groups such as Native Americans, Chicanos and Asian-Americans who in turn launched their own struggles for racial equality.

Political Impact of Wednesday's Strike

As of this evening eastern time, it's still a bit early to assess the practical impact of Oakland's general strike. Some reports suggest that activists have not succeeded in shutting down the entire city let alone Oakland's important port, though some businesses remain shuttered. It's unclear moreover how many city workers joined the strikers but local coverage indicates that many teachers have joined the effort as well as thousands of students from the University of California, Berkeley.

Whatever the case, yesterday's actions represent an important milestone for the Occupy movement. Just a couple of weeks ago, as I penned my latest article outlining how a general strike might unfold in Lower Manhattan, I wondered how many people might take my writing seriously. And while it's still probably a stretch to think that activists can shut down the Wall Street area, the protests now seem to be accelerating at an exponential rate. Already, solidarity marches with the Oakland general strike have been organized in Boston and Philadelphia, for instance.

It is perhaps fitting that it was Oakland, home to radical socialists such as Jack London as well as later black liberation figures like Huey Newton, which pushed the unique weapon of the general strike. Though it was New York which initially provided the spark for the Occupy movement, Oakland is now nationalizing this struggle and inspiring other cities to take more decisive action. Already, the familiar call of "Oakland is New York, New York is Oakland!" is gaining traction amongst the demonstrators, much to the chagrin of economic elites and the political establishment.

With all of the media now focused on the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Lower Manhattan, it’s easy to lose sight of the real human tragedy unfolding right across the bridge. I’m referring to Brooklyn, New York’s most populous borough, which has suffered mightily since the economic meltdown of 2008. Though the crowds participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement are now more racially diverse than at the outset of the protests, most disadvantaged Brooklyn residents are still shying away from demonstrations. This fact is most glaringly evident when one takes the 2 or 3 train from Fulton Street near the protests and heads out into Brooklyn: while most of the protesters are young and white, the subway riders are predominantly African-American and Caribbean.

For the time being, the protesters certainly enjoy a certain degree of momentum and enthusiasm. However, if demonstrators want to see Occupy Wall Street turn into a mass movement in the long-term, they will have to learn how to appeal to poorer Brooklynites and to address residents’ local concerns. As they continue to organize, activists should recognize a simple premise: in New York, not all districts are created equal. Indeed, the unemployment rate in Brooklyn rose from 4.7 percent in 2008 to 10.1 percent in January 2011, making it one of the worse afflicted counties in the state. Though the recovery is helping to spur some job creation, for example in the health field, other jobs have vanished forever. In particular, crucial sectors such as construction and manufacturing have been hit significantly.

For Brooklynites, the situation is vexing and befuddling as many are forced to choose between changing careers or trying to cobble together a couple of smaller jobs. Some university graduates have become so discouraged that they have ceased looking for new employment altogether and instead pursue other options like heading to graduate school or continuing to work their old college jobs. Perhaps that is understandable given that young people have few options other than retail sales, with an abysmal starting salary of about $15,000, and waitressing.

From The Hipster Generation to Food Stamps

Think of Brooklyn and images of affluent young hipsters may come to mind. In recent years, the district of Williamsburg has become synonymous with this up and coming generation. Meanwhile, many residents living in other prosperous white neighborhoods such as Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill may be oblivious to serious economic dislocation afflicting other parts of the borough, where some are forced to subsist on social security and food stamps.

Indeed, there’s been a great racial discrepancy in the jobs figures, with black unemployment in New York averaging five points higher than whites, and Latinos averaging four points higher. Overall, New York ranks as the third most unequal city in the country in terms of wealth disparity. Hollywood, however, continues to focus upon Brooklyn’s affluent elite as witnessed by such recent films as The Switch. The movie, which stars Jennifer Aniston, deals with a young woman who finds happiness with a wealthy sperm donor friend who lives on the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights.

A world away from the Promenade, teachers are being handed the pink slip and it is disadvantaged kids in poor areas like East New York and Brownsville who are getting hit hardest. Cuts in educational services are just the tip of the iceberg for impoverished communities, however: reportedly, food pantries are being stretched to their limits. Facing a stagnant economy, high unemployment and low levels of charitable giving, not to mention high food prices, soup kitchens in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Crown Heights, Prospect Heights, Midwood and Bushwick are feeling the pinch with administrators reporting a dramatic increase in whole families turning up for help.

Reportedly, even the hipster women of Williamsburg are turning to waitressing to make ends meet. Known for its concentration of so-called “trust-funders” or, more humorously, “trustafarians,” Williamsburg has a reputation for gentrification and white entitlement. Now, however, parents of the younger generation are scaling back and have stopped buying their children new condos, let alone subsidizing rents or providing cash to spend at local boutiques or coffee houses.

In a sign of the times perhaps, one web site has sprung up to draw attention to locals’ economic plight. Called Unemployed Brooklyn, the site is run by a single woman named “MatchGirl.” While looking for a job in the fashion industry, Matchgirl uses her sewing skills to make stuffed animals and sell them over the internet to make some extra income. Matchgirl’s objective is to “vent frustrations, insights and inspirations about being unemployed…tips for cheap places to eat and shop in Greenpoint/Williamsburg, Brooklyn.”

A Painful Four Years

The recent troubles cap a number of painful years for local residents. The problems started in 2008, when Brooklyn families started to face eviction and foreclosure on condos they had purchased from corrupt developers. As a spate of real estate crimes proliferated, ranging from deed forgery to mortgage fraud schemes, Brooklyn’s district attorney belatedly announced it was time to set up a specialized unit to investigate and prosecute such offenses. When a group of young filmmakers started to produce a documentary film about the mortgage scandal in Brooklyn called Subprimed, they received harassing letters in the mail from lawyers representing local developers.

Humans weren’t the only ones to be affected by the foreclosure crisis --- even pets were displaced. In an unusual protest, animal rescue groups brought more than 400 dogs to the Brooklyn Bridge ranging from Chihuahuas to Great Danes. According to organizers, many pets lost their homes to foreclosure and animal shelters had been hard hit by the economic downturn.

By 2009, one could walk down any commercial street in Brooklyn and spot vacant storefronts and advertisements announcing 70% off sales. Take Bay Ridge and Sunset Park, middle class immigrant communities with large numbers of Chinese, Ecuadoran, Lebanese, Mexican, Russian, Ukranian and Yemenite families: though these enclaves managed to escape the high foreclosure rate hitting Bedford-Stuyvesant, East New York, Bushwick and Crown Heights, local entrepreneurs started to hurt with businesses ranging from restaurants to jewelers to clothing stores going through a downturn. In a brainstorming fever, business owners wracked their brains in an effort to lure customers, offering up everything from holiday chocolate tastings to weekend brunches to Feng Shui consultations.

Poverty Enters the Popular Culture

The economic malaise has advanced to such a degree that it has begun to have an impact upon popular culture. As far back as 2009, a local exhibit called “Plan B” explored how artists had been affected by the downturn. One exhibitor created a photo series documenting how she had been laid off by Hearst Magazines, featuring shots of boxes piled up one on top of another. Yet another artist constructed a sculpture made up of discarded circuit boards, meant to signify the “garbage economy.”

In a second work, the same exhibitor featured a simple easel meant to symbolize the local plight of artists. The idea behind the work, the artist remarked, was to “create an easel that can be stored in your room if you're renting or you only have one room and you've been kicked out of your studio due to financial concerns. What happens to a lot of artists in New York is they don't make art anymore, and then they're stuck in this crappy job where they're not really happy but they can't earn enough money to rent a studio to make more art, so I'm trying to offer them a solution.”

In theater, too, the theme of economic hard times has figured prominently. Take for example a recent play which ran at the Brooklyn Lyceum Theater in Park Slope, based on one of Arthur Miller’s lesser known works. In “The American Clock,” a Manhattan family moves to Brooklyn after losing its fortune. Playwright and essayist Miller himself moved to Brooklyn as a child, and his play is based on his own experiences during the Great Depression.

A large ensemble cast, including train-riding hobos and Wall Street tycoons, retells the story of the depression. “It’s very satisfying to be able to do this play during what we hope will be the end of the Great Recession, because I don’t think it ever really had its moment in Arthur Miller’s lifetime,” said the play’s artistic director. “He hoped this would be a warning to people, that the clock is ticking on the American dream, and the play needs to be heard.”

Brooklyn musicians, meanwhile, have been singing about economic hard times. Take Dan Costello, a songwriter based in Bushwick who became exposed to socially conscious musicians like Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie through his politically active parents. In Recession Songs, his 2009 album, Costello sings on one track “Hey Mister, where’s my bailout? Give me a bonus Mister, you gave one to AIG.” On yet another track, Costello sings “I think I’ll dumpster dive at Whole Foods, Day old bread that can still be chewed. Organic Apples that are slightly bruised, but ugly produce is still good for you.”

From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Brooklyn

With all of the economic dislocation occurring just across the Brooklyn Bridge, it’s disappointing that Occupy Wall Street has not been more successful in attracting the poor and destitute to its cause. Yet, when you consider that many Brooklynites are simply too stressed out to attend demonstrations and are having a difficult time keeping their heads above water amidst the downturn, the lack of diversity in major demonstrations becomes understandable.

Another difficulty has to do with the spatial geography of Brooklyn: though it’s the most populous borough in the city, communities are spread out and isolated from one other and bridging cultural differences amongst the dizzying array of nationalities is a formidable task. A new group, Occupy Brooklyn, hopes to remedy the situation and has already started to organize locally. Perhaps, this most recent offshoot of the Wall Street movement might concentrate its efforts on downtown Brooklyn and Borough Hall, a busy district which by day is extremely diverse from a racial standpoint.

Though Occupy Wall Street has now become much more of a mainstream movement, it will need to do much more outreach to marginalized communities across the river if it wants to ensure that its demonstrations have the desired effect. At long last, it seems that the protesters have opted to take up my earlier pearl of wisdom and Occupy Oakland has called for a general strike no less. The action is scheduled for November 2, and could also spur a similar effort in Lower Manhattan.

If it does call for a general strike, Occupy Wall Street will have to shut down major thoroughfares like the Brooklyn Bridge. A couple of weeks ago, when protesters attempted to do precisely that, they were turned back by the police. Yet, perhaps this time the demonstrators will have increased numbers on their side and may link up with their compatriots in Brooklyn.

Will Occupy Wall Street remain a Manhattan movement, or will it manage to marshal the sympathy of those living in the outer boroughs who are most affected by the recession? In the coming weeks, Occupy must prove that it can move beyond its own base and become a truly mass movement capable of bringing about real, systemic change.

To read the article, click here.

After a couple of weeks trying to find their groove, Occupy Wall Street protesters are now on a high and are set to take their movement to the next level. First came the announcement that New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg would not dismantle the encampment at Liberty Plaza, and then, as anti-capitalist demonstrators took to the streets in cities as far afield as Madrid and Rome, activists may have sensed that Occupy Wall Street stood to become truly global in scope. With the mushrooming of protest across the United States, corporate executives are sitting up and taking notice, while both the Republicans and Democrats have been forced to recognize the growing power of demonstrations. With the 2012 presidential election just a year away, it is not inconceivable that Occupy Wall Street will exert a political impact upon the campaign.

Though these wins are certainly impressive, the protesters must now face some daunting challenges. Youthful and energetic, Occupy Wall Street activists have enthusiasm and momentum on their side. There will come a time, however, when the demonstrators may find it difficult to sustain such a high level of mobilization. Perhaps sensing that it was too soon to put forth a concrete set of demands, anti-corporate protesters have, up until now, exploited a general sense of unease with Wall Street excesses and government bailouts of the financial sector.
 
Yet, for all their successes, the demonstrators are locked in a paradox: on the one hand, Occupy Wall Street must appeal to more disenfranchised people if it wants to grow the movement, ye by including other constituencies the protesters may find that the nature of their protest becomes too diluted or diffuse. Activists, then, must delicately find a way to channel their demands in such a way that the movement expands without losing its core focus. In looking to the future, some on the left are seizing on ambitious goals which heretofore might have seemed, to put it modestly, rather "pie in the sky."

Occupy Wall Street Thinks Big

Take, for example, the radical notion of amending the Constitution to address protesters' demands or even convening a constitutional convention. Already, an Occupy Wall Street "working group" has called for a "non-partisan National General Assembly" which would convene in Philadelphia in July, 2012 to draft a "petition of grievances." In an echo of the original Continental Congresses of the colonial era, members of the assembly would deliberate amongst themselves and present points to the presidential candidates in advance of the 2012 election.

Occupy Wall Street has listed a number of grievances having to do with economic fairness, and not surprisingly the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (or FEC) stands out. Reformers would like to remove corporate money from the political process by doing away with this recent Supreme Court decision, which granted companies the right to spend unlimited funds to influence the outcome of elections. The ruling has enraged the progressive community which now sees democracy as hanging by a mere thread.

Taking Up the Cause of Constitutional Reform

Though some may be taken aback by Occupy Wall Street's idea, the notion of overhauling the constitution is not a new one and, indeed, dovetails with some recent efforts on the left to address the issue. Indeed, in an attempt to head off creeping corporate influence, a number of organizations including Ralph Nader's Public Citizen recently called for a national grassroots campaign to amend the constitution, overturn the Supreme Court's decision and declare unequivocally that corporations should not enjoy the same rights as persons.

Yet another backer of the proposal is the Liberty Tree Foundation, run by Wisconsin activist and attorney Ben Manski. I met Ben in Madison in the summer of 1999, shortly before the emergence of the anti-globalization movement. Later, Manski played a key role in organizing protests against the World Trade Organization in Seattle, considered by some to be a precursor to the Occupy Wall Street movement. "Given that the occupy movement is concerned about the fundamental allocation of political and economic power," Manski wrote me in a recent e-mail, "and is committed to the practice of direct democracy, as opposed to merely representative government, it's reasonable to expect that in time this movement will take up the work of constitutional reform."

Occupy Wall Street and Constitutionalists Coalescing?

Manski is already seeing signs "of integration between the occupy movement and the existing post-Citizens United v. FEC movement to amend the U.S. Constitution." In the coming months, he believes, these two currents will continue to overlap and coalesce. Perhaps, Manski's predictions will turn out to have merit: already, moveon.org, which has traditionally been tied to the Democratic Party, has taken to posting Occupy Wall Street's call for the separation of government from corporations, much as the colonists called for the separation of government from England in 1776.

Moreover, during a recent conference held at Harvard Law School both tea party activists and anti-corporate liberals made common cause to discuss the corrupting influence of political contributions in campaigns. The conference, which was attended by Manski amongst others, discussed the possibility of convening a constitutional convention in order to address fundamental failures in American government.

Recent surveys suggest that the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling is wildly unpopular amongst the American public, including Democrats, Republicans and independents. Judging from some recent grumblings in Congress, too, this movement might have some legs: some liberal members of the House have voiced support for a constitutional amendment aimed at Citizens United, and in the Senate too there have been calls for an amendment which would allow the government to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns.
 
A Constitutional Uphill Climb

Despite such efforts, the reality is that constitutional reform would remain a challenging uphill struggle. If popular forces sought to repeal Citizens United, they would have two options: either pass an amendment by a two-thirds margin in both houses of Congress, and then get three-quarters of the states to ratify it, or, more controversially, get two thirds of the states to convene a constitutional convention and get three quarters to ratify. The first option has proven to be rather thorny: since 1789, over 10,000 amendments have been introduced into Congress, but only 33 have been approved and of those just 27 have been ratified and added to the Constitution.

The second option, which is favored by the likes of Manski, has almost never been used so we'd be in slightly untested waters. Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been hundreds of petitions from the states to convene a constitutional convention and none of these efforts ever bore fruit. What is more, if the left ever succeeded in convening a constitutional convention, activists might regret their decision as this could unleash a virtual Pandora's Box. There's no contemporary experience with a national constitutional convention and no clear consensus about what it should do. In theory, a constitutional convention could allow the right to introduce its own amendments.

As South America Goes, So Too North America?

Faced with such daunting odds, some on the left might dismiss any such grandiose constitutional maneuvers. But just think: a mere two months ago who would have guessed that a modest encampment near Wall Street would have sparked world-wide protest and rallies of hundreds of thousands of people? Perhaps, within the present milieu, such ambitious plans might at the very least succeed in sparking a long overdue national debate.
Having endured thirty years of conservative ascendancy the left is understandably a bit jaded, but I think progressives may sell themselves a little short. In South America, a couple of countries have managed to reform their constitutions in short order, yet many in the U.S. believe that such radical change is impossible in Washington. Why is that? Are Venezuelans, Ecuadorans, or Bolivians more inherently revolutionary than Americans?

In light of the current political impasse, perhaps activists should reconsider the case of South America. As I point out in my second book, popular revulsion with free-market reforms succeeded in driving political elites from power across the Andes, first in Venezuela and later in Bolivia and Ecuador. As the old order came crashing down, leaders such as Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa sought to capitalize on popular discontent by clamoring for nothing short of a new constitutional order, one which would "re-found" the state to be more inclusive and democratic toward the marginalized and dispossessed.

A Look at the Venezuelan Constitution of 1999

As anyone who's read my other essays will know, it didn't entirely wind up that way and the picture throughout the region, particularly in Ecuador and Venezuela, remains decidedly mixed. Nevertheless, some South American constitutions represent important landmarks in progressive legislation. Take, for example, the Venezuelan constitution of 1999, which allows for so-called "social human rights" such as employment, housing, and health care. Under the legislation, all workers have the right to a decent salary, and the state will even promote and protect economic cooperatives.

In addition, the constitution is very forward and broad-looking on the issue of gender equality, stating that any discrimination which results in lasting inequality must be dismantled, which in practice implies that public policies must be reexamined. Furthermore, there are provisions for recall of any elected officials, which might be of interest to U.S. activists in light of recent efforts to remove Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Under another interesting provision, Venezuela scrapped its bicameral legislature in favor of a unicameral structure which in theory will be more in tune with the country's needs. While some on the U.S. left have argued that it is time to get rid of the Senate, it would clearly take some time for such calls to gain any traction out in the American heartland, however.

Radicalizing Occupy Wall Street

In South America, leftist populists have latched on to the constitutionalist banner yet in the U.S. events have unfolded differently. Indeed, here in this country it is the rightist Tea Party movement, and not leftists, which has adopted patriotic symbols and wrapped itself in the constitution. Perhaps it is time for Occupy Wall Street to reverse this equation and develop its own brand of left populism designed to revive American democracy. It will certainly be an uphill climb, but the American left may not encounter a more auspicious moment to present such radical proposals.

To read the interview, click here.

On a somewhat more personal note, check out my latest article about Occupy Wall St and the possibility of launching a general strike in Lower Manhattan. Click here to read the piece on Al Jazeera.

I'm back writing for al-Jazeera, which is probably wondering why its activities are being monitored by the U.S. State Department in Venezuela. To read the article, click here.

To read the article, click here.

For the past year or so, I've been writing steadily about WikiLeaks and U.S. diplomatic correspondence between various American embassies in Latin America and the State Department in Washington, D.C.  It's a bit difficult for one person to stay on top of all the communication back and forth, and WikiLeaks' recent decision to place all of the remaining cables online has made the researchers' work even more of an uphill climb.  In an effort to stay afloat, I decided to sift through many of these cables, taking note of intriguing, incendiary or just plain odd documents which may be worthy of further investigation.  In coming weeks, I'll be publishing my own guide to the "Caracas cables" which may aid journalists, researchers or activists.

 

Drug Trafficking Airline?

 

More incendiary revelations from WikiLeaks: now comes a cable from 2008 reporting on U.S. wariness of Aeropostal, an airline whose owners, the Makled family, were "Venezuela's preeminent drug traffickers."  When Aeropostal sought to extend its flights to the U.S., the American Embassy in Caracas recommended that the request be denied.  Furthermore, diplomats believed that the Chávez government's decision to allow the Makleds to purchase Aeropostal "sheds further doubt on Venezuelan aviation security."

 

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was so worried about Walid Makled that it issued a report entitled "Venezuela: Business Entrepreneur Dominates Cocaine Trade."  The report asserted that Makled leveraged "his involvement in the transportation industry to facilitate drug shipments and provide cover for his own illicit activities." 

 

Speaking to the Americans, an Aeropostal representative rejected the allegations but admitted that the new owners of the airline "know nothing about aviation."  U.S. diplomats however were unconvinced, remarking that "this claim of ignorance about aviation seems odd, when according to the DIA report, the Makleds own a small airport they use to ferry drugs to Mexico twice a week."

 

Dodd to Chávez: Give Peace Corps a Chance

 

In other news, WikiLeaks is filling in the gaps surrounding the tumultuous state of U.S.-Venezuelan relations during the Bush years, and there are some surprises in new cable releases.  Take for example one report from 2005 detailing an unusual meeting between Chávez and Democratic Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.  In an effort to dial back much of the ill will between Caracas and the Bush administration, Dodd met with the Venezuelan president at his headquarters in Miraflores palace.

 

Dodd spoke in Spanish, and by the end of the meeting an "effusive" Chávez was addressing the Senator on a first name basis.  When Dodd however suggested that Chávez visit the United States and speak with members of Congress, the Venezuelan president "responded cautiously, saying a visit was unlikely asserting concerns about security." 

 

Chávez added that "there were Venezuelans in the U.S. who called for his murder on public radio, others who engaged with paramilitary organizations to plan his overthrow, and former Venezuelan military officers who attempted to blow up foreign embassies in Caracas."  What is more, the U.S. had not granted visas to some members of his security detail.

 

In a rather unlikely aside, the idealistic Dodd then suggested that Chávez invite the Peace Corps into Venezuela so as to heal relations with the United States.  Dodd himself had been a Peace Corps worker at one time, and thought the organization could "assist poor communities in essential areas such as health and education."  Hardly biting at the suggestion, Chávez responded "elliptically," commenting that "perhaps the governments of Latin America should consider a regional effort to fight poverty that would include the Peace Corps."

 

Wild West Border Region

 

If you thought Jesse James and the Wild West was chaotic, take a look at another WikiLeaks cable from 2003 detailing the state of the Colombian-Venezuelan frontier.  In the Venezuelan border state of Táchira, ranchers were concerned about the Bolivarian Liberation Forces or FBL, which they accused of conducting kidnappings.  The right wing Chávez opposition claimed the FBL had ties to the Venezuelan government, a charge vehemently denied by Caracas. 

 

So far more or less easy enough to understand, but according to the U.S. Embassy in Caracas the porous border region had become increasingly anarchic and confused, with fellow leftists turning against each other in nasty internecine battles.  Specifically, leftist camaraderie had broken down between the FBL, operating on the Venezuelan side of the border, and the ELN or Colombian National Liberation Army, operating from the other side of the frontier.

 

U.S. diplomats spoke with a local police chief who said that "terrorist groups had previously respected each others' turf as 'leftist brothers,' but this respect is breaking down, largely the fault of the FBL's 'disregard for business.'"  Local ranchers had become so befuddled by this state of affairs that they now paid extortion money to "multiple groups" but even so still got kidnapped. 

 

Speaking to the Americans, the local Chávez opposition in Táchira claimed that Infrastructure Minister Diosdado Cabello had purchased a farm in the area which was used for training purposes.  When asked to clarify, the Chávez government again vehemently denied the charges.  In concluding, the U.S. ambassador declared "increasingly active and publicized, the FBL is making it difficult for government of Venezuela officials to deny its existence."

For the past year or so, I've been writing steadily about WikiLeaks and U.S. diplomatic correspondence between various American embassies in Latin America and the State Department in Washington, D.C.  It's a bit difficult for one person to stay on top of all the communication back and forth, and WikiLeaks' recent decision to place all of the remaining cables online has made the researchers' work even more of an uphill climb.  In an effort to stay afloat, I decided to sift through many of these cables, taking note of intriguing, incendiary or just plain odd documents which may be worthy of further investigation. 

 

Chávez's Former Wife Herma Marksman

 

At the U.S. Embassy in Caracas, diplomatic staff routinely spoke to the rightist Chávez opposition during the Bush years.  But in 2004, an odd encounter occurred between the Americans and Chávez's former wife, Herma Marksman, who held a rather disparaging view of the Venezuelan president.  Marksman, a history professor who was married to Chávez between 1984 and 1993, told U.S. diplomats that the firebrand populist was ambitious from an early age and "even thought of running the country as a 20 year-old." 

 

Later, as a junior officer, Chávez fell under the influence of Douglas Bravo, a former Communist and guerrilla leader from the 1960s.  According to Marksman it was Bravo, and not Chávez, who developed the political philosophy of the Bolivarian Revolution.  Though Marksman cast Chávez as an intellectual lightweight, she added that he "should not be underestimated."  The Venezuelan was "an excellent storyteller, who often characterizes his opponents as devils, which is a powerful religious symbol to the poor." 

 

According to Marksman, Chávez was unscrupulous, "trusted few people" and "does not have true friends."  If he had a problem, Marksman added, Chávez would only confide in his brother Adan or Cuban leader Fidel Castro.  Marksman remarked cryptically that several individuals within the Chávez government were "dangerous," including some figures in the inner circle such as Diosdado Cabello (for more on him, stay tuned for future posts). 

 

Could the disgruntled Marksman have had some kind of personal or political axe to grind, and why did she agree to speak to the U.S. Embassy in the first place?  It's unclear why the couple split in the 1990s, but diplomats wrote that Marksman may have been unhappy with Chávez's failed coup in 1992 against then president Carlos Andrés Pérez.  "While Marksman's statements may be biased," the Americans wrote, "she does offer a unique perspective into the current president."

 

Chávez's "Half Brother"?

 

Another intriguing cable relates to Jesus Arnaldo Pérez, who was promoted to head the Ministry of Foreign Relations in 2004.  According to U.S. diplomats, Pérez was Hugo's childhood friend, and "rumors abound that he is in fact the President's illegitimate half brother" and had the same father [I can't comment on the veracity of such claims, but for a photo of Pérez, who like Chávez has a wide face, click here].  The Americans wrote that Pérez was born in the town of Veguita in the provincial state of Barinas, close to Hugo's birthplace, and during Pérez's swearing in ceremony the president mentioned that the two had attended school together in Barinas. 

 

Typically, U.S. diplomats refer to figures in the Chávez government in a rather smug and condescending fashion, and their report on Pérez was no exception.  Commenting on Pérez, they remarked that the new Foreign Minister "is neither a convincing orator nor seems to possess a great intellect."  "We see the appointment of Perez as Chávez's desire to surround himself with people who are loyal above all," the embassy concluded. 

 

Perhaps, diplomats such as U.S. ambassador Charles Shapiro simply did not care for officials who would talk back to them.  In March, 2004 Shapiro met with Pérez, who said the U.S.-Venezuelan relationship "could not get worse."  Shapiro tried to reassure Pérez that there was no Bush plan to overthrow the Chávez regime, but "relations could indeed get much worse unless Chávez tempers his anti-U.S. remarks, personal insults and invective."  Predictably, the meeting did not progress much from there amidst recrimination and a cloud of mutual suspicion.

 

Controversial Environmental Record

 

On another, unrelated note certain cables reveal the environmental dimension in Venezuelan politics.  In 2009, the non-governmental organization Conservation International (or CI) decided to close its doors in Venezuela, "saying it wanted to focus on countries where it can have an impact on host government environmental policies."  Speaking to U.S. officials, CI staff said that Venezuela was the only office Conservation International decided to shutter in Latin America.  CI's partners, meanwhile, declared that the outfit's decision to leave represented "an enormous loss" for Venezuela, and left "more than 100 environmental experts with nowhere to go for funding."

 

According to CI, it would be impossible to re-enter Venezuela as long as Chávez remained in office and, in fact, another group called the World Conservation Society had been trying to obtain permission to operate in Venezuela for over a year without success.  Moreover, CI claimed that a proposed "Law on International Cooperation" which would allow the central government to "manage and distribute" all international funding for NGOs, would be "devastating" to environmentalists operating in Venezuela. 

 

Furthermore, CI was obliged to take a "low profile" in Venezuela, otherwise "the government would not have allowed CI to continue its work."  At CI headquarters meanwhile, the top brass was "disgruntled with its inability to work with the Venezuelan government on programs or policy."  Going off on a rant, CI officials stated that the "Ministry of Environment is staffed by radical, anti-US politicians focused on ideology with no funding for, or understanding of, environmental programs."  To add insult to injury, the Venezuelan Park Service had changed directors six times in 12 months and there were "rumors it will be eliminated and not replaced."

 

Even worse, the Venezuelan head of U.S.-based The Nature Conservancy (TNC) said the Chávez regime "would gladly sacrifice US NGO's expertise if they dare to adopt higher profiles in Venezuela as 'the anti-yankee discourse is more important to the government than its work on the environment.'"  TNC was reportedly the only major environmental organization left in Venezuela, and foundations simply did "not trust the Venezuelan government and would not fund projects without an internationally recognized NGO to manage the money."  As a U.S.-based NGO, TNC could not lobby the Venezuelan government, and staffers declined to comment for a New York Times article focusing on the group's work due to "fear of government retaliation."    

 

Perhaps, Venezuela should have encouraged more NGO's to come to the country.  According to a local environmental professor who spoke to the U.S. Embassy, Venezuela had experienced a "dramatic increase in deforestation" as "a direct result of government policies."  Nevertheless, the expert conceded that it was difficult to come by official figures on deforestation because the government did not publish statistics on the matter.  Environmentalists also believed that oil spills were on the increase, but similarly such claims were impossible to verify due to lack of official data.

 

Sarcastically, the U.S. Embassy wrote Washington that "claims that Chávez would be

Venezuela's 'first green president' now ring hollow."  Perhaps, but the U.S. has failed to transfer clean technology to Latin America so as to head off dramatic climate change, and in fact has inveighed against those countries, including Venezuela, which press for tougher legislation to rein in global warming.  Maybe, if Washington is so concerned about protecting the environment, it should help to move Venezuela and others beyond their petroleum-based economies and stop its addiction to Venezuelan oil.