Alan Benjamin’s Betrayal of the Class Struggle
A Compendium of Correspondence
Introductory Note: Our exposé on the work of Alan Benjamin in preventing discussion of the need to build a class struggle response to the current economic crisis is not personal. It is purely political. It highlights our analysis of the Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign (WERC) as a cross-class bloc that has no plans to advance the class struggle. We gave Benjamin and WERC every opportunity to discuss a counter-proposal that would put class struggle methods and program on WERC’s agenda. Instead, Benjamin and company chose to protect and promote the very same class collaborationist methods that have long failed the labor movement.
Organizations such as the International Liaison Committee (ILC or Lambertists), with which Benjamin is affiliated, together with social democrats and Stalinists, have a long history of diverting the workers’ movement into cross-class alliances, to the exclusion of and in opposition to working class independent political action. Keeping the workers’ movement tied to the Democrats, or to any other capitalist political party controlled by the class enemy, is nothing short of a betrayal of the working class.
For revolutionary Marxists, exposing the traitorous role of these fake socialists is essential in the fight for a class struggle program in workers’ organizations. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved, and everything to do with the politics practiced by those individuals. History teaches us that elevating movement unity over political clarity and program is a fools’ path that leads to the defeat of the workers’ movement. It is in this spirit that we are distributing and publishing our critique of WERC and its principal organizer.
For earlier material on WERC and Alan Benjamin, see Flyer Distributed at WERC Teach-In in San Francisco (available in both English and Spanish), and Open Letter to Alan Benjamin. For a more light-hearted approach to the same subject matter, see A Cautionary Fable for Alan Benjamin and Friends.
Alan Benjamin Is a Traitor to the Class Struggle and the Cause of Socialism
Open Letter to the Trade Union Movement and the Left
From HRS Member Dave Winter
May 15, 2009
It is time to reassess and be clear on the character of the Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign (WERC). At the teach-in in San Francisco on May 9, 2009 that was co-sponsored by WERC and the San Francisco Labor Council, it became clear to me that WERC is not simply a cross-class coalition among left groups, Greens, “progressive” Democrats and the union bureaucracy. Misguided as such a coalition would be, the reality is even worse. WERC shows every sign of having been set up from the beginning by the union bureaucracy in San Francisco as a front to tie the workers and the activists to the Democratic Party, and put a stop to any incipient struggles and strikes that could develop in California and get out of control. WERC is the union bureaucracy’s response to the crisis, not that of the left.
Another key point that emerged clearly at the teach-in is that Alan Benjamin is no longer even a right-wing centrist. He is a reformist and right-wing union bureaucrat, who uses left-socialist rhetoric in his emails and his paper, Socialist Organizer, only to cover his ass. Over the last ten years, he has become a central figure in the union bureaucracy, which has entrusted to him the task of muzzling and misleading the working class. To accomplish this, he is now on the Executive Committee of the San Francisco Labor Council. He is a traitor to the revolutionary movement and socialism. He is not any different from all the Stalinists and Social Democrats who betray the working class and the cause of socialism. I ask all our friends and international comrades to denounce him as a traitor to Trotskyism. And as it appears that he remains affiliated with the Lambertists, they must be contacted and asked if they support this class collaboration, because their organization is in a position of influence in the San Francisco Labor Council, and is betraying the working class and stopping it from marching forward.
In an interview given shortly after Obama’s inauguration that was published in Issue 321 of the Lambertists’ online newspaper, the ILC International Newsletter, Benjamin stated that “Trade unionists fighting for a real workers’ economic recovery should be concerned … when Wall Street financiers, particularly those in the new administration, talk about ‘joint sacrifice’ between the workers and the bosses …. The implications of this call for ‘joint sacrifices’ and ‘cohesion’ go way beyond the economy. They touch on the very question of the independence of the trade union movement in relation to the bosses and to the State.” He also noted that “To succeed in their effort to impose their reactionary plans, especially in the aftermath of the historic election that brought Obama to the presidency, the bosses need to co-opt the trade unions into joining them in implementing these attacks through the kind of ‘labor-management cooperation schemes’ that were so destructive in Detroit.” After denouncing the “collaborationist strategy” of Andy Stern, Benjamin opined that “For the trade unions to wage a concerted struggle in support of an economic recovery plan that puts the interests of working people first, it is essential that they remain independent instruments of struggle to advance the specific interests of their members -- that is, independent of the bosses and the politicians who do their bidding. This is their mandate.”
This left-sounding analysis is what Benjamin wants his Lambertist allies to think he believes. But he showed his true colors at the teach-in. Benjamin’s own speech there could easily have been given by Sweeney or any other top labor bureaucrat, and he showed no sign of having any intention to ensure that WERC would remain an “independent instrument of struggle” that was “independent of the bosses and the politicians who do their bidding.” On the contrary, I witnessed an incident at the teach-in that demonstrated where Benjamin’s real loyalty lies. At one point, the moderator of the teach-in mentioned that Eric Mar, who is the supervisor representing San Francisco district 1 and a former member of the San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, was in the audience. Benjamin promptly walked down the aisle and shook Mar’s hand. Mar, an elected Democratic Party politician, was the only person in the audience to whom Benjamin extended this public recognition.
Benjamin gives every appearance of being a rising star within the California union aristocracy. Benjamin is replacing the aging Walter Johnson, and he is to Johnson’s right. The last significant strike in San Francisco that gathered support from the entire working class and union movement took place 14 years ago, when all the unions of the major newspapers walked out. We were involved in this strike, and I still remember Johnson standing on a truck on a street corner in front on the masses, calling for a general strike in support of the strikers. Of course, this was demagogy, and he did not mean what he said, but at least Johnson was willing to play out the normal role of a “left” bureaucrat. Benjamin is also to the right of Tony Mazzocchi, who formed Labor Party Advocates (LPA) in the 1990s. We (as Workers’ Voice) had many criticisms of Mazzocchi, but at least he formed a nationwide organization with the “long term” purpose of forming a reformist labor party.
Today, when the need for massive strikes and workplace occupations is much more urgent than in the 1990s (the days of LPA), the union bureaucracy wants at all costs to avert militant actions and all talk of a labor party. They have chosen Benjamin to carry out this dirty work. His first action was to write a letter to Obama asking him to “bail out the workers instead of the banks.” His second action was to insure that the WERC platform does not call for a break with the Democrats or for a labor or workers’ party. His third action was to make sure that WERC does not call for any strikes, workplace occupations, or other militant working class actions.
This was all reflected at the so-called teach-in. None of the speakers from the podium called for a militant proletariat response to the economic crisis, such as sit-ins or massive strike actions. The analysis of capitalism as a class society that exploits and oppresses the masses, and is responsible for the destruction of the planet, was not dealt with from the podium, even unseriously. It goes without saying that the socialist alternative was not talked about from the podium either, even though many of the teach-in’s organizers call themselves socialists. Despite some sentimental words from the podium celebrating the anniversary of the 1934 San Francisco General Strike, not one of the official speakers even alluded to the possibility that a repetition of such militance might be on the agenda in 2009. The few good speeches that were made came only from the floor, where a few attendees denounced the Democratic Party and called on the labor movement to break with it, and one or two supported the need for massive strikes.
Contributing to my conclusion that the WERC is a creature of the union bureaucracy is the fact that its left supporters play only the role of little helpers. Adam R., who together with Mark V. split from Socialist Appeal to become a semi-reformist circle around the paper Workers Compass, was in charge of the WERC goon squad at the teach-in. His role was to make sure that the people permitted to speak from the floor stayed within their two-minute time limit, and to prevent the circulation in the hall of any literature that disagreed with WERC’s aims. Our group was one of the targets.
The teach-in was organized very professionally by Benjamin and the union bureaucracy so as to muzzle and curtail any left opposition. Even though the bureaucrat who moderated the event (San Francisco Labor Council Vice President Conny Ford) promised that every person would have a chance to speak, and several of our comrades raised their hands, only one of us (a temporarily disabled person on crutches) was allowed to do so. After it became clear that WERC’s cronies would be given the lion’s share of time at the mike, some of our allies and friends left the meeting hall in disgust. Our main speaker decided to speak anyway after they turned off the mike and people started to leave.
Those who attended the teach-in were told that we can only come to the planning meetings for future actions if we become endorsers of WERC. Humanists for Revolutionary Socialism does not intend to betray our principles and the working class by adding our names to WERC’s list of endorsers alongside those of the Progressive Democrats, the Green Party, and Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club. And for what? For the union bureaucracy’s minimum social democratic program; for its refusal to call for the labor party; for its continued support for the Democratic party; and for actions like sending a “please help us” letter asking Obama “to submit to the Congress an economic recovery program that bails out working people.” (Teach-in Program Booklet, page 8.) No, we have no intention of joining in the union bureaucracy’s project of muzzling the working class and tying it to the Democratic Party and capitalism.
It is our duty as socialists is to expose the bureaucracy, and in particular Alan Benjamin, who supports the transitional program on paper, but in reality acts as a traitor to the class struggle and the cause of socialism.
Email exchange between an HWRS member and Alan Benjamin on May 14, 2009
From: HWRS Member
To: Alan Benjamin
Subject: Request invitation to WERC Continuation Committee meeting
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
I was not informed about the WERC’s early meetings where the platform was set. I was not notified by my union or any of the unions that I receive regular bulletins from (CAPS, CTA, SEIU 1000, AFL-CIO) of the existence of the WERC. By the time word of WERC made its rounds on the street the platform was set and the Teach-In was the next event.
I took serious time and read all the posted WERC material, sent a letter to you regarding shortcomings of the platform and the possibility of the watering down of a class struggle program in the interests of keeping WERC palatable to capitalist political parties like the Democrats and Greens who had signed the endorsers list. When there was no response from you or your office I chose to share those comments with other endorsers of the WERC and the left organizations. My next effort was to construct a counter proposal to the WERC platform which has been endorsed by my circle or co-thinkers, a number of independent working class and union militants as well as the Progressive Teachers of Richmond (a militant caucus inside the UTR/CTA who have been in struggle against a do-nothing union leadership which refuses to seriously fight the layoffs, school closures and cutbacks in our school district).
When I brought this counter proposal to the WERC Teach-In I was informed that the Teach-In was not a voting body and that if we wanted this discussed it would need to be raised at the continuations committee. When one of the counter proposal endorsers approached you and asked that I be given time to address the Teach-In from the podium on the subject matter of the counter proposal you told her that I could not speak from the podium but that everyone would be given an opportunity to speak from the floor. However I was never called on to speak from the floor and had to resort to speaking without aid of audio assistance, after adjournment, while chairs were being piled up and the participants were leaving. During my preparation to speak it was made clear to me that Bill L. (big guy dressed in denim and wearing a Teamsters hat) was prepared to prevent me from speaking so a petite woman and a disabled supporter came to defend me from Mr. Bill L. while I spoke.
Under further inquiry it was explained by Dave W., and clearly pointed out in the Teach-In booklet that to participate in the continuations committee one (or a group) would need to endorse the existing platform. This is where a seeming Catch-22 has been written into the framework of your organizational structure. The WERC continuations meeting is not open to all trade unionists however it is open to capitalist party politicians who find the platform palatable.
This built in exclusionary requirement for endorsement of the existing platform appears to be designed to prevent trade union militants from advancing a strategy of class struggle strike actions and nationalization under workers’ control (of failing financial, credit and industrial enterprises). It is my intention to put this alternate platform and course of action up for discussion and vote at WERC continuations committee but if entry is limited to those who endorse the platform as it currently exists, my presence at the committee will not be allowed.
This Kafkaesque double bind that you have constructed to protect the WERC from democratic participation by worker militants with legitimate concerns about the road forward for building a militant working class struggle against capitalist solutions to the current economic break down should be reconsidered to allow the broadest possible discussion of class struggle strategies and tactics. Otherwise we will have to conclude that the WERC is merely a construct of the union bureaucracy to prevent workers from following the examples set by our brothers and sisters at the Republic Windows and Doors Factory in Chicago, the working class of Martinique, Guadaloupe and in France where General Strikes were the response of the working class to the current crisis.
I request that I be given an invitation to attend the continuations committee and present the counter proposal, despite not endorsing the platform as it currently exists. If the intention of WERC is to confront the power structure of capitalism the broadest discussion of strategy, tactics and platform is necessary. On the other hand if the WERC is designed to keep a lid on the class struggle by promoting, as Clarence Thomas declared at the Teach-In, a “one foot in, one foot out (of the Democratic Party) strategy”; and an economic plan which calls for nationalizations of key sectors of the economy into public utilities (that obfuscates the class nature of the state which will only use nationalization as a last resort in the interest of protecting capital as a class at the expense of individual failed capitalists and working class), then it is understandable that the WERC continuations committee would not welcome a class struggle advocate at their meeting and that I clearly understand.
Please respond to my request for the right to attend the continuations committee by 7pm tonight Thursday May 14th, so that I can make the necessary plans to attend.
In Struggle
[HWRS Member]
[California state employee and union member]
From: Alan Benjamin
Subject: Reply to [HWRS member] from May 9 Teach-In Coordinators
Dear [HWRS member]:
We want to respond to your communication dated May 14, 2009.
First, we regret that you were not able to speak at the May 9 teach-in. There were many others who also did not get an opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, we were compelled to end the teach-in at 5:00 because of an event scheduled to begin in the same room at 6:00, and we needed time for clean-up. We do wish to note, however, that a member of your political organization, Sarah [L.], did get a chance to speak.
Second, we would like to clarify the nature of the teach-in and your relation to it. This was a united-front effort, initiated jointly by the Bay Area Labor Councils and the Workers Emergency Recovery Campaign (WERC) to (1) promote a number of platform demands that were agreed to jointly by more than 60 endorsing organizations and (2) organize mass actions to advance these demands.
As you acknowledge, the teach-in was organized on the basis of a specific platform. You state in your communication: “This built in exclusionary requirement for endorsement of the existing platform appears to be designed to prevent trade union militants from advancing a strategy of class struggle strike actions and nationalization under workers’ control.”
Your criticism is completely misdirected. Many organizations that call for strike actions and nationalization under workers’ control have endorsed this teach-in; they simply agree not to make these planks a pre-condition for organizing and mobilizing around a specific set of fighting demands aimed at building a united fightback in defense of the interests of working people. They agree not to impose their full political program in the interest of building an action-oriented united front to defend the interests of working people.
In your case you explicitly state you that disagree with this platform and this objective of promoting mass actions. You have excluded yourself from this process.
We encourage you to organize your own campaign around your own platform. We will not come to your meetings and insist that you abandon your platform and endorse ours. In this period of crisis, we believe it is both natural and healthy for there to be different approaches and solutions to the problems confronting working people. We believe it is particularly important that each group or coalition respect the rights of others to construct their own analyses and offer their own prescriptions concerning how to proceed.
Therefore, the teach-in Organizing Committee – and soon the Continuations Committee of the teach-in – will continue to schedule meetings around the political platform that we have developed and continue to insist that basic agreement with this platform remain a condition for participation in our planning meetings.
We want to encourage you to do the same by developing your own platform and organizing your own meetings around it. We believe that only in this way can we maximize the prospects of mobilizing the working class to defend its own interests.
Sincerely,
Alan Benjamin, Bill Leumer and Denis Mosgofian,
On behalf of the May 9 Teach-in Coordinators