IJ@
International Journal of Anarchism
ifa-Solidaritet - folkebladet - © ISSN 0800-0220 - electronic issues ISSN 1890-9485 since 2009 - no 1 (46) editor H. Fagerhus
Bulletin of the Anarchist International
Neither
Washington Nor Stowe
Common
Sense For The Working Vermonter
[A
Libertarian-Socialist Manifesto]
By The
Green Mountain Anarchist Collective*
Montpelier, Vermont
Third Revised Decade
Edition
2004-2014
First Printed in the
Catamount Tavern News, 2004
Table of Contents
I.
Note On The Revised Editions, 2014
& 2007
II.
Introduction
III.
A Peoples History
IV.
The Yoke of Washington and Wall street
V.
The Yoke Within
VI.
A Second Vermont Revolution
VII.
Town Meeting
VIII.
The Farmers
IX.
The Workplace
X.
Freedom & unity
XI.
A peoples’ Bill of Rights
XII.
The Worth of Labor and Exchange
XIII.
Self Determination For The Abenaki
XIV.
In Defense of Freedom
XV.
Vermont as a Northern Star
XVI.
The Vermont Spring
XVII.
End Notes
XVIII.About the
Authors
XIX.
VT Demographics and Facts
XX.
VT Directory of Peoples’ Organizations
I.
Note on The
Third Revised Edition:
This edition is intended for print ten
years after the original. We have kept
most of the text as it appeared in 2004 and then in 2007. One difference is changes to the chapter
“Self Determination For The Abenaki.” On this issues our
views have evolved, and this is reflected herein. We have also added some footnotes and other
minor changes to update some basic points as the social and political
developments in Vermont demand. Despite
the revisions seen in this edition (and those seen in the 2007 edition), our
basic views have remained the same.
Vermont continues to be a unique, democratic, and progressive place
along the Northeastern fringe of the American Empire, and we remain committed
to cultivating these qualities in order to bring about the full bloom of
liberty. We, as fellow Vermonters,
invite you to agree. Together we will
win!
-The
Green Mountain Anarchist Collective, 2014
Note On The Second Revised Edition
(As Printed in The 2007 Version)
This second edition of Neither Washington Nor Stowe has been greatly expanded and revised. We
understand this edition to be more comprehensive than previous editions. However, the original document was written and published in 2004. At that time
the Montpelier Downtown Workers’ Union (MDWU) was organizing across the capital
and was winning real power for working people in strides. Since then, for
reasons which are beyond the scope of this document, the union has folded and
exists only in memory. In other words, there have been changes in Vermont’s
social movement since 2004. With this in mind we have tried to update the
document where we can or at least insert dates and years as reference points
for events or organizations. Even so, the sections on the MDWU remain, more or
less, as written in 2004. We have decided to retain them as they map out a
realistic model for future organizing.
-The
Green Mountain Anarchist Collective, 2007
Neither Washington Nor
Stowe
Common Sense For The
Working Vermonter
[A Libertarian-Socialist Manifesto]
II.
Introduction:
III.
A Peoples’
History:
More recently,
we have lead the nation on such basic issues as providing healthcare for
children, raising the minimum wage, civil unions, legalization of medical
marijuana, mandatory labeling of genetically modified seeds & food, and we
are the first State in the Nation [2006] to elect a Socialist, Bernie Sanders
to the U.S. Senate [1]. Vermont is also the only U.S. State with a strong and
viable Third Parties [as of 2014, the Social-Democratic VT Progressive Party
has 10 persons elected to the VT House & VT Senate, as well as one person
elected to Statewide office: Doug Hoffer as State Auditor]. In addition, the
far left VT Liberty Union Party is also considered a Major Party.] Being in
front of other regions, demanding more for the common good than the poverty of
global capitalism normally allows for is both our birthright, and historical
calling. But, being a pace in front of a slow runner is not good enough to
guarantee the maintenance of our way of life, nor the emergence of a freer,
equitable society beyond the shackles of international corporations and their
two national political parties.
In a word, while
the statue of the Greek goddess of agriculture still looms above the State House, our farms are
quickly disappearing. From 10,000 family operated
dairy farms a generation ago to only 1,200 today [2004], “free trade” and the
corporate takeover of agriculture have driven us to fight for the very survival
of this dignified way of life. Our once powerful manufacturing base, which
formally included highly productive machine shops from Brattleboro to
Springfield to Newport has faded, moving to the super
exploited markets of China and Mexico. To fill the void, the tourist industry
(ski resorts, hotels, retail shops, restaurants, etc.) has emerged as a major
employer. Unfortunately, this shift has emerged as the mass substitution of
dignified, good paying jobs with benefits (the type that you can raise a family
on) for those that pay close to the minimum wage, carry few if any benefits,
and demand that us working Vermonters smile, dance, and entertain those upper
middle class and wealthy out of state tourists who view Vermont as little more
than their quaint New England theme park.
So the question
becomes, where are we now? If we retain our current trajectory will the Vermont
we leave to our grandchildren resemble that which we were raised in? Will farms
still dot our hills, or will our red barns be replaced with more ski resorts,
chain stores, and inns for the rich? If the latter becomes true, we must
recognize the fact that future Vermonters will be compelled to get by on no
more than minimum wage, little or no healthcare, and the confines placed on our
tradition of democracy by corporate control and federal dictates. The bottom
line is that we, as the majority, are standing at a crossroads at which we can
choose the path of capitalist homogenization, or, rather, lead the way back
towards direct democracy, local control, and the social advancement of the
common good.
IV.
The Yoke of
Washington and Wall Street:
Our labor is
used not as a means to uplift society as a whole, but as a tool to make a
select few very rich. On the job, we are often compelled to work under the near
dictatorship of the boss. Even when we work for ourselves, we are still
dictated to by the wealthy that hire us, the corporations who subcontract us,
as well as the ebb and flow of the capitalist economy. In short, we are compelled
to engage in work in order to create a massive overall profit that we will
never see, and if we don’t like it, and we speak up, we face the likelihood of
being fired. The schools teach us that this is democracy. For forty to sixty
hours a week we live under a dictatorship in our workplaces,
and this is acceptable?
Insofar as
social and economic policy is concerned, the federal politicians, who are
usually bought and paid for by the rich, don’t ask what we think or what we
want. Instead they take into account the “needs” of the owners. They pass
legislation that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, and adopt trade
agreements that translate into the foreclosure of family farms and the
relocation of factories to countries and states where workers have even less
rights, and where wages are even lower than they are here. And again, these
politicians write laws that allow the rich to skip out on paying their share of
taxes, and instead rely on us working class folk to foot the federal bill. And
what do we receive in exchange for such taxes? Healthcare?
Affordable housing? Free higher
education? No. Our money is used, by enlarge, to subsidize the
corporations, and to build bombs and tanks that are deployed at the whim of the
President and in the interests of the elite. [2]
Even in the larger picture we are being
screwed by the out of state corporations and the feds. While we struggle to get
by on the sweat of our labor, our raw materials (milk, timber, granite,
produce, tourist monies, etc) are, on the one hand,
shipped out of state for refinement and then shipped back to be sold to us at a
profit that we will never see. On the other hand, much of the accumulated
capital, from among other things, the tourist industry is carpeted off to banks
and rich people who have never even stepped foot in the Green Mountains. In
this way, Vermont has the same economic relation with the U.S. as that of a
colonial possession. Just as the American Colonies (and much of the world) came
to understand such a colonial relationship to be detrimental to the social,
economic, and political well-being of their citizens, so too do increasing
numbers of conscientious Vermonters.
In essence, the
federal government demands that we provide them with money,
send our children to die in their wars, sacrifice our rights for the profit of
the few, and to do so without complaining. This is the directive of Washington
DC and Wall Street, and this is the yoke which is placed over the neck of the
working people of both Vermont, the rest of the nation, and much of the world.
So do we learn to live with this yoke, or should we seek to break it – once and
for all?
V.
The Yoke Within:
For example, let us take a look at the case of Stowe.
Nestled on the busy thoroughfare of Rt. 100 and in the shadow of Mount
Mansfield, this quaint village represents, to many of us working Vermonters,
what is wrong with the current set up. Million dollar second homes for the
wealthy of Toronto, Connecticut and beyond dot the hills. Workers from
Morrisville, Hardwick and Elmore make the daily trudge to labor in the tourist
shops that line Main Street, to staff the ski resorts, to manicure the lawns of
the rich, and wait on them hand and foot at their catered parties. This Vermont
theme park for mostly rich out-of-staters has grown so large in its scale of
operation that hard working people of the surrounding towns cannot perform all
of the necessary labor to keep the lazy rich people content. Hard working folk
from Jamaica and other countries are recruited to staff the tourist industry.
Young working people, who travel around the country working at resorts just so
they can afford to ski or snowboard, sell themselves into a glorified form of
indentured servitude for a season. Working people from around
the country who immigrate to our Green Mountains for their beauty and quiet end
up facing the ugly crowds of the tourist busses and their shrill chatter while
ringing them up at the register.
In this poker game we see the workers
whose cards leave them with only their wits to play the game, and the wealthy
flatlanders always with a royal flush in hand; but there is another character
whose hand is at play and who shuffles the cards to keep the deck stacked
against the common Vermonter. That is to say, there is the local elite who own
the hotels, the restaurants, the big landscaping companies, the real estate
firms, the car dealerships. There is a local status quo in power in Stowe and
Montpelier, in Brattleboro and Killington, and throughout Vermont who profit
off the maintenance of this system of exploitation and inequity. While they
play real hard at trying to maintain the image of regular good ol’ Vermonters just like everyone else, their interests
(and profit margins) lie more in tune with the wealthy, both here and
out-of-state, than with us workers, be we Vermont born and raised, or recent
arrivals to the Green Mountains.
Here is the picture: A small dairy farmer
signs off on the foreclosure of a family farm as old as the independent
Republic of Vermont while an entrepreneur in Stowe celebrates the acquisition
of a new shop at which common Vermonters will labor for poor wages to make him
richer. A Vermont National Guardsman in Iraq gets blown up by a bomb while a
member of The Cody family (owner of several Washington County car dealerships
among other businesses) sits comfortably and safely behind a desk as a Four
Star General in the US army. A carpenter hitchhikes to the jobsite because he
can’t afford to get his car fixed until next week, let alone pay for the
skyrocketing gas prices, while “caring” capitalists Ben and Jerry make a
shitload selling their company to the multi-national corporation Unilever. Our
good ol’ boy Governor Jim Douglas gives $350,000 of
our tax dollars to the ski industry to subsidize their advertising costs while
he scolds dairy farmers asking for a $500,000 investment to buy their own dairy
processing plant. [*circa 2004] The liberal led government of Burlington does
some remodeling to bring in department stores and fancy boutiques while a
family in the old North End has to sell off their home because yuppies have
driven up the property taxes.
There are, in
fact, two Vermont’s: one of wealth and privilege, and one of hard work and
sweat. If Vermonters have any chance of success against the forces of
Washington and Wall Street, the battle must start in our own backyard against
the business and political elite of Montpelier and Stowe. We must guard against
the sly maneuvers of both the conservative and the liberal status quo in
Vermont, and fight to win more power for ourselves in our towns and workplaces.
Could our efforts ever cultivate a harvest hardy enough to withstand the
strong, cold winds of Washington and Wall Street if we do not till our fields
first? Can you start a good sugaring season without first cleaning out your sap
buckets? The answer is no. There will be no victory over the enemy without
before there is victory over the enemy within. For it is the
privileged and powerful locally and their dupes who will stand as the first
serious line of defense for the privileged and powerful classes in general.
So do we bow our heads, mutter curses under our breath, and continue to subsist
on the scraps they throw to us- or do we dare to struggle and dare to win
against the local elite?
VI.
A Second Vermont
Revolution:
So, what is to be done? We can choose a
different way; a way that will allow our grandchildren to experience the
independence, democracy, self-sufficiency, and natural beauty that are the
gifts handed down from our common ancestors. If we choose this path to freedom,
we can set our course in such a manner that our future will not be simply a
still life of the past, but one that reflects new possibilities for equality,
direct democracy, and social stability. There is no reason in the world that we
cannot both honor the past, while paying homage to a future wherein all
Vermonters are allowed, among other things, free access to healthcare, higher education, housing,
childcare, and decent jobs. This is the trick; remaining true to our roots
while capturing the spoils of technology and the potential of social
cooperation. So what would such a Vermont look like, and how do we get there?
Well, the seed of such a place is already in our hearts, and through such, has
already begun to show signs of germination.
Back in the
1700’s, before Vermont was a state, we practiced a form of direct democracy
through an empowered Town Meeting system. Imagine for a moment that the
legislature didn’t meet in Montpelier. Imagine, in fact, that there is no
legislature at all. Instead envision a system working throughout all the Green
Mountains whereby all major decisions are made through local Town Meetings. Now
of course one, or two, or even 30 Town Meetings don’t have, nor should they
have, the power to impose their views on all of us. However, would it not be
more representational of our collective general will if a majority of towns
voted to pass a certain regulation, law, or resolution? Well, that is how the
early years of Vermont were defined and that is how the great American
revolutionary Thomas Paine believed it should be. In other words, we used to
all get together in our different communities in order to discuss, debate, and
publicly vote on all the big issues that affected Vermont as a whole. And if a
majority of towns passed something, it was considered a done deal. And again,
the way in which they tallied votes was to have representatives of every town
meet in order to report what the majority of their community felt was best.
Of course,
Vermont is a different place than it was back in 1776. No longer are the
majority of us small farmers, and therefore our own bosses. Today, Vermont is a
place where most of us work for someone else, and where the remaining farms
have to struggle to remain viable in the larger capitalist world. In short,
Vermont, like nearly everywhere else in the modern world, is a society divided
by economic classes, and again by the interests of the large population
centers, like Burlington, as opposed to the small rural communities. Therefore,
the rebirth of our tradition of direct democracy would have to take these
factors into account.
VII.
Town Meeting:
We have witnessed the reinvigoration of our Town Meeting
system since the 1980s. What began as towns passing resolutions against the
perceived dangers of nuclear weapons has grown into a widespread movement of
communities taking stands on any number of issues. Now a days it is common for
us to pass resolutions for or against any number of issues; be it against GMO
foods, for or against Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant [closed down in 2014],
in support of the Bill of Rights (and against the USA PATRIOT Act), in favor of
wind power and other renewable energy sources, in favor of universal health
care, for the impeachment of the US president, in favor of pulling the VT
National Guard out of Iraq, etc. These resolutions have been declared
“non-binding” by the state government and are viewed by some simply as a way
for common people to make their views known to the General Assembly. On the
other hand, the statewide debate over Act 60 (the law which is intended to
provide poorer children as good an education as rich children) witnessed a
remarkable chain of events. During the height of the debate, a small number of
wealthy towns (West Dover, Stowe, etc.) voted to withhold their property tax
money from Montpelier while they were fighting to restore the old system. These
rich towns were generally motivated by self-interest and greed (not wanting
“their” money to be spent on text books for lower income children in Hardwick,
etc.), but at the same time, their actions demonstrated a new emerging resolve
among towns to reassert their own sovereignty over that of the Capital.
The future
re-establishment of direct democracy in the Green Mountains will, in a large
part, rely on the extension of the power of Town Meeting, though be it a power
aimed at utilitarian ends – not economic chauvinism. But how will this be
achieved? One thing is clear, the politicians in Montpelier will not simply
hand it to us. Our only chance at winning will be through the coordination of a
statewide movement, based in the towns, which seeks to extend our local
authority with or without the approval of Montpelier. Imagine if you will a
statewide effort to place a resolution on the majority of Town Meeting agendas
which declared that:
‘When and if fifty percent, plus one, towns/cities
representing a majority of Vermonters pass any given resolution, all local
revenue and cooperation will be withheld from the State government until such
time as that resolution becomes the common practice of the land.’
It will be
through such an effort that we will begin to reclaim our democratic traditions
that have been obscured through 200 years of capitalist centralization and
upper class domination of the political system. In order for us to do this, we
must begin to bring such self-empowering resolutions to our various Town
Meetings. We can do this individually, town by town, or through the formation
of a large non-sectarian coalition of those networks of Vermonters, Rural
Vermont, the anti and even pro Vermont Yankee groups, the anti-Patriot Act
organizations, the anti-war coalition, which are already mobilized and capable
of getting resolutions placed on a good many Town Meeting agendas. Would such
an empowered Town Meeting system translate into a direct democracy in and of
itself? Given the modern basis of our economy, as well as the diverging
interests of the remaining farmers, and other working class people, it would
seem reasonable that such an empowered town meeting system would only be one
part of the equation. If we are to truly and honestly help build a freer and
democratic Vermont, we would do well to find ways to extend this direct
democracy to the farm and the workplace.
VIII.
The Farmers:
Farming has always been a part of our
culture. Let us remember that the legendary Green Mountain Boys, who were the
scourge of New York authority and the British at Ticonderoga, were no more than
small farmers themselves. In our past it was these homesteaders who, when
needed, banded together to fight the good fight for the common cause. Today
their struggles tend to be against the large capitalist agribusiness. Where
they once fought Red Coats and Sheriffs, they now fight against the unfair trade
policies of NAFTA, the FTAA, and federal and state politicians who time and
again sell them out to their capitalist underwriters. Only one thing remains
the same
they are still fighting for their free existence.
While we have
lost many farms throughout this long fight, those that remain have begun to
organize. To date, over 300 farms have come together to create the Dairy
Farmers of Vermont (DFV). This group represents a staggering eight hundred and
fifty million pounds of raw Vermont milk (or one third of all that is produced
in the state). DFV, which was formed in an old barn in the Northeast Kingdom,
is presently fighting for the rights of Vermont farmers generally, for higher
wholesale prices (with the aid of organized labor), and as of the fall of 2006
has opened a farmer owned dairy processing plant in Hardwick called the Vermont
Milk Company. In line with our traditions, DFV operate according to directly
democratic principles. In other words, no decisions are final until they are
brought before a vote of all the members. And here the rule is one farmer, one
vote. Likewise, their processing plant, which pays farms several dollars more
per hundred weight for raw milk than their corporate
counterparts, is run democratically by farmers themselves through a farmer
board of directors.
Whereas it is way too early to know the full extent of what
victories DFV will ultimately win, and although we cannot say for certain how
this organization will grow in the coming years, we can say this: the more
farmers are organized, the more power they will have when confronting corporate
America. In the past, when most Vermonters grew crops and kept livestock, we
could count on Town Meeting to voice their unique concerns and interests.
However, because of the changing economic landscape, we cannot do so now.
Today, many farms are isolated in communities that increasingly rely on tourism
and other industries for jobs and revenue. Therefore, farmers’ voices are often
drowned out in the multitude of other perspectives. For this reason we need to
support such democratic farmers’ groups as DFV. As long as we value this
important link to our past, and as long as self-reliance remains a Vermont
ideal and goal, we must support those emerging institutions that fight for the
preservation of local, small, agriculture. And besides, if one of our goals to
provide healthy food for ourselves and our children, should that food not, when
possible, be cultivated right here where we can both watch it grow and take
pride in knowing those who produce it?
We may agree that all this is desirable, how does it relate
to the broader picture of a more free and democratic Vermont? Well, the present
course of the DFV, and other like-minded farmer groups, is similar to what we
see happening in the Town Meeting movement. These groups are the nucleus of
democratic change, and, by virtue of their existence, demonstrate the potential
for expansion. It is conceivable that the DFV or a future organization will
extend their membership to other farmers (not just those in dairy). And imagine, if you will, that after winning more concrete gains they
were to reorganize themselves into local, countywide sections. Each one meeting several times a year and operating, like Town
Meeting, according to directly democratic principles. Let us imagine
that such an organization began to develop strong means of communication with
the Town Meeting movement. Could we not expect such an organization to
eventually run and regulate agriculture on a local and statewide basis the same
way that an empowered Town Meeting system would give voice to the concerns of
the residents of local communities? From our standpoint, the answer must be a
hardy yes!
Of course, such a direct democracy of agriculture would
have to be solidly based on a just foundation. Therefore the individual farms
would do well to be managed democratically with all those who work the land and
machines being themselves empowered to articulate the relations in which they
labor. And here let it be clear that we do not call for something that is very
different from our current practices. Is it not true that most our farms are
worked by a single family? Don’t the adult members of those families already
operate according to the natural give and take of family decision making? Would
not these small farms who currently hire a few field hands be stronger by
incorporating their ideas, perspectives, and energy more thoroughly into the
operation? The answer to these questions are again
yes. If we achieve such democracy, both directly on the farm and in the
countywide organizations, we will be well down the road of achieving real
democracy across Vermont. However, for this saga to begin to reach completion
we would have to first also address the concerns of those who labor off the
farms, in the factories, in the shops, and on construction sites. For if the
democracy we envision ends in the Town Halls, and on the farms, many of us
would still be left in the shadow of alienation of servitude during the near
daily nine to five.
IX.
The Workplace:
When most Vermonters were farmers, many of
us belonged to the local Grange. Today, most Vermonters work in other
industries, and many of us belong to unions. Right now tens of thousands of us
are union members. Of Vermont’s total population of just over 600,000 it is
estimated that 100,000 people are either union members, retired union members,
or immediate family members of the two. More than 10,000 state workers and
retirees belong to the VSEA. 10,000 more belong to AFL-CIO, including many
ironworkers, plumbers, writers, factory workers, communication workers,
carpenters, and nurses. The independent United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers (UE) claims hundreds of members across these mountains, and the
National Educators Association (NEA) claims thousands more. In a word, large
sections of working Vermonters are organized across the region in numerous
sectors. And again, over the last decade many of these unions have come
together in the spirit of mutual aid by becoming members of the Vermont
Workers’ Center coalition.
The Worker’s
Center, like the Dairy Farmers of Vermont, and in the tradition of Town
Meeting, operates as a democratic organization. Affiliated members (unions,
some social justice groups, and individual working class people) have a vote on
a steering committee that sets the priorities and political positions of the
center. [3] Here, under one big tent, working people are able to come together
in common cause in order to fight for that which the capitalist economy is
loath to grant them: better pay, more democracy at work, and social justice has
become not just the struggle of isolated people or separate unions, but the
common fight of an increasingly united working class. And as this spirit of
solidarity has been kindled among worker organizations, it has had a
reverberating effect upon the elected union leadership. In 2003 the Vermont
AFL-CIO elected a reform, pro-democracy, candidate to serve as State President.
[4]
However, as Vermont’s manufacturing base has eroded due to
corporate greed and the federal policies of so called free trade, this sector
has been increasingly replaced by low paying service and retail jobs. And here,
union concentration (and decent wages and benefits) has been seriously
challenged. This shift in the economy of course presents a unique set of
challenges to the Vermont working class movement.
In response to
this the Vermont Workers’ Center in cooperation with the UE helped to launch a
historic citywide union drive aimed at the 800 service and retail workers of
the capital city. In 2003 the Montpelier Downtown Workers Union (UE Amalgamated
Local 221) was formed, and today the union has won contracts in two shops, is
promising two more by the fall, has members in more than a dozen other shops,
prints a monthly newspaper for area workers, and has established a citywide
steward system and grievance procedure. [5]
Like Town
Meetings and DFV, this young and innovative union has organized itself as a
truly democratic voice in the community. Instead of taking the dictums of the
bosses at face value, they have begun to create a directly democratic space
through which workers are free to hold meetings of their own, and therefore
begin to decide how they think things should be run. The days of politicians, the
rich, and the Chamber of Commerce calling all the shots may be numbered after
all.
This past April [2004], the union held a Workers’ Town
Meeting at which union members from more than a dozen different city shops
participated. At the meeting, the working conditions of the area service and
retail sector were discussed, as were various strategies for how they could
advance their social visions and economic demands. It was there that members
debated and then democratically voted to establish the citywide grievance
procedure, and to form a Workers’ Defense Squad. These facets of the union are
now beginning to be utilized by workers across Montpelier as a means of
building further democracy, fighting the bosses, and gaining social respect.
Tellingly, the Defense Squad, which in principle is the direct action wing of
the union dedicated to supporting the grievance procedure, is made up of not
only members of the Downtown Workers’ Union, but allied members of other area
unions such as the Carpenters, the Teamsters, the Nurses, the NEA, and the
Printers (all of which are members of the Workers’ Center coalition).
While this new union still has far to go on the road to the
empowerment of the Montpelier working class, it cannot be stressed enough that
their initial successes carry positive ramifications for workers across
Vermont. As word of their victories spread throughout the hills, it is possible
that workers in other cities and towns will follow suit. And as they begin to
build such democratic unions across the state, there can be no doubt that the
voice of the common woman and man will begin to eclipse that of the
politicians, landlords, and wealthy. [6]
Okay, so the question again becomes, exactly how does the
building of new democratic worker organizations, and
development of inter-union solidarity relate to the overall task of
transforming Vermont for the better? Aside from the fact that unionized workers
have job security, better pay (on average), and more democracy on the job than
their nonunion counterparts, the above discussed developments in the labor
movement seem to point to a broader trend. First of all, the more established
unions are becoming open to more internal democracy. Second, the example of the
Montpelier Downtown Workers’ Union shows the potential for building new,
directly democratic unions among the ranks of low paid workers. And third, the
emerging sense of organized class solidarity would seem to allow for a more
dynamic labor movement then could previously be expected. These three
developments point to new possibilities. Case in point is the recent rise of
worker cooperatives across the state, of which there are currently 10
intermittently located between Brattleboro in the south, and Burlington to the
North. [*circa 2006]. Could this not be a sign of a
future that is yet to take full form? [7]
Even so, could it not be argued that when and if the Town
Meeting system is further empowered that us workers will no longer need the
protection of labor unions? This, in that they as the
majority class, will be fairly represented through their communities.
While it is true that workers are the majority, it is also true that many
towns, like Stowe, entail hundreds of workers who do not, and/or cannot live
where they work. Therefore, in order to give a voice to those, who by their
labor, make the functioning of that community possible, we must recognize the
absolute need for the integration of worker organizations with the Town Meeting
system. Union plus Town Meeting equals Democracy! In addition, it is hard to
imagine a situation where the power of Town Meeting and farmer organizations
are effectively expanded without the further maturity of the Vermont labor
movement. In a sense, for any one of these interests to have a chance at
superseding the power of the rich and that of the General Assembly, they must
all develop together, as supporting beams of a united and popular movement.
While the towns have the power to withhold cooperation with the centralized
government, and the farmers the strategic ability to control local food
production, us workers, through our organizations,
have the all-important ability to withhold our labor. Without our
participation, NOTHING in Vermont, or the world for that matter, other than the
rising and setting of the sun, could continue to function. Without our
participation capitalism and the system of government that has come to
underwrite it, would crumble.
With this being said, after the Downtown Workers’ Union or
future like organizations reach an advanced level of maturity, they should seek
to develop further ties with the rank and file of other unions also located in
the same city or town. In the case of the Montpelier Downtown Workers’ Union,
maybe this will be partially achieved through the ongoing inter-union work of
the Defense Squad. Maybe this squad will eventually develop into an action
committee, which does not confine itself to the
struggles of local 221. It is possible that it will emerge as a committee that
is prepared to take direct action in defense of all Montpelier workers, those
from different unions, and those that are yet to belong to a union. [8] And
again, as such relations of mutual aid develop, however they come about, is it
not possible that some crucial worker related issue will come to the surface
which compels all the unions of Montpelier to come together in one great
workers’ council?[9] For the moment, the eyes of
Vermont are on these workers, and it is up to them to set the example for
struggles that have not yet risen to the surface.
As the fight
goes on, we shall see what happens. But one way or another
workers all across the Green Mountains, would do well to come together
in such organizations. In a word, if you work in a nonunion shop, talk with
your coworkers and form a union. If you are already in a union, get involved
with it, fight to make it more democratic, and if it hasn’t already become a
member of the Workers’ Center, propose to your membership that you join today.
And of course, while we struggle to win mid-term bread and butter victories for
our class, we must seek to integrate unions into local and statewide networks
of mutual aid, capable of making political decisions, engaging in effective
strategies, and nurturing internal practices consistent with direct democracy.
If we achieve all this, could we not assume that it will be us workers who one
day will be in a position to self-manage the sectors of the economy we already
know so well? Just as we must struggle to create farmer organizations that are
capable of coordinating Vermont’s basic food production, we must do what we can
to bring more of our fellow workers into the organized fold, while transforming
our existing unions from within, into bodies that are capable of holding
production together without the exploitive presence of corporate owners and
thick headed bosses.
In summation, a
good union is no different than Town Meeting; it is a form of Town Meeting that
is daily reinforced through activities on the shop floor and finds its larger
expression through the integrated efforts of workers across industrial lines.
When we were all farmers we met in Town Hall to decide our own fate. Today, all
that has changed is that we now work in hundreds of different jobs, often in
towns where we do not live, and the communal place where we go to make
decisions has come to include our Union Halls. As the fight to regain our
democratic freedom comes full circle, we must recognize that it is impossible
to recreate the past; one cannot step in the same river twice. Our world has
changed, and with it the directly democratic process of Town Meeting must come
to include countywide farmer organizations, and integrated worker councils. It
will be through these three pillars of democracy that we will again come to
know the dignity, responsibility and privilege that comes
with a truly free and empowered people.
X.
Freedom and
Unity:
Town Meeting, democratic farmer organizations, and worker councils; these are the
three building blocks of a free and prosperous Vermont. Each of these
organizations, both at a local and regional level, would stand for the
organized interests of the people. But in and of themselves these organizations
do not necessarily translate into a functional direct democracy. If we cannot
find a way to tie them all together, we will be left in the quagmire of having
three separate, though popular, institutions. If this were the case it can be
assumed that they would inevitably compete with each other for overall
sovereignty, and in the process they could fail to surmount the powers of
Washington, Wall Street, and the State. Let us recall that in a divided house,
the tyrant remains king.
Therefore, we must find ways through which all three are
integrated into one functioning system. Ideally, each body would represent one
vote. For any decision to be made, we could require that two out of three of
the bodies vote in its favor. In other words, if a single town, or a small
number of adjacent towns sought to pass a resolution that would only affect
those communities, we could require that both the farmer organization(s), and
the worker councils that exist in those communities also debate and vote on the
issue. If two out of three vote in favor, then it should be done. Conversely,
the farmer organizations or worker councils could also bring issues to the
fore, which the related Town Meetings would have to vote on. And again, when
decisions have to be made on a broader level, we can require that all three
bodies vote on the question at hand during something akin to a greatly empowered
Vermont wide Town Meeting Day. Of course, most members of society will have two
votes; one through the town where they live, and the other either in their
local worker council or county farmer organization. Therefore, in order for
such big decisions to be democratically made, the general meetings of these
bodies would have to be staggered. For example, on the first Tuesday of every
March, all the towns would hold their meetings. A week later the farmers would
hold their county meetings. A week after that, the worker councils would hold
their meetings. If a majority of towns, which represent a majority of
Vermonters, passed a given resolution then it would register that the towns,
collectively, voted yes. If a majority of the county based farmer organizations,
representing a majority of farmers, passed a resolution, then it too would be
considered a yes vote. And again, if a majority of worker councils,
representing a majority of workers, passed a resolution, then it would be
counted as a yes vote. There are several options for how resolutions would
become law. A Vermont-wide resolution could be considered law if a majority in
two out of the three bodies voted in its favor or, perhaps, a free Vermont
would require a majority in all three bodies for a resolution to pass.
So how would resolutions be placed on all these agendas? After all,
if we are to coordinate all the functioning of Vermont ourselves (without the
centralization of the General Assembly), we will have to see to it that certain
basic issues are addressed, in every local body all at once, and in a timely
manner. With well over 200 Town Meetings, an equal amount of worker councils,
and 14 farmer organizations, it is not practical to think that a few committed
individuals will be capable of getting enough signatures in each locality to
get any single issue on all the local agendas. Furthermore, such a task would
have to be performed once, twice, or even four times a year! Assuming that such
dedicated individuals did mobilize, is it not likely that dozens of similar,
yet competing resolutions would also be placed on the agendas, piecemeal,
across the Green Mountains? How could Vermont smoothly function given these
inherent difficulties?
First of all, we have to remain vigilant that we do not
begin to dismantle the democratic rights of individuals and groups in the name
of efficiency. Therefore, as is the case now with towns, people should always
be allowed the option of privately getting signatures in their communities in
order to get things placed on their local agenda. And if other organizations
wish to have specific issues addressed in multiple towns (or for that matter in
the farmer groups or worker councils), they should have the right to attempt to
do so. However, these means of expression are not enough to guarantee the
practical operation of running all of Vermont. For this reason, we should seek
to build a system through which any one Town, worker council, or farmer group
has the right to ask that a proposal that they, on the local level, endorse, be
placed on all the agendas across Vermont. And in order to synthesize redundant
proposals, the Vermont wide bodies of the three organizations should annually
elect a coordinating committee, who would all work together and whose job it would
be to make it so. Such a committee would not have any legislative powers. All
they would be empowered to do is rationalize the various proposals that are
presented for debate across these hills. In order to discourage the
concentration of duties, and partisanship of interests, such persons should not
be allowed to be elected onto multiple seats. In other words, a person should
not be allowed to run as both a Town Meeting and farmer or labor coordinator at
the same time. While such a system seems to solve many problems inherent in
directly democratic systems, one operational question remains. As has been
alluded to above, under this system free market capitalism would be replaced
with a more socially responsible and equitable self-management system. Food production
will be rationalized and coordinated through the united efforts of the farmer
organizations, and production and services will be carried out through the
directly democratic labor unions. One may ask, exactly who within these groups
would be responsible for coming up with such a complex and integrated plan?
With the farmers, considering that their overall numbers and local bodies will
be relatively few, the solution is comparatively easy. During their regular
Vermont-wide meeting days, the general membership would be free to set the
general goals and direction of such production. After this, an elected,
statewide farmer select board will be responsible for the formation of specific
plans on how such membership directives will be carried out.
In relation to industrial production, transportation,
services, and all else in between, the answer is a bit more complex. While the workers as a whole, through the local worker councils,
should be democratically allowed to express their general vision, specific
issues within specific industries will have to be addressed by those who labor
in those capacities alone. For example, while the general membership of
the combined worker councils (in collaboration with Town Meeting and the Farmer
organizations) may vote to increase Vermont’s reliance on renewable energy sources[10], it will be up to all relevant workers who will
be carrying out the project (utility, construction, etc.) to come up with the
exact plan on how this will be done. While workers will be brought together in
geographically organized councils, it will also be necessary to retain a
parallel trade union structure in order for specifics to be worked out. In
essence, this reality is akin to a group of people deciding that they want to
have a house built. While the decision to build and the general features of
such a house would be left to them, the actual blue prints would have to be
drawn up by an architect. In a word, the people as a whole will give direction,
and the expertise of the related workers will find a way to make it happen. And
again, as with the other popular bodies, these parallel trade-based bodies must
operate according to directly democratic principles. Finally, as is the case
with the farmers, the workers will have to elect Vermont wide worker select
boards both at the council level and the individual trade level in order for
the general directives of the combined membership to be carried out according
to a detailed and coordinated plan. The last problem that such a directly democratic
system would have to solve is how disagreements are resolved between these
bodies, and how voting deadlocks could be overcome. Imagine a situation where
an important decision has to be made. Let us assume that the nature of the
decision does not allow us to simply vote no, but rather that one way or
another we have to take some kind of action. Say that the proposal that is
intended to address the issue is voted down by both the majority of Town
Meetings, and the farmer organizations. If this were to occur, we should
require that elected delegates from all the towns, farmer organizations, and
worker councils meet in order to discuss the positions of their communities.
Such a body would encompass roughly 500 total delegates. While these delegates
would not be empowered to make any decisions, they should be expected to
discuss, debate, and propose compromises to the issue. In turn, they should
seek to come to a commonly accepted position, which they could bring back to
their local bodies where it could be again voted on. [*Note: This power dynamic
would be the exact opposite as it is today, where the decisions of Town Meeting
are considered non-binding, and the decisions of the General Assembly are
considered law.] Of course, such a system does not guarantee perfection. There
should be little doubt that heated arguments and impasses will arise. However,
we are not trying to put pen to a utopian kingdom. Rather, the system that we
are sketching is simply a real democracy. And with democracy, despite all its potential
flaws, the maxim that more than half the people will make the right decision
more than half the time is a great improvement from the money driven
bureaucracy that we currently struggle with.
XI.
A Peoples’ Bill
Of Rights:
The achievement
of the above directly democratic system
would, in and of itself, shine like a light for all the farmers and workers of
the world. But does it guarantee that which capitalism presently denies us?
With democracy would we all have healthcare, housing, jobs, higher education,
etc.? Not necessarily. Such a democracy only guarantees an equal vote and equal
voice. It does not mandate equal treatment outside the Town Hall, Union Hall,
or Farmers’ Hall. For this reason, such a society would have to include a basic
bill of rights that sees to it that the wealth and opportunities created by the
combined efforts of the workers and farmers, as well as one’s individual
liberties, could not become monopolized by any one group of citizens. Just as
we must all put into society, we must all have equal access to the fruits of
that society and all the while we cannot forsake our natural freedom.
Therefore, such a peoples’ bill of rights must guarantee, among other things,
the following: 1.) ample food, 2.) decent housing, 3.) jobs, 4.) free
healthcare, 5.) free higher education, 6.) equal and integrated rights and
treatment for all persons regardless of profession, gender, race, disability,
religion, or sexual orientation, 7.) the maintenance of all individual
liberties to the effect that they do not curtail the liberties of one’s
neighbor or society as a whole, or 8.) the right to defend these principles by
all relevant means. These eight points must serve as the basic unalienable
rights of the entire society. If we are to truly deliver a free Vermont to our
grandchildren, these rights must remain non-negotiable, and the basic guiding
principles of all our collective endeavors.
XII.
The Worth of Labor and Exchange:
Unlike under
our current economic system, there can be no artificial
debate about whether or not a free society can afford these guarantees. Once we
liberate ourselves from the exploitive relations of capitalism, and once our
productive forces are self-managed through collectively controlled means, we
will be able to reap the benefits of a rationalized economy; one that is geared
towards the betterment of the people as opposed to the accumulation of private
wealth for the elite few. And again, when our economy is self-managed, our
collective resources will no longer be siphoned off by the bosses. There will
be no more over paid CEOs, no more union busting lawyers, and no more
flatlander corporations with their hands in our pockets. Together we will
create a more socially productive economy; one that serves the needs of the
people, and not the irrational desires of the wealthy.
Let it also be
known that the ultimate victory of working Vermonters over the abstract forces
of capitalism will be reached through a new, equitable, form of exchange. No
longer will such a system make a daycare provider work 40 hours in order to get
one hour worth of medical care. No longer will a farmer have to bust their ass
the entire year just to be able to keep the electricity on. No longer will
corporations and owners force us into creating products for the wealthy that
we, ourselves, could never afford. When the yoke of Washington, Wall Street,
and the rich is broken, the rule will be that an hour of labor will be worth an
hour of labor. When we achieve real democracy we will have the power to extend
our social equity not only into politics and the workplace, but also to the
economy itself. Therefore the abstract monetary system that we currently toil
under must be replaced with a more sustainable “labor hour” model.[11]
Within a labor
hour model, one hour of work would be worth exactly that. Here a teacher would
receive the same base pay as a farmer, as would a carpenter and a logger. And
again, when said logger required the services of an auto mechanic, a labor hour
note would be used as a symbol of that equal exchange for every hour that the
mechanic worked on the logger’s behalf.
Wouldn’t such a system take away the incentive to do a good
job insofar as the hardworking would receive the same pay as the slackers? No.
A worker, laboring within a social context that gave that person effective say
in the direction and conditions of said labor would in all likelihood take on a
new sense of pride in her or his job performance. This would seem reasonable in
the same sense that folks who work in cooperatives can be observed to increase
production and improve the quality of their work when they are made to feel
directly part of it in a meaningful and creative way. Besides, common sense
tells us that when we are evaluated by our friends and piers we are often more
motivated to live up to our potential than when spied on by our boss. Even so,
such a system, in addition to paying each person a labor hour for every hour
worked, would, up until a point, also pay certain other notes depending upon
expertise and performance. In other words, a worker in any given field should
be paid an additional ‘journeyman hour’ for every hour worked once they show a
general competence in the craft. And again, some workers should even be paid an
additional ‘master hour’ on top of their labor and journeyman hour if and when
they demonstrate true mastery of their occupation. In certain professions, this
three tiered system would also require that the worker in question pass certain
written and practical tests before a review committee of elected masters in the
given field. Such testing, for example, would make sense in the medical field.
Of course each industry would have to make these decisions and define the
various parameters as best suits the trade or skill. Such a tiered system could
be fair and equitable as long as opportunities for gaining knowledge and
advancement in the field are made equally available as a free social service
and right.
But would such a
system be fair to those who labor at jobs which entail an elevated level of
physical danger such as iron work or underwater welding? Acknowledging the social
utility and inherent danger of many jobs, it would make sense to recognize such
workers with an additional hourly payment of a ‘danger hour’ on top of their
labor hour and any further journeyman or master hours. The designation of
certain jobs as ‘dangerous’ would be made democratically through the workers
council system.
Finally, each of
these individual notes of exchange (labor hour, journeyman hour, master hour,
and danger hour) would retain the same exchange power of the other. Therefore, no
person would receive an income more than four times above that of the lowest
paid worker. For example, a master iron worker would receive four distinct
bills of equal exchange value for every hour of labor. On the other hand, a
novice general store clerk would receive only one bill for every hour of labor.
In this case the master iron worker would be making four times the exchange
value an hour as compared to the novice clerk. This tiered system would be
economically rational insofar as the labor of journeymen would qualitatively
and/or quantitatively surpass the labor of novices in the same field. The same
would hold true in relation to the labor of the journeyman and the master
worker. Here, folks would be held to this standard by their peers and their trade
councils.[12]
The payments of
labor hours (as well as additional notes) would be issued either directly by
those requesting the service, or by a democratically accountable body of the
related worker/trade/farmer council(s). In instances where the exchange of
labor between Vermonters is direct and/or potentially arbitrary in its timing
(i.e. payment for the tasks of a chimney sweep) the former would likely be mode
of exchange. In instances where the exchange of labor falls under the category
of a necessary social service (i.e. a visit to the doctor regarding illness or
accident) the mode of exchange would likely be that of the later. This should
be the case insofar as the exchange of labor should never act as a
psychological and/or physical barrier to receiving basic human services least
we not remain true to the social principles underlying the broader community.
As for where the payment notes would come from, they should be recouped, in
part, from retail centers and other facets of the community that in themselves
do not directly produce a unique and tangible product. Therefore, if one was to
buy a pound of butter, one would be paying (in labor hours) for both the effort
that went into the production of that butter, as well as a small percentage towards
the overall upkeep of social services. In addition to this, workers should have
a percentage of their labor hours go directly back into the system in order to
guarantee the overall social sustainability of economy.
This system
differs from our current model in several important ways. First and foremost,
all products and services are made available at cost. In other words, there is
no corporation or insurance company jacking up prices to make their major stock
holders or private owners richer. Second, every resident is provided direct and
unfettered access to all forms of social service, utilities, housing, etc. The
economic price for these benefits is directly figured into the labor hour
system, and is evenly dispersed throughout society in a fair and equitable
manner.
As for exchange
value, it will be important that prices of goods be fixed at a rational rate.
If we are not to reinvent the inequities of free market capitalism, we should
seek to abolish the notion of ‘surplus value.’ Why? The notion of surplus value
is the corner stone of profit, which in turn is the granddaddy of worker
exploitation, corruption, and greed. Under capitalism the idea is that those on
the top of the economic food chain can generate more capital for themselves by
squeezing more production out of those who work under them. If
folks are compelled to work for wages and benefits that do not accurately
reflect the amount of capital that their actions generate (but rather degrade
that value), then that surplus, or stolen value can be concentrated at the top.
It’s the basic way in which the rich manage to screw us while we work our ass
off and they get richer. As things stand under capitalism the deck is always
stacked against the worker and small farmer.
In place of
capitalism our economy should instead function according to an equal exchange
system. As alluded to above, the price of a gallon of milk, for example, should
be directly linked to the amount of hours that go into producing, transporting,
packaging, and distributing that product. If it turns out that it takes an
average of a half hour of labor to get a gallon of milk into the hands of a
factory worker, then that worker should be compelled to use half a labor hour
(plus the adjusted amount towards overall social services) as a means of fair
exchange for that product. Likewise that same factory worker should, for
example, pay one labor hour (or journey-master-danger hour) for one hour of
plumbing work.
What about those who run general stores and the like? Would
they not be in a position to accumulate quantities of labor hours that are not
proportional to the amount of hours they actually work? Would this not throw
the whole system off balance and possibly give rise to class divisions? If
looking at such shops through the lenses of our current system, the answer
would be yes. But instead, as touched on previously, we should understand
retail shops essentially as exchange centers where one’s previous labor can be
traded in for an item which was produced through another’s effort. In this
capacity the items themselves will have a fixed value, adjusted to include
social services, which will not only equal the amount of hours they entail in
production and transportation, but also the amount of labor hours it requires
to reasonably staff and physically maintain the shop in question. Therefore,
such an equitable system would allow for the shop workers to be paid, per hour
of labor, according to their tier, as well for the general upkeep of the facility,
and no more. Such prices and payouts would be set democratically by related
worker councils. Any additional labor hours which the shop generated would be
put back into the system as a means to maintain the closed, yet flexible and
sustainable nature of the model.
As for artists, musicians, writers, and the like, these
valued folk would also be organized into workers’ councils and their own trade
council, through which their economic stability would be organized, more or
less as a social service. Art must be considered a necessary element of a free
society and therefore artists must also be allowed to earn a living. After all,
is Vermont not in part defined by our folk arts? Do not the old poems of Robert
Frost and the continuing performances of the Bread and Puppet Theater define in
part who we are? Should not the development of our culture be supported to the
best of our abilities? As long as we understand the politics that we hold dear
to be a reflection of the directly democratic and laboratory culture that
underlines whatever political structures we willingly construct, the answer
must be yes. Therefore, if this free politic is to maintain itself and in fact
grow over years and generations, we must continue to find ways to encourage and
support those means of cultural expression that reinforce our identity as a
free and independent people.
As for those who
are unable to work outside the home, be it because they are compelled to care
for a new child, be they elderly, or be they disabled, basic labor hours and/or
service/exchange stamps should be issued to them by a related elected body
within their local Town Meeting. If Vermont is to be equitable and fair we owe
it to all our neighbors to provide those basic necessities that are made possible
by our collective effort.
In principle a
labor hour model should be understood as a very sustainable, closed, yet
flexible system. While the above gives the basic parameters of how such a
system would function, the details, especially the particularities within each
profession and the necessary interplay between them all, will ultimately have
to be mapped out by those future workers’ councils, trade union councils, and
farmer councils that are directly involved.
But would not
this labor hour model result in a State bureaucracy of a massive proportion?
Isn’t it a bad idea to allow the government to set prices and pay? Well if we
were talking about the government in the form that we currently experience it,
then maybe. But within a directly democratic Vermont there would be no central
government in any contemporary sense. Instead of agents of the State dictating
prices and procedures, it would be working people and small farmers just like
you and me. It would be through our democratic organizations that we would
discuss these issues and seek solutions to problems and rational means to
common goals. If we didn’t like the form the regulations took, all we would
have to do would be change them. When Vermont’s economy is self-managed at all
levels through Town Meeting like bodies, it will be us, the common folks who
will be in charge, not appointed or elected representatives who retain power
over the will of their alleged constituents. What this system seeks to achieve
is the antithesis of capitalism; instead we call for an economy of the
people, for the people, and by the people. This is our right, and this is
our future.
As for property
tax, this facet of the modern capitalist economy will cease to exist. Property,
or rather a home and a family hunting/fishing camp, will be considered a right
of adulthood. Apartment buildings in the towns and cities will become
cooperatively run, rent free, by the residents. Second homes will likewise be
considered an impossible luxury until all people have a first home.
Such a system will support itself through a rationally
implemented balance of labor as articulated through the three branches of
democratic society (the town, farm, and workplace organizations). Where a void is found in certain segments of the social wellbeing,
the democratic will of the people can, instead of asking for tax dollars, call
for the special labor of those in the related field(s). As for trade
with regions beyond Vermont, such practices of equal exchange can be extended
to such parties if they too come to live within such a liberated system. If,
however, they still toil under the yoke of the oppression, and if the item in
question is deemed necessary by the democratic voice of Vermonters, then
related worker/trade councils can be charged with negotiating the terms of such
an exchange with the external party. If an acceptable deal can be struck, fine.
If not, simply put we would have to ‘make do, make without, and git er’ done, or so the old
Vermont saying goes. All told, the labor hour system will put more meaningful
equity and social security into the hands of us common Vermonters than, after
accounting for bills, taxes, and necessary living expenses, they do today under
the confines of the federal government and capitalism.
So how could such an economic system
be implemented across the Green Mountains? Just as the empowered Town Meeting
structure, the farmer organizations, and the worker councils all would have to
form, then democratically vote to empower themselves, so too will these bodies
have to vote on and pass the basic principles set forth above. One thing is
sure; it will only be through us farmers and workers ourselves taking our
democratic destiny in our own hands that we will be able to accomplish this libertory task. Washington, Wall Street, and even the
politicians in Montpelier will never do this for us. In fact their very
existence depends on maintaining the status quo at the expense of our dreams,
desires, and even basic needs. Hence it will only be through our collective action, through our self-empowering decisions that such a
Vermont will be born.
XIII.
Self
Determination For The Abenaki:
The Abenaki, The Original Vermonters, constitute one issue which is yet
to be addressed. What will be the future status of the Abenaki? Despite winning
official recognition from the General Assembly in 2006, and specific
recognition of four tribal governments by 2012 these Native Americans are yet
to achieve true self-rule or tribal lands on a sustainable scale [13]. Instead
of self-determination and solidarity, the Abenaki have faced down four
centuries of attempted genocide. From brutal military attacks directed against
entire villages in the 1600 and early 1700s to the forced sterilization
programs of the early 1900s, the Abenaki have had to fight for their very
survival. In a free Vermont this historical travesty would morally have to be
set right. Currently [2014] the Abenaki number approximately 2000 citizens in
four tribes. The Missisquoi Tribe occupy
the Champlain Valley, Northwest Vermont, and have a strong population cluster
in and around the town of Swanton. The Nulhegan Tribe occupies the Northeast Kingdom. The Koasek Tribe is located along the mid-Connecticut River
Valley. The Elnu
Tribe calls Southern Vermont its home. Although these tribes have State
recognition, they do not have reservation land, or a meaningful political role
within our current social constructs. In
fact, these combined 2000 tribal citizens, who are some of the lowest income
people in Vermont, hold only two modest tracts of land as their own (in the
current legal sense). The Missisquoi Tribe
collectively owns land around a sacred Abenaki spring (Town of Brunswick). The Nulhegan Tribe
established collective ownership over a forest and working sugarbush
(with hunting camp) outside the Village of Barton in 2012. While the later Sugarbush is capable of generating $40,000 of annual income
from sugaring (at capacity), and while the establishment of this tribal forest
is truly a historic achievement, considering that there are 2000 Abenaki Tribal
citizens throughout Vermont, its economic and social impact is limited. Bottom line, just as other Vermonters should
be free to define their own future, so should they; such desirable future must
include political power, basic sovereignty, and the ability to meet the needs
of its citizens.
Therefore, the Abenaki, as a free nation, should have the
right to decide whether or not to establish politically independent regions,
proportionate to their numbers and sustainability needs, in their core historic
regions. As such, the Abenaki must be free to run these regions in any
democratic way they themselves choose as is best able to meet the needs and
wishes of its tribal members.
If the Tribes
choose to remain an integral part of Vermont, they must be embraced in such a
way as to respect and preserve their distinct cultural heritage, and guarantee
their political self-determination. A way to achieve this would be to recognize the non-concentration of their
numbers (as Abenaki reach a majority in few if any towns), and to grant them an
at-large town charter. Doing so would recognize their rights to meet
independently as a cultural based municipal body, with defined rights and
responsibilities. Under such a premise,
each Tribe would be granted such a charter, and when the town met on Town Meeting
Day, the tribes could meet in a parallel Tribal Council. Such Tribal Councils would then elect the
same (or similar) persons to serve in the same or similar capacities as their
kin the towns. Instead of a Town Select
Board, one would elect a Tribal Council, and the Chair of the Select board
would here be understood as the Chief. Instead of a Town Constable, one would elect a Tribal Constable, etc.. Not being strictly
geographically based (rather based on Tribal citizenship), some of the body’s
functions would have to be modified or creatively envisioned in order for them
to serve their internal needs best. But
in a free Vermont these details would be discussed and agreed to by the Tribes,
and the broader Vermont community, then memorialized in the tribal charters (ie
at-large town charters). But regardless
of how such details sugar out, these Tribal Councils need to be fully
integrated into the broad Town Meeting system. There votes, resolutions, and proposals, would be treated with equal
rights and recourse as would those of the towns.
Through such a
system, a tribal citizen who chooses to take part in a Tribal Council, would forgo their right to take part in the Town
Meeting in the community they live in. This, insofar as to allow otherwise would be both physically impossible
(as these district bodies would be meeting at the same time and in different
locations) and unfair as it would provide the partaking person to cast two
votes in what is essentially one grand decision making body. But on the other hand, Abenaki citizens would
retain their second vote in their workers’ or farmers’ council (which would not
be distinctly Abenaki), as they would remain within the broad social and
economic boundaries of a free Vermont.
When we achieve this level of meaningful Abenaki
recognition (be that the integrated Tribal Councils or full political
independence), we will have gone a long way in righting the historic wrongs
perpetuated upon a people who have contributed so much in the creation of what
we now call Vermont. This is only right, and this is what we much achieve.
XIV.
In Defense Of Freedom:
If we achieved all this, would not the forces in Washington act to support those
among the elite who stand to lose out due to our freedom? Would not the
American Empire refuse to let us traverse paths that diverge from their own?
This would be a decision that Washington would make on its own. But let
Vermonters recall that it was under just such duress that the old Republic of
Vermont was first formed. Back then it was the Royal New York Colony that
sought to corral our communities by force. This challenge was met and bested by
the Green Mountain Boys. Later, during the American War of Independence, it was
the British Empire that sought to put a lid on our growing democracy. And
again, even though Vermont contained only 30,000 residents, and even though the
English were considered the most powerful and populace empire of its day,
common woodsmen and farmers rose up, electing their own officers, to deliver
the Brits two major blows; the first being the taking of Fort Ticonderoga, the
second being the English defeat at the Battle of Bennington. In other words,
Vermont is not new to resisting the advances empires and states. And as in the
past, Vermonters, if united, will inevitably rise, as
will our allies among the working people and small farmers of the world, to
whatever occasion our destiny demands.
XV. Vermont As A Northern Star:
While we struggle for freedom right here among our Green Mountains, we must understand that we are not alone. Millions of others, throughout the continent and beyond, are fighting for similar aims. Commonly such aims, direct democracy, farmer and worker self-management, and the guarantee that all people have access to the basic necessities and social services, is referred to as a libertarian form of socialism; namely that of anarchism. In an anarchist system, there is no longer a ruling class. Instead all people have an equal say in the direction of society. And again, this system differs from capitalism in that the products of labor are not geared to the interests of an elite few, but rather the common good of the whole.
As Vermonters,
we must also recognize that the fight to win such freedom does not start and
stop at our frontiers. As we write this document, millions of workers and
farmers, in every corner of the continent and the world beyond, are struggling
to achieve similar victories in their distinct regions. We would do well to
support their efforts, as our fight is linked to theirs as long as we are
engaged against the common enemy of greed, bureaucracy, centralization,
capitalism, and the rich. The final defeat of capitalism will only come when
its chain of oppression is broken at many links.
And again, when we achieve our victory, we must be prepared
to extend our hand in friendship and cooperation with those farmers and workers
beyond our mountains. We must do so in order that we, together, forge a new
means of cooperation that seeks to achieve a broader society in which all
people are free to experience the world without the deadening weights of
poverty and alienation.
XVI.
The Vermont Spring:
As working class and farming
Vermonters, we owe it to our cultural past, the future of our grandchildren,
and ourselves to seek the fulfillment of our common dreams and aspirations. We
can no more accept a future where our mountains are further masked by the two
dimensional trappings of capitalism, then we could a world without seasons.
Before consumerism, bureaucracy, and centralization obscure our culture of
independence and equality, we must come together in order to reassert that
which is just. For this we must continue to build the popular organizations
that will inherit our hills, and we must build them so
as they face the proverbial south. And for us, that is toward direct democracy,
socialism, and creativity. In a word, we are a people who continually look
toward the end of winter, and friends with a little hard work the spring will
find us.
In Solidarity,
The Green Mountain
Anarchist Collective, NEFAC-VT
XVII. End Notes:
[1] Bernie Sanders also
launched his candidacy for US President openly as a Socialist in 2015.
[2] As of Spring 2007, Vermonters stationed in occupied Iraq are being
killed at a rate of six times the national State by State per capita average.
[3] In 2003, the
major Vermont unions, through the Workers’ Center, passed a resolution
condemning the invasion of Iraq
[4] In 2006 this
President, Dan Brush, was compelled to step down after his union, the
Teamsters, decided to break with the AFL-CIO at the national level. However,
the VT AFL-CIO remains a strong affiliate of the Workers’ Center, and continues
to play a leading role in such progressive causes ‘ending the war in Iraq’ and
‘the establishment of a universal single payer healthcare system in Vermont.
[5] In 2005 the union
changed its affiliation to the Industrial Workers of the World, renaming itself
the Montpelier Workers’ Union, and becoming open to members outside the capital
city.
[6] As of 2006, the
union has gone dormant. However, the fact that the union was able to exert real
power during two years of activity has demonstrated the basic effectiveness of
this innovative model. Tellingly, while affiliated with the UE the union won a
staggering 70% of its grievances despite not having the benefit of a legal
contract in most of the shops where the grievances were fought. And again, in
many cases the union was, among other things, able to win unjustly fired
workers their jobs back. Politically, the union also helped to successfully
defeat a town vote aimed at raising the local sales tax; a tax which the union
viewed as being fundamentally regressive and representing a kind of pay cut for
local employees who are compelled to purchase basic goods in town. While this
particular union has gone dormant, it will live on as a model to be learned
from and built on in future organizing campaigns.
[7] These
cooperatives are workplaces that are owned and directly controlled by those
that labor within them. In themselves they represent increasing instances of
working class people coming together to exert direct democratic control over
their occupational life and offer a limited glimpse as to what a freer system
of labor would look like. As of July 2006, these cooperatives include Red House
construction in Burlington, the Langdon Street Café in Montpelier, the Brattleboro
Tech Collective, and the Common Ground restaurant both in Brattleboro.
[8] In the Fall of 2004, the Defense Squad voted to establish itself as
an independent working class organization willing to come to the aid of any and
all area workers/unions that requested such assistance. However, as of 2006 the
Defense Squad in effect has been disbanded. Even so, it’s
existence during the formative years of the Montpelier Downtown Workers’ Union
helped prove that such an organization is possible. And again, the impressive
70% grievance victory rate of the union had a lot to do with the implicit
threat that the Defense Squad represented to the elite business owners. Most
Defense Squad members remain active within their unions and the Vermont
Workers’ Center.
[9] It is also
possible that this coming together of local unions will come about through
participation in local AFL-CIO Central Labor Councils. Already the
Washington-Lamoille-Orange County Central Labor Council, headed by Traven Leyshon, has a policy whereby any local union can affiliate
into the group, even if they are not members of the AFL-CIO. Today [2007] this
CLC not only includes AFL-CIO unions, but also the Teamsters.
[10] Establishing
in-State electricity, and then energy self-sufficiency through community owned
and worker run renewable energy projects, needs to be a top priority for a free
Vermont. Our goal is not the socialism of darkness, but rather the equitable
and democratic reconstruction of the best aspects of the modern era. Already, as of 2012, the State of Vermont,
through Democratic/Working Families Party Governor, Peter Shumlin, has declared
the goal of serving 90% of our energy needs from renewables by 2050. This move towards renewables is further
demonstrated in the successful mass movement to shutdown Vermont’s sole nuclear
power plant (and Vermont has no coal plants).
As nuclear goes, wind farms and solar installations are already being
built. A freer Vermont would be wise to
make sure that any utility scale renewable plants are owned by the people, and
run rationally by the workers, and supported by the town(s) they are located
in. And of course family and community
scale renewables should also contribute to our overall energy needs as much as
possible.
[11] In some very
small and/or cosmetic ways the recent establishment of local/community
currencies such as ‘Burlington Bread’ can be seen as a nod in the direction of
the labor hour model –circa 2006.
[12] The relative
difference of pay regarding novice, journeymen, master, and workers whose jobs
entail serious danger (potentially making four times more than the lowest paid
worker) may sound like a big difference, but when one considers the massive
disparity of earnings and wealth that exists currently under the capitalist
model (a model through which 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth,
and where one man, Bill Gates, has sixty billion dollars while ten thousand men
and women –the approximate total population of Barre!- are homeless and
penniless in Los Angeles, CA), one begins to see how a four tiered labor hour
system would result in relative economic parity. Here such a system of parity
would also guarantee the ability of society to provide all its residents with a
dignified set of social services and human benefits. To put it simply, the
fruit of our labor would no longer get lost in the bank accounts of the elite.
[13] Like the Town Meeting movement towards more local
democracy, the modern struggle for Abenaki rights is also a relatively new
development. Following hundreds of years of extreme oppression, including a
forced sterilization program in the twentieth century, the Abenaki sparked the
current drive towards justice as recent as the 1970s, on the heels of the
continent wide American Indian Movement. This epic fight for survival is still
some time off in reaching its full maturity –and thus victory!
XVIII. About The Authors:
*This document was
written in Vermont by David Van Deusen with the exception of ‘The Yoke Within’
which was composed by Sean West. All
material was thoroughly reviewed, modified and approved by the Green Mountain
Anarchist Collective. Members who reviewed the first edition of this document
include Will Dunbar & Lady Valance. This edition was reviewed and approved
by Will Dunbar, Lady, and Xavier Massot.
Original artwork in pamphlet version by Xavier Massot.
The Green
Mountain Anarchist Collective (GMAC) was co-founded by Xavier Massot, David Van Deusen, and Johnny
Midnight in 2000, in Windham County, Vermont.
GMAC was affiliated with the Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists (NEFAC).
GMAC produced the Teamster affiliated Catamount Tavern News, was active
in organizing and supporting Black Blocs throughout the east following the
Battle of Seattle, actively supported the Dairy Famers of Vermont, Montpelier
Down Town Workers Union (UE Local 221), and the Peoples’ Round Table Organizing
Committee, as well as various Vermont Workers Center efforts. GMAC also has
successfully organized militant actions against fascism and the right wing
Minutemen.
David Van Deusen
is a former member of
ARA. He is a past District Vice President and Member-At-Large of the Vermont
AFL-CIO & served on the Vermont Commission on Native American Affairs. David is also a former member of the United
Auto Workers Local 1981, Teamsters Local 1L, United Electrical Workers Local
221, and co-authored the Black Bloc Papers. In addition, he was elected to two
terms on his Select Board, and three terms as Constable. He currently is a
Senior Union Representative for the Vermont State Employees Association, &
is a member of the Vermont Workers’ Center.
Sean West is formerly a Steward in the United Electrical Workers
Local 221, Union Organizer, and member of the Vermont Workers’ Center. Sean now works performing manual labor, and
lives in a collective household.
Will Dunbar was an early member of the Second Vermont Republic (which
he left when he joined the Green Mountain Anarchist Collective). He was a
co-founder of the Langdon Street Café Workers’ Co-op, and the Northeast Kingdom
Music Fest, and a past member of Teamsters 1L. Will is presently the proprietor
of a tavern, frequented by workers and politicians, in Montpelier.
Lady Valance is a former member of Anti-Racist Action, co-founded the
Black Hear Anarchist Collective, and is a past member of the Vermont Workers’
Center. Lady now works as a paralegal..
Xavier Massot is a
artist and musician (co-founder of the band The Putnigs)
residing in Montpelier. He is a past member of the Service Employees
International Union Local 509, Teamsters Local 1L, the United Electrical
Workers Local 255, and co-authored the Black Bloc Papers. Xavier, originally from
Brittany-France, works as an archeologist.
XIX. Vermont Demographics and Facts, 2014:
Land Mass: 9,614
Square Miles
Publicly Owned Lands: 903,434
Acres (15.1%)
East-West Boarders: E-CT
River, W-Lake Champlain
North-South Boarders: Mountains/Hills
Terrain: Mountainous
Forested Lands: 78.2%
Largest Predator: Catamount
Average Temperature: 43
Degrees Fahrenheit Above
Coldest Recorded Temperature: -50 Fahrenheit Below
Population: 626,011
State Capital: Montpelier,
Pop. 7787
Number of Towns: 237
Number if Cities: 9
Territories-Unincorporated Towns: 5
Territories-Gores: 4,
Combined Pop. 22
Largest City: Burlington,
Pop. 42,417
Smallest Incorporated Town: Granby, Pop. 86
Size of Workforce: 350,800
Union Density (Represented Workforce): Aprx. 15%
Total Number of Farms: 7000
Dairy Farms: 995
Total Energy From Renewables: 25%
Total Electricity From Renewables: 51%
Electricity From In-State
Renewables: 27%
Last Town to be Electrified: Victory, 1963
Homes That Heat With Wood: 16%
Percentage of Dirt Roads: 61%
Number Native American Tribes: 4
Size of Vermont National and State Guard: 4800
Number of Hunters: 75,000
Years as an Independent Republic: Fourteen-1775-1791
XX.
Vermont
Directory of Peoples’ Organizations:
VT Workers Organizations:
The Vermont Workers’ Center
City: Burlington (Old North End)
Website: www.workerscenter.org
Phone Number: 1.802.861.4892
The Vermont AFL-CIO
City: Montpelier
Website: www.vt.aflcio.org
Email: vslcafl@sover.net
Phone Number: 1.802.775.9577
The Vermont State Employees‘
Association
City: Montpelier
Website: www.vsea.org
Email: vsea@vsea.org
Phone Number: 1.802.223.5247
The (VT) National Educators’
Association
City: Montpelier
Website: www.vtnea.org
Phone Number: 1.802.223.6375
The (VT) United Electrical,
Radio, and Machine Workers
City/Town: Locals in Burlington, Montpelier, St. Johnsbury
Website: www.ueunion.org
Phone Number: 1.802.658.6788
Barre Granite Cutters’ Association
City: Barre
Phone Number: 1.802.479.3351
The Vermont Industrial Workers
Of The World
City: Burlington
Website: www.iww..org
Email: vermontiww@gmail.com
Phone Number: 1.802.540.2541
VT Farmer/Farm Worker Organizations:
Rural Vermont
City: Montpelier
Website: www.ruralvermont.org
Phone Number: 1.802.223.7222
The Vermont Grange
City/Town: Many
Website: www.vtstategrange.org
Email: vtgangewebsite@yahoo.com
Vermont Migrant Justice
City: Burlington
Website: www.migrantjustice.net
Email: info@migrantjustice.net
Phone Number: 1.802.658.6770
VT Native American Tribes
The Missisquoi Abenaki Tribe
Territory: Northwest Vermont
and Champlain Valley
Website: www.tribal.abenakination.com
Phone Number: 1.802.868.6255
The Nulhegan Abenaki Tribe
Territory: Northeast Kingdom
Website: www.abenakitribe.org
Email: Nulhegan@abenakitribe.org
Phone Number: 1.802.985.2465
The Koasek Abenaki Tribe
Territory: Mid-Connecticut
River Valley
Website: www.koasekabenaki.org
Email: info@koasekabenaki.org
Phone Number: 1.802.280.8070
The Elnu Abenaki Tribe
Territory: Southern Vermont
Website: www.elnuabenakitribe.org
Email: gitceedadann@yahoo.com
VT Arts/Culture
Bread & Puppet
Town: Glover
Website: www.breadandpuppet.org
Phone Number: 1.802.525.3031
VT Environmental Groups
350 Vermont
City: Burlington
Website: www.world.350.org/vermont
Phone Number: 1.802.444.0350
The VT Sierra Club
Town: St. Johnsbury
Website: www.vermont2.sierraclub.org
Email: sierraclub.vt@gmail.com
Global Justice Ecology Project
Town: Burlington
Website: www.globaljusticeecology.org
Email: info@globaljusticeecology.org
Phone Number: 1.802.777.5244
VT Peoples’ Meeting Hall
The Socialist Labor Hall
City: Barre
Website: www.oldlaborhall.com
Email: info@oldlaborhall.com
Phone Number: 1.802.479.5600
###