Work and Politics

Richard Flacks' thoughtful piece argues well that progressives must move beyond a defensive posture. We agree. We need a movement for democracy in order to surmount the corporate assault on environmental, consumer, and social protections, as well as to regenerate a sense of hope. Our disagreements with Flacks concern the framework and constituencies for such democratization. Flacks treats "work" largely as an obstacle to democratic movement (as in his discussion of "alienated labor"). Yet work has been the taproot of American democracy. Work is essential to connecting movement-building with people's everyday lives. Without such connections, strategies focus on "mobilizing people" from the outside and take much too narrow a view of the diverse potential constituencies for democratization.

The new left, as Flacks rightly observes, broke fresh ground with its call for "participatory democracy" and its critique of the bureaucratic state. Yet it was also a product of the 50s, a decade in which rising trends of consumerism overshadowed the old left's assertion of the value and dignity of "productive labor."

The old left played a central role in popular activity because it organized around labor-based politics. The left did not adequately theorize the civic dimensions of work, trapped as it was by Marxist categories which eclipsed notions of public life entirely. But especially after the popular front turn in left-wing strategy, it nonetheless appropriated and adapted older American rhetorical themes of "productive citizenship" and work-centered democracy with considerable effect. During the New Deal, belief in the dignity of labor
fueled vast movements to organize unions. Many of Roosevelt's New Deal programs promoted public work. Millions of poor and unemployed youth put their talents to work building dams and bridges, planting forests, and preventing soil erosion in the Civilian Conservation Corps. As a result, ordinary people saw themselves participating in national life as contributors and producers.

The new left lost the old left's emphasis on work. Its themes of "authentic vocation" had a utopian, anti-institutional quality. It was far more focused on creating alternative institutions and establishing a just distribution of resources. Without a work-centered politics, the new left assumed an outsider stance.

Thus, the Port Huron Statement is an insightful critique of the bureaucratic state. Yet it also condemns virtually every American institution. Port Huron can be vividly contrasted with Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham City Jail." King's letter also raises themes of democratization, but is grounded in rich cultures of work and religion in the Black community. It is redolent with American and southern religious democratic traditions.

Flacks' inattention to the democratic potential of work limits both his historical interpretation and his strategy for change. In America, the left at moments of popular strength was unlike the state-centered socialist parties of Europe. Successful left wing political movements like End Poverty In California (EPIC), the Washington Commonwealth Federation, or the Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party -- and the "commonwealth" socialism of Debs himself -- stressed the dignity and civic contributions of labor, and thus simultaneously enhanced the authority and power of working people. They also advocated decentralist economic measures supportive of small business, cooperatives, and local action. Only in the 1950s -- a bridging decade between old left and new -- did almost all progressives adopt a technocratic, centralist view, including an economic policy which stressed management of consumer demand, replacing earlier New Deal economic emphasis on productive labor.

Flacks' framework consists of a progressive platform for democratization which he believes activists, organizers, and intellectuals should use to mobilize citizens. We believe policy measures are important, but the main focus should be on organizing, not mobilizing: the transformation of community settings and such mediating institutions as unions, churches, schools, and voluntary groups in ways that increase the "civic muscle" of ordinary people. Today, such institutions have lost their power, as they have been transformed into service providers -- as a result, popular groups can offer little serious challenge to corporate priorities. National policy changes are essential elements in reviving "civic muscle." These range from the programs of HUD that have changed into tools for community self-organization, to the national economic policy changes necessary to stabilize local and regional economies and promote sustainable development. But the emphasis should be on what builds democratic organizations and civic capacities, not on what can mobilize constituencies around a left agenda.

We are convinced that public work -- work by a mix of people that creates things of lasting value -- offers an alternative framework which when fleshed out has enormous potential to generate democratic energy and power. Work engages people's self-interests in a wide variety of contexts. Work with larger impact (even raising for discussion the larger meaning of work) in community organizations or in worksites begins to change work cultures and practices. Public work develops individual, institutional, and communal civic practices, such as skills in working with diverse groups, and a larger vision of what is important. It can deepen self-interests into a sense of ownership in the larger whole -- what was once called "the commonwealth."

By focusing on public contribution through labor, public work provides resources for groups excluded from full participation -- such as minorities, women, the poor -- to advance claims to equality based on assertions about the dignity and importance of their efforts. Public work also promotes the forging of political relationships across racial, cultural, religious, and ideological divisions. Paul Robeson's "Ballad for Americans," rooted in cultures of public work, including even atheists in the American mosaic, was popular enough to be sung in 1940 at both Communist and Republican conventions!

Renewal of public work holds potential to engage groups far beyond those who would call themselves liberal or leftist. Flacks' listing of sources of political energy is far too narrow. What of the church-based community organizations -- like Communities Organized for Public Service in San Antonio, or East Brooklyn Churches in New York, or Shelby County Interfaith in Memphis -- which have created working relationships among communities of color and working class and middle class Whites? Or what of the new "public journalism" movement and efforts in other professions which seek to open up and democratize professional practices? Or those Perot voters concerned with "special interest takeover" of politics? Many would not consider themselves "on the left" or even "progressive." Yet all are concerned with democratic renewal.

To generate democratic politics we need to reassert the contributions of ordinary people through work. We need to claim once again the idea of citizen as producer, not mainly consumer, client, or expert. Finally, we need to recall the central idea of the commonwealth: the nation's wealth should not be measured by market exchange alone. A public work framework explodes the scarcity mentality that now constrains our imaginations, and illuminates the multiple sources of energy that will be essential to creating a vibrant democracy.

Click here to return to the Boston Review Forum, Strategies for Rebuilding the Left.