I am firmly convinced public ownership is an issue whose time has come in view of global warming and the crisis in the auto industry.

The time is long over-due for working people to begin taking part in the decision making process.

I am firmly convinced, given the situation we are in, working people are going to have to begin considering our options by questioning: Can we survive under capitalism? This is fast becoming a very important question.

This is a statement we have been circulating in Minnesota and around the Midwest:

Appeal To Minnesotans For Public Ownership Of The Ford Plant For Conversion To The Production Of 100% Clean Mass Transit

By Alan Maki Of Save Our Bog And Christine Frank Of The Climate Crisis Coalition Of The Twin Cities

Appeal To Minnesotans
For Public Ownership Of
The Ford Plant

The HISTORY OF THE FORD PLANT

As we are all too painfully aware, Ford’s Twin Cities Assembly Plant is slated to close in 2008. The economic and environmental consequences affect everyone in the state, and for that reason, a concerted effort should be made to keep it open. Yet, city, county and state officials are throwing up their hands and helplessly accepting the situation as a fait accompli. It was the promise of cheap hydroelectric power that prompted Henry Ford to build an automotive assembly plant in St. Paul. The initial dam on the Mississippi River was completed in 1917 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the plant went up in 1924 and a major upgrade was finished on the dam in 1929 for the benefit of the automaker. The St. Paul facility is the oldest Ford plant in operation, and to this day, is still run by renewable hydropower, which is to the benefit of the surrounding community and the natural environment. The onsite availability of high-quality sandstone, making it possible to produce windshield and lamp glass, was another feature that attracted Ford to the area.

The plant first made Model As & Ts. Later, with the advent of World War II, the U.S. witnessed one of the greatest crash militarization programs ever undertaken, and Ford wasted no time in retooling for military production. The plant in St. Paul made T17 armored cars used by the British army and U.S. military police and M8 howitzers, which were light tanks. Local autoworkers also did precision machining on pistons, cam supports and pump gears for Pratt & Whitney aircraft engines. This enabled war profiteer Henry Ford to make money hand over fist. Being blatantly anti-Semitic and pro-fascist, he produced equipment for both the U.S. Army and the German Wehrmacht in his American & European facilities. The main lesson here is that in its 82 years of operation, the local Ford plant has been retooled many times, producing over 20 different model vehicles for peace- and wartime purposes. There is no reason why this cannot be done again for the good of the community.

THE ECONOMIC NECESSITY OF SAVING JOBS

In the face of increased competition from foreign automakers and in the interests of the bottom line, Ford’s president and board of directors have made a conscious decision to divest capital in areas they deem unprofitable and reinvest elsewhere. This is at the cost of 30,000 jobs nationwide. The St. Paul factory is one of the strongest components of what remains of Minnesota’s industrial base. Its 1,885 hourly & salaried employees, who have given many years of loyal service, along with their families need the jobs, benefits and pensions that have been promised to them. The wages they earn are a vital part of the economy. If the plant closes and they do not have the opportunity to transfer to another Ford facility, they will lose everything. Plus, future generations will never have the chance to work at these good-paying, productive jobs because they will be gone forever. Turning the land over to the highest bidder for development is not the answer either because that will only make a wealthy few richer in the long run. These jobs must be saved to prevent the members of UAW 879 from being thrown onto the scrap heap.

THE ECOLOGICAL NECESSITY OF KEEPING THE FORD PLANT OPEN

With global warming and climate change threatening Earth with ecological disaster, we must take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in every aspect of our lives. This includes transport. We can no longer afford to get from Point A to B in private automobiles. The vast quantities of materials used and waste stream generated are taxing the planet’s finite resources beyond sustainable limits. With only ten years left to put things right, producing hybrids at this point is not enough. In fact, it is a case of too little, too late. If the automakers had begun manufacturing them in the early ‘70s when carbon dioxide concentrations really spiked, then we might have something to show for it now, but that is not the case.

The use of E85s powered by ethanol are problematic as well. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon whose production wastes grains needed for food and creates air pollutants and whose burning adds to CO2 concentrations. Therefore, we must convert immediately to clean mass transit systems powered by renewable energy. Given its past history, St. Paul’s Ford Plant could easily be retooled for the production of electric train engines and carriages that are driven by green wind & solar power. Just imagine convenient and efficient rail systems criss-crossing the entire country carrying passengers and freight and what an aid that would be to Earth’s ecosystems.

INSTEAD OF THE BOTTOM LINE, LET’S TALK ABOUT THE POLITICS AND ECONOMICS OF WORKERS’ LIVELIHOODS FOR A CHANGE.

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IS THE ANSWER

The auto-makers and other Carbon Barons are largely to blame for the dilemma we are in. It was they who destroyed the electric street car systems in the early 20th century in order to build more roads, sell more automobiles and burn more fossil fuels. This proves that they do not run their operations with the welfare of the planet or the rest of us in mind. If Ford’s management and stockholders are unwilling to keep the plant open for either clean or dirty transport, then let’s put it under public ownership. It is not unheard of. The Manitoba provincial government took over the Ford tractor factory in Winnipeg in order to prevent its closing. Let’s go them one better by using a green-powered plant to produce environmentally-friendly mass transit for the health of the planet and us human beings. Being some of the most progressive and ecologically-minded union members in the state, the leaders and ranks of UAW 879 would no doubt be proud to work in such a plant and support this campaign.

HOW WILL WE PAY FOR IT?

We should keep in mind that Ford Motor Company has made billions from war profiteering, government bailouts and subsidies and tax breaks. Being granted its own hydroelectric power is a perfect example of the free ride Ford has gotten. That dam, for all practical purposes, belongs to the community and generates 5 mWh of excess electricity that is sold to Xcel for $4 million a year so, in a sense, the operation already helps pay for itself. In order to make money available to purchase the factory, we can end state-funded corporate boondoggles and development schemes that benefit only the rich, demand that less money be spent for war and more for jobs & the environment, tax corporate polluters and halt waste on every level by reducing, reusing and recycling at the point of production.

In fact, there are many creative ways the project could be funded that are financially sound and ecological—including increasing the taconite tax since keeping the St. Paul Ford plant operating will save mining jobs on the Iron Range too. It is merely a matter of redirecting our priorities and asserting our societal will. So let’s join together to achieve a worthy goal–retool the Ford plant to produce green mass transit and not only save Minnesota jobs but ultimately Earth!

REAL JOBS at REAL LIVING WAGES!
SAVE THE ST. Paul FORD PLANT!
THE SOLUTION IS PUBLIC OWNERSHIP!

Please check out the blog on this for updates:

http://capitalistglobalization.blogspot.com/

Psychologize? Your declaration of who is the enemy is not my “irrational” attempt to “psychologize” you.

I am amused with your attempt to put words in my mouth while painting me as someone interested in “praising corporations as the generous benefactors of the working class.” Talk about mental gymnastics.

Corporations, unfortunately, command great control over workers, the environment, policy and our destiny but the CAW have clearly never espoused strengthening their stranglehold on contemporary society. To the contrary, this union has the led the labour movement in its only realistic push back on the corporatists and their agenda.

If your interest truly lies in forwarding a progressive agenda that works to unite the environment, labour and other worthy causes of the people you would be better served by directing your pointed criticism at those who are truly condoning the corporatist agenda by supporting Harper’s Conservatives on things like the Clean Air Act.

Please don’t psychologize me and assume that my criticisms of the CAW, and the corporations with which it is loyally aligned, are based on some irrational need to “have enemies”. If anything, this line of thinking lends itself more to Buzz’s own slamming of environmentalists, and your own attempt to deflect blame onto Jack Layton and the NDP. If one needs to have an enemy, I’d rather it be the corporate establishment than the scattered forces working against it. (the CAW no longer fits into the latter category, unfortunately)

And don’t accuse me of “regurgitating” stale examples when they are from the previous day’s news and reflect the matter at hand very directly - ie. the current CAW leadership’s utter lack of a critique of corporate power, how it shapes public policy, how it exploits workers AND the environment, etc. I wasn’t aware that participating on this board required extensive citations from back issues of Canadian Dimension.

Your version of a “red-green” agenda might involve praising corporations as the generous benefactors of the working class, and struggling to get them string-free subsidies and lax environmental regulations, but mine doesn’t. I’m always amazed at the mental gymnastics that people go through to dress up self-interested pragmatism and opportunism as part of a broader left agenda.

As a former NDP Leader once claimed, “environmentalists are the enemies of BC,” although as I recall, this was not quite the dominant opinion of the majority of British Columbians.

The majority of Canadians exist on the Centre/Left of the spectrum and any effective red/green coalition will have to align itself with that reality. In order to effectively strike that balance corporations and liberals have to be involved.

I find it odd that you refer to a recent example of what has been a consistent political alignment of Hargrove’s for over a decade. Remind us again what exactly it “encapsulates” and how it is relevant? Might it not be more pertinent to the debate to point to a piece published not long ago on these very pages that actually deals with the topic at hand versus regurgitating another example of Buzz’s Political pragmatism?

See: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/04/20/1061/

CAW and DCX back Pupatello:

“Hargrove said he likes what the McGuinty government has done for the auto industry, health care and welfare.

He said the Ontario Liberals have supported social programs “that I believe would not have happened under the other political parties.”

Asked what he thought about standing with Bigland in support for Pupatello, Hargrove said: “I think it’s great. The companies aren’t our enemies. They’re the ones trying to provide us with jobs.”

The maturation of the red-green coalition will only be stunted by positions that serve to entrench the inherent differences of the movements involved. I agree that the CAW could better scrutinize the pursuits of industry with respect to product lines and emissions. However, the union has and will support the evolution of the “green car,” therefor the question remains, can the environmental movement recognize what is required to ensure a successful transition for the whole of our Nation and our World?

To suggest advocates of the rights of average Canadians whom have long fought for their health and safety and improvements for the environment our now to the right of Harper and Bush serves little if any purpose and is not reflective of reality. Working with the monolithic behemoth that has become vehicle manufacturing to address the multitude of interests in play may result in what some consider actions of an apologist but to many others it is about striking an achievable and realistic balance, which, in my humble opinion, is the highest priority.

Quite obviously, one impediment to the development of this red-green coalition has been the increasingly narrow economism and apolitical pragmatism of the labour movement itself - a trend that Hargrove, friend of Martin and McGuinty and whoever else will toss the auto sector some candies, now epitomizes.

Faced with the increasingly undeniable realization that capitalism and unhinged industrial development are destroying the biosphere on which our survival depends, some segments of labour have made some welcome moves (eg. supporting Kyoto), but these have mostly been symbolic gestures that don’t really amount to incorporating “green” goals into their own political strategy in any serious way. Everyone, from Walmart to Exxon to Warren Buffet, now tries to paint themselves at least superficially in an eco-friendly light, and pretend that what is in their own interest is tied in with the greater environmental good.

The fact that the economic interests of CAW members, like those many other unions, are tied in directly with environmentally destructive forms of production is hardly an incidental fact that we should “overlook” to avoid being smug or self-righteous. Workers’ reliance on capital, and subordination to its imperatives, is at the heart of the problem. This is one of the reasons that the CAW’s environmental stance has been reasonably progressive when ‘green’ issues remain distant and abstract (’Save the Whales!’, ‘Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute’, etc), or associated with evangelical causes (eg. Kyoto) without any clear implementation strategy, or tied in directly with worker health concerns, but outright reactionary when they impinge upon auto-workers’s immediate economic self-interest.

When Buzz and his ilk take positions to the right of Harper and Bush on environmental matters (eg. fuel efficiency standards), demonize environmentalists, lobby for unconditional corporate subsidies, sing the praises of muscle cars and SUVs, and line up loyally beside the Big 3 (who have done everything in their power to resist mandated environmental improvements and to continue to wring profit from gas-guzzling behemoths), I think that they lose any claim to being vanguard critics of the “military/industrial/congressional complex”.

Indeed, in this scenario, they come close to being apologists for the whole economic model that has wrought environmental havoc in the first place, differing from corporations only to the extent that they think the pie should be divided up somewhat more fairly between workers and management. The labour movement obviously has an important role to play in the development of a new green economic strategy, but it is pretty disingenuous to pretend that it is anywhere near to living up to the demands of this role currently, or to even comprehending the nature and scale of current environmental problems.

In the wake of current commentary focused on Hargrove’s off-the-cuff comment about the ‘insane’ green dominance of the political agenda, this editorial comes as a refreshing reminder of the role labour has played and can play with respect to finding the balance between the economy and the environment.

I disagree that Buzz has fallen into any cleverly laid political trap set by Harper and his friends in the oil patch. Instead, Hargrove’s voice is -once again- the lone advocate in illustrating the reality of contemporary policies established and forwarded by the driving force of today’s political arena - Big Oil - the elixir of the contemporary military/industrial/congressional complex.

If people were able to look past the fact that the CAW revolves around auto manufacturing while getting over their own smug self-righteousness, it would be evident that labour has been at the forefront of the environmental movement since before it’s inception and has been responsible for almost all gains realized for the environment and peoples health until most recently.

Who did fall into the cleverly executed green trap set by Harpers Neo-Conservatives was Jack Layton. A politician who has dedicated a large portion of his career forwarding the green agenda has unceremoniously and single handedly propped up the Neo-cons green agenda by undertaking clever parliamentary stunts. Jacks “rewriting” of the Clean Air Act helped float Harpers hot air balloon for a year and has delivered nothing for the environmental movement while doing even less for Layton’s political career - let alone the NDP.

Instead of cajoling big labour for existing and protecting the health and rights of its membership, environmentalists and the labour movement should build a coalition that works to influence the future in establishing a world leading, cutting edge green economy.