Issued by the Steering Committee of
the National Political Committee
April 21, 1999
We are witnessing the third war in the
Balkans in less than a decade. There can be little doubt that
Serbian nationalism and a series of orchestrated "crises"
by the Milosevic government are primarily responsible for the
present tragedy. DSA members, like many on the left, are divided
on the best way to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. We are
opposed to the NATO bombing of Belgrade and other urban centers
and we are deeply troubled by the possibility that the initial
campaign may have accelerated Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaign
DSA calls for:
The situation in Kosovo demonstrates
the need for a truly international peacekeeping force, under United
Nations auspices, to separate and disarm combatants, protect the
Kosovars from Serbian military and paramilitary forces, and protect
the Serbian minority. Such a force could have acted against the
genocides around the globe, such as the conflict in Rwanda, which
the new isolationists dominating the Republican Party have used
to justify standing on the sidelines. We have never believed that
NATO had the moral authority to carry out such missions.
We call on the War Crimes Tribunal at
the Hague to continue its work and vigorously prosecute all war
criminals including those responsible for directing ethnic cleansing
campaigns; and we call on the world community to provide humanitarian
aid to rebuild the economic infrastructures in Kosovo, Serbia,
Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania that have been disrupted by
Balkan nationalism has been manipulated
by all sides and all sides share in the blame for the present
catastrophe. The U. S. government and the governments of most
European nations have acted in the past to strengthen Milosevic
and failed to support alternative democratic political movements
because they were seen as politically suspect and less accommodating
to Western economic and geopolitical interests. The West too easily
abandoned the idea of a multi-ethnic democratic Yugoslavia during
the rise of the chauvinistic and authoritarian Tudjman regime
in Croatia and Milosevic in Serbia.
If the twentieth century has demonstrated
anything it is that nationalism in the Balkans can not be suppressed
by military force alone. Serbia should not be demonized, nor should
its responsibility as by far the strongest military power in the
region be excused. To end Serbian ethnic cleansing diplomatic
carrots must accompany the stick of peace keepers. Thus upon Serbian
withdrawal of its military and paramilitary forces from Kosovo
and the return of all refugees to their homes, the West should
lift the economic sanctions and consider admission to the United
Nations and other appropriate international organizations for
the Yugoslav state.
Finally we call on the world community
to take the steps to create a permanent police force directed
by the United Nations with the express mission of protecting the
basic human rights guaranteed by the United Nations Charter.
by Robert Roman
The fiasco in Kosovo may divide the Left as no other issue
has since the Vietnam war. In a fine fury of resolutionary socialism,
groups are calling for a holy war against Serbian fascism, support
for NATO intervention, support for UN intervention, support for
the KLA as a national liberation movement, support for Serbian
socialism, opposition to any intervention as it inevitably serves
the interest of the ruling class. Pick one or pick several and
combine them, you'll find the left supporting it.
And to what end? It is hard enough to find the levers to build
consensus for or against domestic policies, but if they are not
obvious, at least the levers are there. Given the administrative
nature of most foreign policy, what prospect is there for any
change in a meaningful time frame? Much of the debate over Kosovo
is so devoid of any prospect for influencing events that the energy
it generates has more to do with posture than politics.
If anything good can come of this mess (and a worse case scenario
might be The End of the World as We Know It), it will come out
of coalition building around issues that we agree on, whatever
our specific position on Kosovo.
One promising possibility is military spending. It is not acceptable
that this war, whatever its merits, is being financed by cutting
housing subsidies to the poor and by cutting money available for
food stamps, yet this is exactly what is happening. And while
the additional moneys voted by this Congress are relatively
free of "pork", the conventional beltway wisdom
is that the next year's budget, being an election year, will bring
the pigs swarming to the trough.
Eliminate homelessness, preserve and expand Social Security,
provide health care for all, provide the means for quality public
education, even relative luxuries like a space program: under
the self - imposed Congressional budgeting restrictions, you have
a choice. We can either do these things or we can have a military
that is capable of fighting two and a half wars anywhere in the
To this end, Chicago DSA has joined with the Chicago Jobs with
Justice Committee on New Priorities in building a broad coalition
of groups that is committed changing our government's priorities.
As a first step, the coalition is urging support for an amendment
to the Defense Authorization Bill that would cut the number of
ground troops that the United States keeps permanently stationed
in Europe from 100,000 to 25,000 over a period of three years.
15,000 would be removed by September 30, 2000, and an additional
30,000 would be removed each of the next two years. This amendment
will be offered by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Christopher
What can you do?
by Carl Shier
The 41st Annual Eugene V. Debs - Norman Thomas - Michael Harrington
Dinner was held on May 7th at the Holiday Inn City Centre. It
was a resounding success. The Program Book, 40 pages of congratulations
to Awardees Jackie Kendall of the Midwest Academy and James Tribble
of UNITE, was a record.
Charles Kernaghan, Executive Director of the National Labor
Committee and the featured speaker, gave a barn burning, spell
binding address few will ever forget.
The printed word cannot adequately report how Kernaghan, holding
up a Nike shirt that sells for $79 in the U.S., described the
horrible conditions under which young girls worked for 12 to 14
hours a day, seven days a week. They are not allowed to go to
the washroom more than once a day, and drink horrible water also
only once a day because more water would cause them to go to the
washroom. For all their work, at a piece work pace, they earned
39 cents an hour.
He told of a confrontation between Kathy Lee Gifford and a
12 year old girl from El Salvador, who told Gifford how life was,
working on her garments, and how Gifford tried to minimize her
complaints and was told off by Kernaghan. Kernaghan told how he
spent from 6 to 7 months tracing down how many made-in-America
clothes Walmart sold; this is the Walmart which advertises Buy
American and supposedly sells made-in-USA goods. Kernaghan was
blocked at every turn until he took a little audio tape recorder
and talked into it as he walked through the stores looking for
made-in-USA products. He found very few.
Kernaghan said the stories of work in China, El Salvador, Honduras,
and Guatemala will continue. He praised the college students of
the country for taking on the fight against sweatshops here and
It was a great speech. You could hear a pin drop as he let
his facts speak for themselves. Already we have received requests
for a tape, which, unfortunately, we do not have.
Carole Travis, of the Service Employees International Union
and a past Awardee, was the MC. She opened the Program by calling
attention to two tables of steelworkers who have been on strike
for five months at the Tool and Engineering Company, whose owner
is CEO of Fruit of the Loom and is the highest paid CEO in Chicago.
Attendees were asked to write to William Farley at 233 S. Wacker
Drive, Suite 500, Chicago 60606, and join the strikers on the
picket line at 900 W. 18th Street. A good round of applause signaled
support for their strike and their efforts.
First presenter was past Awardee, Heather Booth, founder of
Midwest Academy. Heather spoke of Jackie Kendall's organizational
ability, and how she inspired people to live up to their potential
by giving them confidence in themselves. Jackie will go anywhere
to help an organization draw up programs and help facilitate them.
With Congressperson Jan Schakowsky who was in attendance, she
fought for, and got, consumers the right to know the freshness
of their food by having dates put on all perishable items.
In accepting the Award, Jackie Kendall told how grateful she
was to receive the Debs - Thomas - Harrington Award; how, at Catholic
school, she became aware of socialism (for years, she said, she
thought all socialists were nuns); and how one's life should be
about what they can do to make life better through a just society.
The Midwest Academy, Kendall said, gave her the opportunity to
train women and men to stand up for themselves and work in good
The presenter of the Award to James Tribble was UNITE's secretary
- treasurer, Bruce Raynor. Bruce Raynor established a great record
of militant organizing in the South and is likely to be the next
President of UNITE. Raynor spoke of Jim Tribble's leadership on
the front lines in organizing and negotiating, and his contributions
at the International Board meetings of UNITE by being a union
man who spoke his mind.
In accepting the Award, Jim
Tribble stated that he was honored to receive the Award and
thus follow others in his union, such as Murray Finley, past President
of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, Joyce Miller, who became
President of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and Arthur Loevy,
Secretary - Treasurer of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile
Workers. Tribble spoke of what the union has meant to its members,
many of whom work in entry level jobs. He stressed the importance
of the Amalgamated - UNITE Building for classes in language, preparing
for citizenship, and labor education. Tribble was proud that the
building has a Debs Auditorium with one of Debs' famous quotations.
The establishment of a full health facility for its members, and
a Senior Citizen home adjacent to the Building, were measures
that the union was proud of. He thanked UNITE people who attended
and all the unions who contributed to the Program Book.
The Dinner Committee decided not to do the traditional fund
appeal by having members cover the hall with collection baskets.
Instead, Jessica Shearer, National Coordinator of the Young Democratic
Socialists, spoke on the work of DSA and the Young Democratic
Socialists in many areas. She highlighted the fight against sweatshops
here and abroad, and work for living wage ordinances in cities
across the country.
Prior to the serving of the Dinner, Mike Miles, past Executive
Director of the Old Town School of Folk Music, entertained the
I would like to thank the Committee for presenting Marion and
me with the basket of flowering Azaleas, recognizing the 60th
Anniversary of our marriage of April 10, 1939. Even though I picked
it up from the platform and got a caustic remark after the dinner
by a woman telling me that marriage is of two people. It was wrong
and I felt badly about not going up with Marion.
One cannot finish a Dinner report without recognizing the work
of Bob Roman. Chicago DSA and the Dinner Committee are so fortunate
in having Bob coordinate the event. The amount of work necessary
is great. Even in the guaranteeing of how many dinners we would
serve, Bob was practically on target.
To all those who contributed to the Program Book, attended
the Dinner or otherwise worked to make this year's event a success,
by Ron Baiman
Market Socialism: The Debate Among
By David Schweickart, James Lawler, Hillel Ticktin, and Bertell
Ollman NY: Routledge
Publication Date: 1998, 200 pages
As a former participant in the "market socialism"
debate of a few years ago in the pages of the DSA discussion bulletin
Socialist Forum, I feel somewhat qualified to expound on
what we have learned from it and in what ways it may still be
fruitful to continue this "debate among socialists".
I regret to report that I find this slim volume of expositions
of the "old religion" of absolutist rejection of the
market by Ollman and Ticktin, and defense of the "market
socialist" vision and label by Schweickart and Lawler, to
be singularly unfruitful.
A major problem is that these positions are not exhaustive
so that framing the issue as an either or choice between them
is not productive. This dichotomy is reflected in the tendency
of the participants to talk past one another by emphasizing the
ways in which the affects of markets contradict and undermine
the goals of "pure communism" and "freedom from
necessity" on the one side, and the practical questions of
allocation and transition from markets under capitalism, on the
Another weakness of this book is the sterile debate between
Lawler and Ollman regarding Marx's support, or lack thereof, for
markets and worker cooperatives, which adds to the impression
of scholasticism gone awry. The authors appear not to understand
that, especially in light of Marx's notorious ambiguity on these
matters, efforts to "claim Marx" for either position
are of little importance to the general reader for whom this volume
In their defense, some of the participants, and Lawler in particular,
attempt to find common ground by agreeing with the utopian vision
of pure communism as an end result "certainly by the 24th
century" (p. 189), and by outlining a path through market
socialism to this final achievement. Schweickart also attempts
to make peace with Ticktin and Ollman by outlining a fifty year
transition period through market socialism after a socialist revolution,
though he rejects the possibility of a society free from scarcity
(and prices and markets) even in an ultimate pure communist utopia
(p. 172). Moreover, some of the particular points made in the
debate, e.g. Ollman's discussion of "alienation"
under the market (p. 88 - 98), and Schweickart's review of his
model of "economic democracy"(p. 17 - 20), may be useful
"stand alone" introductions to the works of these authors,
who are widely and deservedly recognized on the left as experts
in these areas, even though little synergy can be gleamed from
the juxtaposition of these discussions as opposing arguments.
However, even when focusing on this "transition period"
(or on something bordering on realism in terms of actualizable
policy implications), the debate is cast is absolutist terms.
For example, Ticktin advocates the removal of education, health,
public transportation, housing, and utilities, completely out
of the market as soon as possible (p. 161), and Schweickart chastising
this plan for its impractical, inefficient, ideologically driven
"anti-market" bias (p. 173).
Schweickart in turn appears to base his transition scenario
on an abrupt break with capitalist property relations and the
institution of "economic democracy", or the Schweickart
model of market socialism (which includes worker self-management
and extensive investment planning) soon after the "revolution"(p.
174). In this regard, Lawler's more gradual transition through
the establishment of worker cooperatives and market regulation
appears more realistic, but seemingly contradicts the "market
socialist" political orientation (p. 191). Why should "market
socialists" focus on restraining and regulating the market?
The feasibility of a property based transition strategy has, in
fact, come under fire, in what I believe is a more fruitful rendering
of this debate in Socialism after Communism: The New Market
Socialism by Christopher Pierson (see my review in Science
and Society, Summer 1998).
In any case, the bottom line is that in this volume the reader
is forced to choose between: a) a "hard" market socialist
position (though, as noted, with worker democracy and economic
planning) represented by David Schweickart, b) a "soft"
market socialist position represented by James Lawler who agrees
with Ollman and Ticktin on the ultimately possibility of "true"
non-market communism but insists that the way to get there is
through market socialism, or c) an absolute "market abolitionist"
position which endorses the elimination of all markets as soon
as possible because they are ideologically abhorrent and antithetical
to the socialist project in the long and the short-term, as Ollman
and Ticktin advocate.
Lets be realistic. There is no way that a modern economy can
operate without some form of markets. Schweickart's simple questions
regarding housing: "Can anyone who wants one have a house
on the beach?" (p. 174) points to the fact of scarcity no
matter how productive the economy - there are scarcities of natural
beauty (living in Chicago, like David Schweickart, I know!) and
of created beauty which will not disappear. They will have to
be allocated in some fashion, and making them all "public"
will not do either. Who will get the Stradivarius violins? The
"public" will ruin them. So we can either have administered
(democratically or otherwise) allocation of all of these "scarce"
items, or some form of equitable markets and planning, which will
allow for a determination of how much people are willing to exchange
for what attributes (who wants these goods the most), among the
groups of individuals or households whose use of them will be
most socially beneficial (using planning and regulation).
If I sound somewhat like a Neoclassical economist, I'm not,
but regarding scarce (even in an abundantly "productive"
economy) commodity attributes, which are essentially what I'm
talking about here, an approximate marginal utility theory is
The problem is that there is no feasible method of non-market
allocation of these kinds of goods without absurdist collective
meetings for every kind of consumer good, or the use of something
approximating a market and differing from it in name only. The
often cited, Albert and Hahnel model of participatory planning
has been justifiably critiqued for both reasons, and is simply
not viable (see Science and Society, Spring, 1992). A "non-market"
solution does not and cannot exist, and even if one could be theoretically
devised, in practice an attempt to legally prohibit "exchange"
(which otherwise would inevitably lead to markets) would be an
unenforceable Stalinist nightmare. To this extent I suppose I
am taking the side of David Schweickart who does indeed do a good
job of pointing out the contradictions in the Hahnel and Albert
model in his book Against Capitalism (p. 329 - 334)
Alternatively, we need go no further than Ticktin's bête
noire, Alec Nove, to understand that without competition there
is no consumer "choice" (see The Economics of Feasible
Socialism, p. 203). If I like this painting better than that,
or this concert better than that one, or this restaurant better
than the other, I am comparing items which therefore stand in
competition to one another vis a vis my choice. The producers
of these items may not make a direct profit from my choice in
a non-capitalist market economy, but the economic planners, whomever
they may be, will have to respond to these patterns of consumer
demand or the economy will be left producing unwanted and inferior
goods. The chances are that the producers of the goods and services
which are not in demand will resist the idea of reducing their
output, so that the choice will reflect competition between these
This is not rocket science. Equitable consumer markets enforce
accountability to consumers in ways that planners cannot because
planners do not have the information and cannot supply the incentives.
Markets also force innovation, as Marx and Schumpeter emphasized,
in ways which planners cannot anticipate.
On the other hand, major social choices, which require "voice"
as opposed to "exit" in the famous Hirschman dichotomy,
are best handled without markets.
The problem with "market socialism" is not that it
envisions (unavoidable) markets within socialism, but that as
a sound bite for defining and politically orienting the socialist
project, the "market socialist" label is politically
self defeating - as Ollman points out (p. 119).
The socialist project in the 21st century is not one of resuscitating
markets within a non-market, centrally planned, Stalinist "socialism",
but rather the opposite: to regulate, restrict, guide, and if
necessary, eliminate markets, in order to achieve socialist goals
and avoid the long-term destruction of the planet.
Here, I would differ with Schweickart, and implicitly agree
with Ollman and Ticktin, that socialist goals are often undermined
by consumer markets, as well as by labor and capital markets.
In fact as Christopher Pierson points out, most "market socialists",
in so far as they are socialists, take much of the economy out
of the market ("economic democracy" is a prime example
of this). The "socialist" part of these models is typically
a result of their non-market or anti-market characteristics. So
what are socialists doing emphasizing the "market" as
a characteristic that is equal to and even precedes "socialism"?
Whatever the historic justification may have been for the terminology
and political thrust ("let's bring markets back to socialism"),
more suitable labels these days for the socialist project are
perhaps: "socialism with markets", "democratic
socialism", or (yes), "economic democracy". It
is true that we socialists have got to get over our knee jerk
antipathy to all things market - like (as Schweickart points out);
however, we don't have to embrace markets as part of our core
ideology. Markets are not going to disappear, and we need to recognize
their value, particularly as stimulants of innovation, and of
consumer accountability for private choices. But our job is mostly
to restrain, reconfigure, and politicize markets in order to promote
In this context, Pat Devine's distinction (in his book Democracy
and Economic Planning) between "market exchange"
and "market forces" may be useful. In a general sense
it is the latter that we need to confront and not the former,
though I would quibble with the idea of "negotiated coordination"
taking on all "market force" decisions. Markets have
a role in lessening direct personal dependency and oppression
within political hierarchies ("invisibility" and market
"veils" are sometimes good!) and in some cases increasing
the efficiency of otherwise unobtainable outcomes.
However, I find a "market socialist" political strategy
within capitalism to be misguided and counter - productive. To
this extent I would agree with Ollman and Ticktin that for the
most part we socialists must work against unplanned, unregulated
and misguided "Market forces" (with a capital "M")
which generally serve to oppress and alienate us. As socialists
we need to emphasize our core values and vision, and not confuse
our position with Neoliberal market genuflection.
by Bob Roman
It is easy enough to dismiss the debate between market and
non - market socialisms as an argument over labels. Certainly
that is in large part true. But the reason the debate persists
and the reason it evokes such passion is that it speaks to a central
aspect of socialist identity and hope.
Perhaps this is captured best by Michael Harrington's favorite
parable. Imagine, he might say, a desert civilization where water
is precious, so precious that it is money. People fight and die
and connive over it. Governments covet it. Marriages are made
and broken because of it. Water is the basis of all exchange and
the motivation of all that is accomplished.
Someone from this civilization, being told of a city where
there are public water fountains and where children are sometimes
allowed to turn on the fire hydrants in summer to frolic in the
water, would be sure you were crazy. For that person would know,
with an existential certitude, that it is human nature to fight
over water and to do nothing without the motivation of water.
And yet, here today, we have "socialized" water; no
matter who you are in our society, you can be pretty certain of
having a drink when you need one.
And in some speeches Harrington would add that if we could
solve the problem of economics then we might have an opportunity
to learn how to love one another.
But would we? And what would such a society look like? How
would people live? This is beyond the ken of economics, and what
little Marx said about it over the years, in sum, sounds vaguely
like California. But there is a large body of speculative fiction
that deals directly and indirectly with just this topic.
There are a number of strands of opinion represented in this
literature, and while space here is a scarce commodity, here are
some major themes and some examples worth reading.
The dominant opinion in the 1950s and early 1960s was that
post-economic society would be the end of history, at least, if
not the end of civilization and possibly the end of the world.
The best example of this is the classic film, the 2001 /
Star Wars of its time, The Forbidden Planet. The
ruins of that civilization are all that we see, but the narrative
makes the danger explicit of a society where all individuals have
the power of a god. A fairly decent "novelization" of
the screen play was published in 1956, but you'll have better
luck finding the video. Another example is Murray Leinster's pulp
quality novel, The Duplicators, which argues for at least
the end of civilization. Arthur C. Clarke's The City and the
Stars begins in the city of Diaspar, where nothing has happened
for hundreds of millions of years: the end of history for sure!
(The story begins, incidentally, with the hero deep in what we
would today call a virtual reality game. This was published in
More recent work is more kind, but would we learn to love one
another? One complication is that not everyone might enter into
the "post economic" society at once. This serves as
the basis for conflict in a great many novels. Joe Haldeman's
The Forever Peace is a particularly interesting example
as it takes place in the near future with interesting consequences
though, unfortunately, it's not a good story. Other better examples
are almost any of Iain M. Banks' "Culture" novels; I'd
recommend Consider Phlebas or The Use of Weapons.
Other notable examples are Samuel Delany's Triton or John
Barnes' A Million Open Doors.
But would we learn to love one another? We might find other
things to fight about. Some good examples are John Barnes' Earth
Made of Glass or Samuel Delany's Stars in My Pocket Like
Grains of Sand.
I've only just skimmed the surface, yet I can't end without
mentioning Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy Green Mars, Red
Mars and Blue Mars; or an interesting look at a society
where markets, if important, have become clearly secondary, Arthur
C. Clarke's Imperial Earth; or Gregory Benford's high-tech
anarcho-syndicalist The Jupiter Project.
Ironically, while the political left wanders in ideological
confusion, it's basic aspirations are still quite strong in speculative
compiled by Bob Roman
Since the flurry of solidarity of activity in Chicago last
fall, the Han Young strike
in Tijuana has been largely out of the news. But the fight is
not over, and there have been interesting developments.
On April 6th, the 15th District Court in northern Baja California
ruled that Tijuana authorities had violated the law last June
in suppressing a strike at Han Young. The local labor board had
called the strike "nonexistent" last year, but now has
publicly conceded that is legal.
On May 3rd, the Han Young union again tied red and black strike
flags across the Han Young factory gate. This brought production
to an end because when the strike flags are put up in a legal
strike in Mexico, the struck establishment must be closed and
remain closed until a settlement is reached.
On May 5th, two lawyers from the Baja California employers'
association, COPARMEX, arrived at the plant accompanied by ten
trucks of Tijuana municipal police and twenty scabs. The lawyers
demanded the police remove the strike banners and the police were
about to do so, but the confrontation had acquired an audience.
Television crews from local stations, representatives of the federal
Labor Department and activists from the PRD had arrived. The police
told the scabs to go home. Less than a week later the police were
back, in force, and escorted 70 scabs into the plant. This was
largely a symbolic act as the scabs had no idea how to operate
the equipment. The next day, the union once again tied the strike
flags across the factory gates.
Since then, the fight has turned into a contest between local
officials who attempt to find ways of circumventing the strike's
legal status, primarily by targeting local union officials for
arrest under spurious criminal charges, and the union's attempt
to broaden the conflict by bringing the issue into federal venues.
Arrest warrants have been countered with court injunctions. The
political solidarity of the Tijuana ruling class has been threatened
by Congressional investigations. The strategy, as it has evolved,
seems to be working, at least in the sense that the strike continues
and union organizing has become an electoral issue in the maquiladora
HR 772, Congressman Jackson's HOPE for Africa bill covered
in New Ground #63 continues
to gain support in the form of cosponsors, including Illinois
congressmen Jerry Costello (12th), David Phelps (19th), Bobby
Rush (1st), William Lipinski (3rd) and Luis Gutierrez (4th). DSA
member Major Owens has also signed on as a cosponsor. A few, such
as Bobby Rush and Major Owens, also remain cosponsors of HR 434,
the "NAFTA for Africa". In contrast, HR 434, has gained
but one new cosponsor and has lost two.
The Chicago municipal elections
are old news by now, but it's worth noting two victories. Ted
Thomas, President of Chicago ACORN and a New Party candidate won
his election run off, as did lakefront lefty Helen Shiller. Another
New Party endorsed candidate, Floyd Thomas on the west side was
not so fortunate. Ted Thomas, Helen Shiller and Floyd Thomas were
all endorsed by Chicago DSA. In southern Hyde Park and South Shore,
Leslie Hairston won over incumbent Barbara Holt. Unfortunately,
Jesse Granato won reelection over Cynthia Soto on the near northwest
As New Ground goes to press, it looks like some manner
of Health Care Bill of Rights
will pass out of the Illinois Senate. Getting anything worthwhile
out of Illinois Senate is an accomplishment worth crowing about,
though the bill appears to be only just worthwhile. In the meantime,
the Campaign for Better Health Care is looking for dedicated individuals
interested in helping with their Medicare / Managed Care Help
Line. For more information, give them a call at (312) 913 - 9449
or fax them at (312) 913 - 9559.
So far we've arranged about a half dozen showings of the new
video "Michael Harrington and Today's Other America: Corporate
Power and Inequality", and it has consistently been a great
experience. If you belong to a group or know of a group which
would like to sponsor a showing of this stimulating program, give
the Chicago DSA office a call: (773) 384 - 0327.
The 1999 DSA National Convention has been set for November
12 - 14, 1999 in San Diego, California. The convention rate of
$79 plus tax has been established for single or double rooms.
$10 per person will be added for triples or quads. The convention
rate will be available from Wednesday, November 10th through Sunday
the 14th for those who wish to tack on a day or two of vacation.
Hotel reservations can be made immediately by calling the hotel
at 1-800-676-6567 from 8am - 5pm, Pacific time. All reservations
must be made by October 14th in order to get the convention rate.
Elections for Chicago delegates will probably take place in September.
In Springfield, Illinois, the annual Mother Jones Dinner is
just about as much of an institution as Chicago's Debs - Thomas
-Harrington Dinner. They've produced a video, "The Mother
Jones Dinner: 10 Years and Counting" which highlights progressive
labor speakers and entertainers, including Victor Reuther (UAW),
Roberta Lynch (AFSCME), Cecil Roberts (UMWA), Diana Kilmury (Teamsters),
and Tony Mazzochi (OCAW), with Utah Philips, Ann Feeney, John
O'Conner, Joe Glazer and Kristin Lems. The video includes a guest
appearance of Suzanne Croteau as Mother Jones. The video is 45
minutes and copies cost $15 each plus $3 postage. Order from:
Mother Jones Foundation, P.O. Box 20412, Springfield, IL 62708.
It's been a few years since Chicago DSA has had a delegation
in Chicago's annual Gay Pride parade. The recently reorganized
Gay Lesbian Bisexual Commission will be taking up the tradition
again. If you'd like to participate, call Ben at (773) 363 - 9011
or the Chicago DSA office at (773) 384 - 0327.