In Chicago’ Austin community: Alinsky vs. Arizmendi

October 13, 2007


The post World War II era gave rise to two visionaries who sought to extend greater democracy and wealth to their low income constituencies as part of a broader vision to change the world. Both were critical of capitalism as well as the kind of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union that relied solely on the state. Both mobilized the grass roots to exercise power on their own behalf and did so in their thousands having a profound impact on the communities they served. Both are studied by young and veteran organizers around the world looking for new solutions to old seemingly intractable problems.

Saul Alinsky, influenced deeply by John L. Lewis of the United Mineworkers of America, advanced a vision for low-income communities that paralleled the successful organizing strategy of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. This was a strategy premised evidently on the notion that the means of production, the creators of wealth in the United States were doing a decent job. After all, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. At that time, the profits of the big America corporations generally coincided with the long term development of the sector they had invested in: GM made cars and seem to be in it for the long term, making investments in new technology and generally keeping pace. IBM did the same with computers. US Steel did the same with steel. And traditional, typically white middle class communities where these big companies were located as well as the upper classes did quite well. Communities, workers, and entrepreneurs of color faced discrimination in every aspect of the economy and society including wages and conditions of work, access to ownership, housing, and unequal justice.

Alinsky didn’t focus on the well-being of the means of production but on the improvement of the distribution of wealth that the system generated to include communities that were systematically excluded or shortchanged because they were Black, Latino, or working class. He and his organizations fought against all forms of discrimination and injustice. His pioneering organizations were created in Chicago—The Woodlawn Organization, the Back of the Yards, and the Organization for a Better Austin. They were initiated by professional organizers recruited by and affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation, and later by emerging organizations that embraced the Alinsky approach. In Austin, the Organization for Better Austin imploded when a top leader turned out to be a spy for the police department. A number of smaller regional organizations such as the South Austin Community Coalition, the Northwest Austin Council, and the Northeast Austin Organization, and others formed. They mobilized and organized local residents based on their “self-interest” and around immediate and important demands for better and fair housing, for social and racial justice, for welfare reform, and other immediate issues just as their trade union parallel did in the big mills and plants around the country. They organized for the re-distribution of wealth to their particular constituencies leaving all the questions associated with the creation of wealth to corporate America.

At the same time, in the Basque region of northern Spain in the village of Mondragon, a priest Father Jose Maria Arizmendi took a different tack. He was part of the Basque resistance to Franco, the Spanish fascist who had taken power in Spain in the late 1930s. During this time, he was arrested and narrowly escaped execution. He was assigned to the parish in the small town of Mondragon. He assumed in his approach that controlling and developing the means of production in light of the values and priorities of the local community should be the principal focus of organizing and organizational development. rather than just focusing on the broader distribution of wealth. It was at the point of production, where work was done that democracy should be extended, where worker/residents had the greatest leverage and power, and he took full advantage of the cooperative structure to achieve this goal. This was more complicated work but in the long run more powerful.

In 1943, shortly after arriving in Mondragon, he organized a polytechnical school for young Basque people that taught both the technical skills of manufacturing and production as well as values. In 1956, with five graduates of this school, Arizmendi purchased a gas stove company and organized it on a cooperative basis—one worker/one vote and a compensation ratio of one to three. The initial company employed 30 worker owners. It was successful. Another company was launched with another team, and then another, and then another. By the mid-1970s, they had some 45 companies employing 17,000 workers in manufacturing and retail as well as a shared cooperative bank, vocational schools, and housing cooperatives. In 2007, the Mondragon network—now the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation—has 85 companies employing 130,000 people globally. There are major cooperatives in retail as well as manufacturing. Eroski is a big box retail store that is owned by its employees and owners and has kept Wal-Mart out of Spain. Mondragon is the cutting edge of the Spanish industrial economy, and the region is recognized as one of the leading manufacturing regions in the global economy. Unemployment is very low and per capita income is high. Democracy is a reality in politics as well as in the economy.

Arizmendi recognized the central role of wealth creation in society and the fact that market sophistication and competition could be combined with social values. Through organizing, leadership development, and organizational sophistication, Arrizmendi led a movement that has contended successfully in the market and state, and profoundly influenced civil society.

Today, the Alinsky-inspired movement is less and less effective. The private sector has qualitatively changed and the powerful Low Road segment that is dominated by Wall Street and large multi-national publicly-traded companies has shattered the social contract that made the Alinsky inspired movement viable throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Among the most powerful companies, short term gains for shareholders has replaced any desire or long-term commitment to particular companies, products, or sectors much less the communities where production takes place. A social movement in the US can no longer depend on limiting its role to just redistribution of wealth. Redistribution is required but no longer sufficient. It’s essential that those interested in sustainable communities take up the issues of wealth creation and find alliances with those in the business community who still share a contemporary version of the old idea of stewardship.

From my perspective, Arizmendi was and is a more powerful and effective visionary in setting the course for organizing in communities than Alinsky. Now more than ever we need to use perspectives such as his in not just asking others for development that includes community residents but making it happen in ways that remain under local control and guided by local values. We need to develop the skill and vision that allows those with a commitment to development that is environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable to compete in the market, in the state, and in civil society against the destructive Low Road trend. There is now a broad vacuum of leadership in the economy and society, particularly in communities like Austin. We should contend to fill that vacuum with a vision that truly builds the community on behalf of its residents. Austin Polytech is part of that effort.

The High Road and the Low Road

ON THE HIGH ROAD/LOW ROAD

The concepts of the HR/LR, from my understanding, first emerged in European literature in the mid-90s. In this country, it was introduced by people like Joel Rogers and in the framework of various labor/community coalitions such as Sustainable America and initiatives by the sections of the AFL-CIO that engaged in workforce development and strategic campaigns related to the labor movement. In this setting, the use of the terms generally weren’t for transformative reasons but to increase bargaining and organizing leverage for trade unions and coalitions.

For CLCR, the HR/LR formulation has become a key component of our strategic vision—a vision that we seek to bring into all of our work including the Chicago Manufacturing Renaissance Council, Austin Polytech, the Solidarity Economy Network-US, and the North American Network on the Solidarity Economy.

We see the HR/LR as a key formulation in the vision that seeks an economic and social system with a commitment to development that is economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable; and based on the social partnership of business, labor, government, and community. We are fundamentally committed to an international vision of HR development that accepts globalization as a fact. In this international context we seek to define and advance the High Road and understand and block the Low Road.

With this as a premise, our vision of development is transformative and challenges the fundamental assumptions and trends of what has affectionately become known as neo-liberalism. The neo-liberal vision represents the celebration of the Low Road and has come to be “a”, if not “the”, dominant trend in the global economy. We really seek a comprehensive economic and social system that is based on different principles and assumptions—and that can successfully contend in the market place, the state, and in civil society.

Finally, this is a political movement with a small “p”. It’s objectives and programs are supported as well as opposed by Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and independents. As such, building strong alliances and coalitions among the social partners becomes fundamental. This organizing work is the complicated but finally essential work that goes with this vision.

For that reason, the ambiguity of the notion of HR/LR is useful. It doesn’t have ideological baggage from either the left or right. Everyone knows intuitively what it means and general direction it should take them in. Then we have the work to make the application more specific and accurate through in-depth research and analysis.

The notion of the Low Road emerged first in naming business practices. That limit is no longer acceptable if we are to be successful in building the kinds of coalitions we need to bring about change—hence the beginning efforts to define the HR/LR in the context of all the social partners.

Defining the High Road and Low Road is not science but a judgment. Typically companies, organizations, and agencies have a mix of both High Road and Low Road practices. The intent is to understand and reward the High Road, as well as to understand and discourage the Low Road. In both the private and public sectors, the High Road seeks a strong return on investment by:

· Being smarter and investing in innovation in the more competitive environment;

· Making a commitment to the continual enhancement of employees’ skills and their involvement in all aspects of the company or organization;

· Being more efficient and cutting waste;

· Having a long-term vision and commitment;

· Providing strong material incentives for high performance, as well as providing decent wages, benefits, and security;

· Promoting useful partnerships with stakeholders both within the firm, in the sector, and in the community; and

· Being transparent, straightforward and fair.

At the very heart of a High Road strategy is a commitment to innovation, such as developing new niches and markets, adding value to existing products, investing in research and development, expanding market share, and improving the efficiency of the productive process and the productivity of employees. Some would see this as the way manufacturing was generally done in the past; it is not a particularly new concept.

In contrast, the Low Road in business seeks a strong return on investment by:

· Emphasizing short-term gains, even if they mean postponing or sacrificing improvements in the productive capacity of the company or sector;

· Keeping wages and benefits at the lowest possible levels;

· Managing by intimidation, undermining employee initiative, and discouraging the exercise of employee rights; and

· Ignoring the needs and concerns of those beyond the most short-sighted and powerful shareholders, investors, and/or managers.

In the public sector, the Low Road also exists when particular organizations or agencies place their own rewards and benefit as such a high priority that they are willing to do damage to their partners or the broader economy. For example:

In government—holding on to bureaucratic strength and privilege no matter what the consequence for the public;

In labor—negotiations for an excessive contract with an employer that is really trying to find the High Road that places the company fundamentally at risk in the pursuit of short-term benefits for union members; or

In community—pursing a “community benefits agreement” for a specific constituency with a company such as Wal-Mart whose business plan will devastate the regional economy.

The use of High Road and Low Road by a variety of commentators, leaders, policy formulators, and organizers is increasing. This is a very useful development and CLCR will continue to give increased definition to these terms through our analytical work and practice.