Socialist Workers Party

President-elect Donald Trump has announced he intends to pursue gaining control over Greenland, as well as the Panama Canal, to advance the interests of the U.S. ruling class against its competitors abroad, especially Beijing and Moscow.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bloody invasion of Ukraine, and the Tehran-Hamas pogrom against Jews in Israel, all capitalist powers are scrambling to strengthen their militaries in anticipation of bigger wars to come.

Greenland and the Panama Canal are key in the sharpening competition over trade and military sway, from the North Atlantic to the Pacific. Both Moscow and Beijing are expanding their presence in Latin American and the Arctic.

What became the Canal Zone in Panama was seized by Washington in 1903 as the U.S. rulers sought to impose their domination across Latin America. The construction of the canal gave them control over a key world shipping route. After a decadeslong fight against U.S. domination, hundreds of thousands took to the streets in 1979 to celebrate the treaty that returned the canal to Panamanian sovereignty.

Greenland is a nation of 57,000 people, the majority of whom are indigenous Inuit. It’s an “autonomous territory” of Denmark, and one of the European Union’s Overseas Countries and Territories, but Washington is the foremost military power on the island.

Aspirations for independence have grown in recent years, after decades of subjugation at the hands of the Danish rulers. In the 1950s, Danish authorities took Inuit children from their families to “re-educate” them as “model” Danes. Last year 143 women from Greenland sued the Danish government, saying that Danish doctors had fitted contraceptive coils in some 4,500 women and girls on the island without their consent or knowledge in the 1960s.

“We need Greenland for national-security purposes,” Trump told the press Jan. 7. Washington’s Pituffik Space Base in Greenland includes part of the U.S. ballistic missile early warning system. Control over Greenland “is valuable for projecting power, monitoring activities of rivals and securing shipping routes,” the Wall Street Journal reported, quoting unnamed officials.

Trump claims he’ll use Washington’s vast economic clout, and hints at the use of force, to get control of Greenland.

Growing capitalist rivalry in Arctic Since its invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has reopened dozens of Soviet military bases in the Arctic and increased submarine patrols and exercises there.

Beijing has acquired mining operations in Greenland. Chinese capitalists seek control over shipping lanes in the Arctic, which offer shorter export routes than some they now use. Under Trump’s first presidency, the Pentagon successfully pressed the Danish government to block Beijing from financing three airports in Greenland.

U.S. and rival capitalists also covet Greenland’s profitable deposits of oil, natural gas, graphite and other rare-earth elements that are used in manufacturing many high-tech goods.

“Our future and fight for independence is our own business,” Greenland’s prime minister, Mute Egede, said in response to Trump’s remarks, before adding he looks forward to talks with Trump.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says she wants to keep hold of Greenland, but would welcome an increase in the U.S. military presence there. The rival governments of France and Germany both condemned Trump’s comments.

US intervention in Panama Some 5% of world maritime trade goes through the Panama Canal annually, including 40% of all U.S. container traffic.

Trump’s threats to retake the canal are aimed at reasserting control and pushing back Beijing’s growing influence. Both seaports at either end of the canal are operated by CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based company under Beijing’s thumb. Chinese capitalists are expanding investments and political sway across Latin America, long considered by the U.S. rulers as their backyard.

After installing a compliant government in Panama in 1903, Washington gained the rights to build the canal. Repeated struggles against U.S. domination of Panama’s economy and for an end to Washington’s occupation followed. Through their unions, canal workers joined struggles against racist Jim Crow segregation imposed there by U.S. authorities.

In 1964 U.S. soldiers attacked students flying the Panamanian flag, desecrated it and set off a rebellion in the zone, and in Panama City and the city of Colón. More than 20 Panamanians were shot dead.

Ten years after having been forced to relinquish control, U.S. forces invaded in 1989 to oust the government of Gen. Manuel Noriega and installed a more submissive regime. Whole neighborhoods were bombed flat and hundreds were killed.

Trump “thinks he can take whatever he wants,” Isabel Corro, president of the Association of Family Victims of the 1989 U.S. Invasion of Panama, told the Guardian newspaper. But Washington retaking the canal “should not happen and we will not let it happen.” Panama’s government says sovereignty over the canal is “non-negotiable.”

The U.S. ruling families are determined to shore up their faltering place at the head of the imperialist world order, and see Greenland and the canal as key to that effort.

The American evolutionary biologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould’s column for Natural History magazine began as a way to balance the political convictions of his civil rights experiences with his desire to revolutionize evolutionary theory. As his career soared to new heights in later decades, his professional ambitions eventually eclipsed his leftist politics. But in the late 1970s, he was still using the column to address contemporary debates over science and politics. In the spring of 1976, he decided to weigh in on a controversy close to home with a column titled “Biological Potential vs. Biological Determinism,” which joined in the leftist criticism of the biologist Edward O. Wilson’s 1975 book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.

By then, he and Wilson had been colleagues in Harvard’s biology department for several years. At first glance, Wilson’s book might not have appeared to be the most likely candidate to spark leftist outrage. It was a long academic volume that synthesized empirical work on a host of animal taxa with the aim of clarifying a new program for the evolutionary study of social behavior. Wilson was convinced that the qualities of social life — e.g., aggression, cooperation, and hierarchies — were as much a product of natural selection as were physical traits. And in what would become an infamous last chapter, he extended this argument to the study of human societies. The book was far more empirically grounded in its treatment of human evolution than the popular works of Robert Ardrey, Konrad Lorenz, and Desmond Morris, which had fed into narratives of inevitable race war at the height of civil rights activism. Nevertheless, Sociobiology was at the heart of the most consequential debate between the leftist and liberal perspectives on science and American democracy of the era.

Wilson’s writings became a flash point as a new set of evolutionary models of sex difference clashed with the political demands of an intense phase of the American women’s movement. New legal triumphs that guaranteed the right to contraception for married couples, the right to abortion, and protections against sex-based discrimination were counterbalanced by a ferociously energetic conservative Christian movement that fought against the Equal Rights Amendment and any possibility of changing women’s place in American society. Even as women across the country reimagined their roles at home, at work, and at church — and pushed for the legal protections to do so — reactionary politics continually insisted on limiting what women could do and be.

It was in the midst of this political tumult that Wilson’s book (alongside other texts on the evolution of social behavior, including Richard Dawkins’s 1976 The Selfish Gene) promoted a new evolutionary narrative that claimed that contemporary American gender roles were the products of prehistoric adaptations encoded in humanity’s genes. Sociobiologists like Wilson and Dawkins envisioned a prehistoric past in which women gathered food and lived in family camps, while men went out to hunt and seek new sexual partners. In subsequent decades, scientists and nonscientists alike would deploy this narrative in both scientific and popular settings to rationalize gender disparities in STEM fields and the workplace and to naturalize rape. Gould’s criticism of Wilson was joined by critiques developed by other leftists from the sciences and the humanities, who viewed sociobiology as reactionary politics rather than sound science. And the sustained protest against the sexism of sociobiology over the next two decades would be led by the leaders of feminist science collectives, including Ruth Hubbard, a biologist at Harvard, and Ethel Tobach, a psychologist at the American Museum of Natural History.

Before sending his column on sociobiology to Natural History for publication, Gould sent a draft of it to Wilson. Wilson’s outraged reply and the subsequent exchange between the two men reveals far more than just the contours of their personal animosity. As expressed in his letters to Gould and in later publications, Wilson had a more classically liberal view of science’s proper role in American democracy. Liberals view science as truthful knowledge that serves as a foundation for an enlightened society to guarantee equality and enact rational governance. Thus, they consider science essential for democracy, but they do not prioritize a democratic approach to the actual practice of science. As liberals see it, even when science is only done and understood by a few elite white men, the reliability of its knowledge of the natural world enables it to be the foundation of an equitable society.

This understanding of science and democracy was unacceptable to Gould, as well as to other leftists in the radical and feminist science circles that protested Wilson’s book. Although their understanding of science for the people was by no means consistent, members of these movements shared a conviction that the elitism of science impeded its capacity to support democracy. For leftists, the inclusion of women and minoritized racial groups in the professional practice of science was essential if science was to contribute to a progressive society. Wilson, for his part, characterized the attacks by Gould and others in what became known as the Sociobiology Study Group (SSG) as an attempt to restrict the freedom of scientific research and a worrisome sign of intellectual censorship.

By the end of the century, many public scientific liberals would castigate both Gould’s historical accounts of scientific racism and the feminist accounts of gender bias in science as “anti-scientific.” But the history of this late 1970s moment reveals that neither Gould nor feminist scientists saw their criticisms of sociobiology as anti-science. In fact, they understood the debate to be a conversation within the scientific community about the evidence for a new model within evolutionary science.

They believed that a better science, one that acknowledged the pitfalls of gender and racial bias, could be achieved through collective self-reflection on the motivations and practices of scientific work. And this better science could, in turn, be used to combat what these leftist academics feared were reactive and oppressive political actions. Their willingness to address the role of social influence in science and to publicly criticize current scientific research, however, set the stage for a new cultural divide. By the end of the century, sociobiology had claimed the mantle of scientific authority on human sexuality. And feminist and other leftist academics struggled to stave off accusations that their approach to scientific knowledge was itself anti-scientific.

December saw a number of important developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The month started well for unions but ended badly. Some observers complained of whiplash!

On December 10, the five-member board, still under Democratic control, issued a long-awaited decision freeing unions from the most deleterious features of management-rights clauses.

The case, Endurance Environmental Solutions, LLC, overruled MV Transportation, a 2019 decree from Donald Trump’s first term in office.

MV Transportation created an outrageous presumption that unions that agree to generally worded management-rights clauses intend to give employers a right to change work rules, hours, or other conditions of work without giving prior notice or extending an opportunity to bargain.

Since most labor agreements have broad management-rights language, MV Transportation had a devastating impact, allowing employers to cancel important rights and benefits without fear of legal challenge.

When Joe Biden won the presidency in 2020, union activists hoped that he would soon nullify MV Transportation by restoring activist Democratic control of the NLRB. They cheered when Biden’s first picks, Democratic SEIU lawyers David Prouty and Gwynne Wilcox, formed a majority along with incumbent Democratic chairperson Lauren McFerran.

Disappointment gradually followed, however, as for almost five years the Biden labor board failed to take aim at management rights. With only a few weeks left in Biden’s term, the board finally came through.

Endurance Solutions squarely reversed MV Transportation, stating that “management-rights clauses that are couched in general terms and make no reference to any particular subject area will not be construed as waivers of the statutory right to bargain over a specific subject.”

This holding reduced the legal significance of most management-rights clauses to little more than vague statements of philosophy.

It did not take long for Republicans to hit back with a vengeance. On December 11, without a legitimate basis in her record, the Senate rejected President Biden’s routine renomination of Chairperson McFerran to a second five-year slot on the board.

McFerran’s confirmation would have cemented a Democratic Board majority until at least 2026. Her rejection will give Trump the ability to nominate her replacement as well as fill an existing vacancy, giving the Republicans a decisive 3–2 majority.

To win the vote against McFerran, the Trump forces needed at least one independent or Democrat to vote with the forty-nine Republicans. Mavericks Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Joe Manchin (I-WV) quickly lent their support, quashing the nomination fifty to forty-nine (one Republican didn’t vote).

Once Trump’s next set of nominees are confirmed, we can expect them to try to reverse several pro-union precedents. These include:

Stericycle, which imposed strong standards against chilling employer rules and policies; Cemex, which in some cases compels employers to recognize union majorities without an election; Amazon, which largely bans captive-audience anti-union meetings; And, of course, the newly inked Endurance Environmental Solutions. From a union standpoint, the future of labor law has rarely looked so perilous.

Questions and Answers Q. We work for the state of California. Do changes in NLRB policies affect us?

A. Yes, but not directly. The National Labor Relations Act only has jurisdiction over private sector employers and employees. Federal and state agencies come under the supervision of public sector labor boards. Nonetheless, these bodies often look to the NLRB for direction.

Q. Could Donald Trump fire all the existing Democratic members of the Board as well as Democratic administrative law judges (ALJs)?

A. For years, the answer to such a question was a strong no, based on constitutional principles, free speech, and due process. Recent litigation, however, suggests that some federal judges may be receptive to granting the president new levels of control over personnel decisions. The issue is likely to bubble over in the years ahead.

Q. We hear that some employers are asking courts to rule that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) — our fundamental federal labor law, passed in 1935, which gives workers the right to form unions and take collective action — is unconstitutional. Is there any strength to the argument?

A. Hard to say. The US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the NLRA in 1937. Nonetheless, in recent years, Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s have railed against it, contending that the NLRB has too much power. Most observers believe the argument lacks merit, even if a sympathetic Supreme Court hears the matter.

Moreover, the ruling class takes a chance by gutting the NLRA — workers and unions may press for their demands in the streets, a venue where they have the advantage.

Q. If the NLRB keeps turning to the right, should unions continue to file unfair labor practice charges and election petitions?

A. Yes — unless the NLRB goes completely over to the dark side. Even if the board becomes ultraconservative, hundreds of decent ALJs, hearing officers, and enforcement personnel will continue giving unions a fair shake.

Moreover, if the minority Democratic board members use stalling tactics, as can be expected, employers may not be able to reverse major labor principles for several years; it took five years before a Democratic majority was able to overturn MV Transportation.

In the meantime, unions may be able to win tactical victories while building a united front to save the labor agency from total capitulation.

DALLAS — La Nigrulaj Dancistoj de Dallas, kiuj estis ĉiuj maldungitaj pro aliĝo al la Amerika Gildo de Muzikaj Artistoj, atingis kompromison de $560,000 kun la estroj de la Dallas Black Dance Theatre. La 9-an de decembro la sindikato priskribis la kompromison, kiu inkludis pardonpeton de la estraro de la teatro, kiel "historia amplekse."

La 10 dancistoj, kiuj aliĝis al la sindikato en majo, estis maldungitaj la 9-an de aŭgusto. Dum la tuta batalo, ili kaj iliaj subtenantoj daŭre premis la danckompanion, kun pikedoj ekster la prezentoj de la teatro, kie anstataŭaj dancistoj estis uzitaj.

Komence de decembro, la Nacia Estraro pri Laboraj Rilatoj akuzis la posedantojn de la teatro pri dekoj da maljustaj laborpraktikoj.

La dancistoj planis aranĝi prezenton por kolekti strikajn fondusojn la 18-19-an de decembro. Ili transformis ĝin en festadon.

Reflektante la vastan subtenon, kiun la dancistoj gajnis, ambaŭ prezentoj estis elvenditaj. Membroj de la danca kaj arta komunumo, membroj de lokaj sindikatoj, komunumsuportantoj kaj familianoj de la dancistoj plenigis la sidlokojn.

Terrell Rogers Jr., unu el la maldungitaj dancistoj kaj koreografoj, diris al la Dallas Morning News, ke tio povas malfermi la pordon al nova epoko. "Epoko kie dancistoj sentas sin sekuraj, kie dancistoj sentas sin aŭditaj, kie dancistoj estas ĝuste kompensitaj."

"Kio okazis ĉe Dallas Black Dance Theatre sendis 'ondetajn efikojn' tra la dancindustrio," diris Erica Johnston, kostumdesegnisto el Novjorko, al la Morning News. "Ĝi sendas mesaĝon al aliaj artistaj gvidantoj, ke dancistoj ne estas forĵeteblaj."

Kiel parto de la kompromiso, neniu el la maldungitaj dancistoj decidis reveni al la danckompanio. "Dum ĉi tiu kompromiso permesas al niaj vivoj pluiri," diris la dancistoj en komuna deklaro, "ni rekonas, ke la batalo por respondeco kaj justeco ĉe DBDT estas malproksime de fino."

DALLAS — The Dallas Black Dancers, who were all fired for joining the American Guild of Musical Artists, have reached a $560,000 settlement with Dallas Black Dance Theatre bosses. On Dec. 9 the union described the settlement, which included an apology by the theater’s board of directors, as “historic in scope.”

The 10 dancers, who joined the union in May, were fired Aug. 9. Throughout the fight, they and their supporters kept the pressure on the dance company, with picket lines outside the theater’s performances using replacement dancers.

In early December the National Labor Relations Board charged theater owners with dozens of unfair labor practices.

The dancers had planned to host a performance to raise strike funds Dec. 18-19. They turned it into a celebration.

Reflecting the wide support the dancers won, both performances were sold out. Members of the dance and art community, members of area unions, community supporters and family members of the dancers filled the seats.

Terrell Rogers Jr. one of the fired dancers and choreographers, told the Dallas Morning News that this can open the door for a new era to emerge. “An era where dancers felt safe, where dancers felt heard, where dancers were compensated properly.”

“What’s happened at Dallas Black Dance Theatre has sent ‘ripple effects’ across the dance industry,” New York-based costume designer Erica Johnston told the Morning News. “It does send a message to other artistic leadership that dancers are not disposable.”

As part of the settlement, none of the fired dancers decided to return to the dance company. “While this settlement allows our lives to go on,” the dancers said in a joint statement, “we recognize that the fight for accountability and justice at DBDT is far from over.”