Suchergebnisse

This article examines the founding of Jobs with Justice, one of the most influential union-community coalitions of the post–New Deal order. More than two decades before the Occupy movement mobilized scorn against the "1 percent," Jobs with Justice convened its coalitions by directing popular ire toward the "corporate robber barons." While its anticorporate vision propelled its efforts to advance union struggle "beyond the ruins" of the Reagan era and early neoliberal reforms, it also overlapped with the populist contours of the ascendant New Right. By marshaling the moral weight of family, community, and Middle America, the coalition's vision of class and nation—through what the article terms its "ambivalent Americanism"—both animated and blurred the antagonism between workers and robber barons that the coalition so energetically developed.

The rise of Trumpism and the Covid-19 pandemic have galvanized debates about globalization. Eric D. Larson presents a timely look at the last time the concept spurred unruly agitation: the late twentieth century. Offering a transnational history of the emergence of the global justice movement in the United States and Mexico, he considers how popular organizations laid the foundations for this "movement of movements." Farmers, urban workers, and Indigenous peoples grounded their efforts to confront free-market reforms in frontline struggles for economic and racial justice. As they strove to change the direction of the world economy, they often navigated undercurrents of racism, nationalism, and neoliberal multiculturalism, both within and beyond their networks. Larson traces the histories of three popular organizations, examining the Mexican roots of the idea of food sovereignty; racism and whiteness at the momentous Battle of Seattle protests outside the 1999 World Trade Organization meetings; and the rise of dramatic street demonstrations around the globe. Juxtaposing these stories, he reinterprets some of the crucial moments, messages, and movements of the era.

This report describes the forces that shaped conventional ground force planning during the 1945-2016 period, with an emphasis on the strategic concepts and contingency scenarios used. It identifies broader lessons that are likely to be of interest to contemporary force planners, especially those related to the strategic concepts to help connect basic national security policies with the planning and development of conventional ground forces, and provides the context for consideration of different combinations of force planning scenarios. Finally, the report identifies potential opportunities for the U.S. Army to influence the future selection of defense planning scenarios. Historically, U.S. global interests and commitments have been sufficiently expansive that it was impossible to design a fiscally acceptable force that could defend all U.S. interests simultaneously: Efforts to estimate the forces required to simultaneously defend all U.S. interests have typically led to force structure estimates twice as large as more-realistic, budget-informed planning approaches. The report demonstrates that Cold War-era strategic concepts and scenarios for planning conventional forces focused on the capabilities, intentions, posture, and plans of the USSR and China. In the post-Cold War era, Northeast and Southwest Asian and terrorist threat scenarios have predominated. The analysis shows that the scenarios that have been used in defense planning have been derived from each administration's prior conclusions about the relative importance of national security interests, and threats and challenges to these interests; national security policies and strategies; and the strategic concepts that have provided a framework for relating military forces to strategic ends

Scholars of the post-1968 transnational left have increasingly criticized liberal frameworks that suggest that transnational politics fundamentally revolve around solidarity relationships between full citizens of distinct nation-states. The literature on the movements that opposed US military and political intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1970s and 1980s has also shifted to better illuminate the fundamental roles migrants, refugees, politically targeted activists, and minoritized groups have played in contesting US intervention, particularly in Central America. This article adds a layer to that discussion by examining how diasporic Puerto Rican activists helped galvanize anti-intervention movements in Boston in the 1980s. It shows how El Colectivo Puertorriqueño de Boston (the Puerto Rican Collective of Boston) developed what I call a politics of "anticolonial anti-intervention" that directly related empire "over there" to racialized colonialism in the urban US. They grappled with what it meant to live in a colonial diaspora as they helped build anti-intervention organizing in Boston. They centered the demand for Puerto Rican independence yet linked it to their resistance to US intervention elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean. They recalibrated independentista visions of self-rule, including through an updated version of community control, in the Reagan era. In doing so they challenged the implicitly white politics of rescue, aid, and deracialized Marxism that prevailed in much of Boston's anti-intervention movement.

Scholars of the post-1968 transnational left have increasingly criticized liberal frameworks that suggest that transnational politics fundamentally revolve around solidarity relationships between full citizens of distinct nation-states. The literature on the movements that opposed US military and political intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1970s and 1980s has also shifted to better illuminate the fundamental roles migrants, refugees, politically targeted activists, and minoritized groups have played in contesting US intervention, particularly in Central America. This article adds a layer to that discussion by examining how diasporic Puerto Rican activists helped galvanize anti-intervention movements in Boston in the 1980s. It shows how El Colectivo Puertorriqueño de Boston (the Puerto Rican Collective of Boston) developed what I call a politics of "anticolonial anti-intervention" that directly related empire "over there" to racialized colonialism in the urban US. They grappled with what it meant to live in a colonial diaspora as they helped build anti-intervention organizing in Boston. They centered the demand for Puerto Rican independence yet linked it to their resistance to US intervention elsewhere in Latin America and the Caribbean. They recalibrated independentista visions of self-rule, including through an updated version of community control, in the Reagan era. In doing so they challenged the implicitly white politics of rescue, aid, and deracialized Marxism that prevailed in much of Boston's anti-intervention movement.