lyndon johnson

Prager University Tries to Argue the Alt-Right Is Left-Wing through Semantics

This is another great little video from Kevin Logan. This time he’s attacking Prager University, which, as he points out, isn’t actually a university, but a right-wing propaganda site on the Net. It pumps out Christian fundamentalist, militaristic, neocon, reactionary propaganda.

They’re one of the various groups on the American right, who’ve tried to discredit Socialism by claiming that the Nazis were also socialists, because they had the word in their name. I’ve already put up several pieces about that, reblogging material showing that Hitler deliberately put the term ‘Socialist’ in the party’s name as a provocation to the genuinely socialist left. The Nazis, of course, were very definitely anti-Socialist, and the decision to adopt the word ‘socialist’ was strongly opposed by many in the early party, including its founder, Anton Drexler. Going further back, the nationalist intellectuals in the 1920s, who began publishing books about how the First World War was an ennobling experience, and who looked forward to a coming Reich, did indeed talk about ‘socialism’, but they made it clear that they were talking about the integration of the individual into society, in which people would work for the good of the great whole. They called it the ‘socialisation of men’, which they carefully distinguished from the socialisation of property and industry.

Apart from rounding up genuine socialists, communists and trade unionists as ‘Marxist Socialists’, along with other left-wing radicals, the Nazis also strongly supported free enterprise. They privatised a number of state enterprises during the Third Reich, and hailed the business elite as the biologically superior type of human, who had won their right to rule through the forces of Darwinian selection in the business world.

They were not at all socialist.

Now Prager U tries the same trick with the Alt-Right. The argument runs that because the ‘Alt’ stands for ‘Alternative’, it is therefore different from traditional American Conservativism, and so has more in common with the left. This is another lie. As Kevin Logan here states, the Alt-Right are just an even more poisonous version of Conservatism, and have nothing in common with the left.

This is just part of a long-running strategy the Republicans have been running for a few years now, in which they’re trying to deny the rampant and very obvious racism in their own ranks, and project it back on to the Democrats and those further left. In the case of the Democrats, this party was indeed the more right-wing of the two originally, and was the party of the Klan. But this was before Lyndon Johnson won over the Black vote by introducing Medicare, Medicaid and other welfare programmes. However, the Republicans have used this to try to argue that ‘progressive’ are responsible for racism, because of the racist history of parts of the Democrat party. Even though this was before Johnson’s reforms of the late ’60s.

Bill Talks About the Vietnam War, Athletes’ Protests and the North Korean Threat

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 01/10/2017 - 12:43am in

Earlier this week, Bill Moyers appeared on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell to talk about how President Lyndon B. Johnson reacted to Muhammad Ali’s protest and other demonstrations against the Vietnam War, the NFL protests and Donald Trump’s reaction to them, as well as the threat of war with North Korea.

Moyers, who served as Johnson’s press secretary from 1965 to 1967, said the president was “protocol conscious” when it came to publicly attacking civil rights and Vietnam protestors. Privately though, as revealed in a recent episode of the documentary “The Vietnam War,” Johnson was frustrated by the protests and could speak harshly of them.


RELATED: War & Peace


Trump’s Vietnam Looks Nothing Like the Burns and Novick Documentary Airing on PBS

BY Jim Sleeper | September 27, 2017

At the same time, Moyers says President Johnson “did not like going to war,” but once committed, he “pursued it with a passion.” Moyers adds: “He was never unconscious of the fact that people were suffering — I don’t say that out of loyalty to him, I just saw him. I knew it was wearing on his spirit, that he was doing what he didn’t want to do, but he did it anyway.”

In contrast to previous presidents who, “measured their words,” we now have an “alien in the White House,” Moyers says.

“There is almost a campaign to chill free speech, to use it to divide and polarize the country. He’s turned the oval office into a mosh pit of bodily and verbally rhetorical conflict.”

 

 

TRANSCRIPT

LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: In 1968 at the Olympics in Mexico City, this happened. Tommy Smith, the first place winner in the 200-meter race, along with third place winner John Carlos, raised their fist in what recently had become the symbol of the Black Power movement. And the president of the United States Lyndon Johnson, said nothing. That came after Muhammad Ali’s 1966 defiance of the draft, which got him convicted of a federal crime. And the President of the United States Lyndon Johnson, said nothing. And in 1971 when Muhammad Ali won his case on appeal and his conviction was overturned and the President of the United States Richard Nixon, said nothing. In 1972, after his Major League playing days were over, Major League Baseball’s first black player Jackie Robinson said in his autobiography: “I cannot stand and sing the anthem, I cannot salute the flag, I know that I am a black man in a white world.”

Bill Moyers is a Peabody Award winning journalist. He served as the White House press secretary in the Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967, and we have the honor of Bill Moyers joining us now.

BILL MOYERS: It’s good to be with you.

O’DONNELL: Bill, thank you very much, thank you for being here. So take us back, you were in the White House when Muhammad Ali defied the draft. Vietnam was obviously the biggest issue in the country at the time in terms of the tensions of the county, which was just almost coming out of but not quite coming out of the tensions of the Civil Rights movement which was still very active.

MOYERS: He was, he was, let’s say protocol conscious, in terms of attacking dissenters publically, or people who disagreed with him. Privately, he often said very harsh things about them. Particularly, as the war in Vietnam escalated, and as it became a quagmire, he thought there were Communists on the left. He said privately, I don’t know if he really thought it, but he would say privately on many telephone tapes, “Well, there are communists out there, stirring up trouble, they don’t want us to win in Vietnam.” So, he would say that, but rarely only rarely, did his public hostility… hostility become public. Last night on Ken Burns’ and Lynn Novick’s fifth episode or sixth episode of the Vietnam series, he’s quoted on the tape as being very harsh, about protestors outside the White House, draft dodgers. And that was one of the rare times he said in a way that more than a few people in the room could hear it.

O’DONNELL: And this is a president that had two son-in-laws, sons-in-law, serving in Vietnam.

MOYERS: I think their presents there is what finally triggered his deep resignation to the fact that he had to get out.

O’DONNELL: Yeah, yeah so that actual part of his move, which was really executed in 1968, where he really started moving — Johnson started moving towards trying to get peace talks — was a matter of what he was hearing from his sons-in-law.

MOYERS: Well, I don’t know if it was what he was hearing. I wasn’t there by the way in ’68 I left in ’65. But he and Lucy, his youngest daughter, after the boys went to Vietnam, they would go to midnight mass at a local Catholic church, she was a Catholic. And they would feel and sense the danger. When that danger is brought that close, it always affects any President to lose young men at war. But when it’s your own, as it was with Teddy Roosevelt and one of Franklin Roosevelt’s boys, the war is suddenly made it very personal.

O’DONNELL: And we have no record of anyone in the Trump family ever serving in one of our wars. And this is a President who talks about that these solders have given their lives for the flag. These solders… it’s for our fallen solders that we are standing and behaving as we do during the national anthem.

MOYERS: Some Presidents feel more deeply than others do. And some people… Presidents build a guard between the consequences of their decisions. Johnson tried that but he could not do it. He did not like war. He did not like going to war. But after he went to war he pursued it with a passion. But he was never unconscious of the fact that people were suffering. I don’t say that out of loyalty to him, I just saw him, I knew it was wearing on his spirit, that he was doing what he didn’t want to do, but he did it anyway. Fighting this war and fighting it with young men who were drafted. We had drafted about 2.2 maybe 2 and a half million young men during that period. Only 25% of them wound up in combat. But he was aware that… as he said when he escalated the war in July of 1965, he kinda spoke to mothers about the need for their sacrifice. It was that kind of rationalization that tore at him.

O’DONNELL: And when you see this president, who managed to get himself a doctor’s note to keep himself out of the draft, talking about… lecturing as he did this weekend about what the national anthem is supposed to mean to everyone else. And doing so as you say without any concern that President Johnson and his predecessors had of measuring their words.

MOYERS: This is an alien in the White House. We’ve never had this kind of president. We’ve had bad presidents and we’ve had vulgar men in the presidency. But we’ve never had someone who suffers from the kind of malignant narcissism. All politicians are narcissistic, but some of the malignancy of the politicians, the presidents do not spread down into the country and the culture. This one is happening very fast. There is almost a campaign to chill free speech — to use it to divide and polarize the country. He’s turned the oval office I am sorry to say, into a mosh pit of bodily and verbally rhetorical conflict. He is a very angry man and all the weekend he was angry in Alabama, Hillary Clinton again. He was angry at the football players. He was angry at North Korea and his anger is getting the best of him.

O’DONNELL: And just quickly before we go, Lyndon Johnson or any previous president, I imagine their reaction to hearing this President of the United States just call this dangerous dictator in North Korea, “Rocket Man.”

MOYERS: That’s far more dangerous then what’s happening with the NFL. He’s brought the NFL to its knees effectively. In reverence towards the ideals he’s betrayed. The issue with Korea is the deadliest issue we’ve faced in a long time.

O’DONNELL: Bill Moyers thank you very much for joining us again. It’s a real honor having you, thank you Bill.

The post Bill Talks About the Vietnam War, Athletes’ Protests and the North Korean Threat appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

Martin Luther King’s Fight for Workers’ Rights

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 04/09/2017 - 10:54am in

This post first appeared at HuffPost.

Most Americans today know that Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in Memphis, Tennessee in 1968, but few know why he was there. King went to Memphis to support African American garbage workers, who were on strike to protest unsafe conditions, abusive white supervisors and low wages — and to gain recognition for their union. Their picket signs relayed a simple but profound message: “I Am A Man.”

Today we view King as something of a saint, his birthday a national holiday, and his name adorning schools and street signs. But in his day, the establishment considered King a dangerous troublemaker. He was harassed by the FBI and vilified in the media. He began his activism in Montgomery, Alabama, as a crusader against the nation’s racial caste system, but the struggle for civil rights radicalized him into a fighter for broader economic and social justice.


RELATED: Economy & Work


The Rollback of Pro-Worker Policies Since Trump Took Office Is Staggering

BY Helaine Olen | September 3, 2017

As we celebrate Labor Day on Monday, let’s remember that King was committed to building bridges between the civil rights and labor movements.

Invited to address the AFL-CIO’s annual convention in 1961, King observed:

Our needs are identical with labor’s needs: decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old-age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children, and respect in the community. That is why Negroes support labor’s demands and fight laws which curb labor. That is why the labor-hater and labor-baiter is virtually always a twin-headed creature spewing anti-Negro epithets from one mouth and anti-labor propaganda from the other mouth.

He added:

The labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it. By raising the living standards of millions, labor miraculously created a market for industry and lifted the whole nation to undreamed of levels of production. Those who today attack labor forget these simple truths, but history remembers them.

Several major unions reciprocated King’s support. When he was jailed in Birmingham for participating in civil disobedience, it was Walter Reuther, the charismatic leader of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, who paid his bail.

Several major unions, especially the UAW and the International Ladies Garment Workers, had donated money to civil rights groups, supported the sit-ins and freedom rides, and helped organize the massive 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

We often forget that its official name was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and that its manifesto called on Congress not only to pass a civil rights bill but also a national minimum wage act.

We often forget that its official name was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and that its manifesto called on Congress not only to pass a civil rights bill but also “a national minimum wage act that will give all Americans a decent standard of living.” The manifesto pointed out that “anything less than $2.00 an hour fails to do this.”

In 1963, the minimum wage was $1.25 — the equivalent of $9.97 in today’s dollars. A $2 minimum wage in 1963 would be $15.95 an hour today.

In the 1960s, the sit-ins (a tactic adopted from workers’ sit-down strikes in the 1930s), Freedom Rides, mass marches and voter registration drives eventually led Congress to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. King was proud of the civil rights movement’s success in winning the passage of those important laws. But he realized that neither law did much to provide better jobs or housing for the large numbers of low-income African Americans in the cities and rural areas. He recognized the limits of breaking down legal segregation.

“What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?” King asked.

King observed: “Negroes are not the only poor in the nation. There are nearly twice as many white poor as Negro, and therefore the struggle against poverty is not involved solely with color or racial discrimination but with elementary economic justice.” To achieve economic justice, King said, “there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.”

“There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American whether he [or she] is a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid, or day laborer,” said King.

In a speech to the Illinois AFL-CIO in 1965, King said:

The two most dynamic movements that reshaped the nation during the past three decades are the labor and civil rights movements. Our combined strength is potentially enormous. We have not used a fraction of it for our own good or for the needs of society as a whole. If we make the war on poverty a total war; if we seek higher standards for all workers for an enriched life, we have the ability to accomplish it, and our nation has the ability to provide it. lf our two movements unite their social pioneering initiative, thirty years from now people will look back on this day and honor those who had the vision to see the full possibilities of modern society and the courage to fight for their realization. On that day, the brotherhood of man, undergirded by economic security, will be a thrilling and creative reality.

King warned about the “gulf between the haves and the have-nots” and insisted that America needed a “better distribution of wealth.”

Thus, it was not surprising that Memphis’ civil rights and union leaders invited King to their city to help draw national attention to the garbage strike.

The strike began over the mistreatment of 22 sewer workers who reported for work on January 31, 1968, and were sent home when it began raining. White employees were not sent home. When the rain stopped after an hour or so, they continued to work and were paid for the full day, while the black workers lost a day’s pay. The next day, two sanitation workers, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, were crushed to death by a malfunctioning city garbage truck.

These two incidents epitomized the workers’ long-standing grievances. Wages averaged about $1.70 per hour. Forty percent of the workers qualified for welfare to supplement their poverty-level salaries. They had almost no health care benefits, pensions or vacations. They worked in filthy conditions, and lacked basic amenities like a place to eat and shower. They were required to haul leaky garbage tubs that spilled maggots and debris on them. White supervisors called them “boy” and arbitrarily sent them home without pay for minor infractions that they overlooked when white workers did the same thing. The workers asked Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb and the City Council to improve their working conditions, but they refused to do so.

On February 12, 1,300 black sanitation workers walked off their jobs, demanding that the city recognize their union (the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME) and negotiate to resolve their grievances. They also demanded a pay increase to $2.35 an hour, overtime pay and merit promotions without regard to race.

For the next several months, city officials refused to negotiate with the union. In private, Mayor Loeb reportedly told associates, “I’ll never be known as the mayor who signed a contract with a Negro union.”

The city used non-union workers and supervisors to pick up garbage downtown, from hospitals, and in residential areas. Even so, thousands of tons of garbage piled up. Community support for the strikers grew steadily. The NAACP endorsed the strike and sponsored all-night vigils and pickets at City Hall. On February 23, 1,500 people — strikers and their supporters — packed City Hall chambers, but the all-white City Council voted to back the mayor’s refusal to recognize the union.

Local ministers (led by Rev. James Lawson) formed a citywide group to support the strikers. They called on their congregants to participate in rallies and marches, donate to the strike fund and boycott downtown stores in order to get business leaders to pressure city officials to negotiate with the union. On Sunday, March 3, an eight-hour gospel singing marathon at Mason Temple raised money for strikers. The next day, the beginning of the fourth week of the strike, 500 white labor unionists from Memphis and other Tennessee cities joined black ministers and sanitation workers in their daily downtown march.

One day our society will come to respect the sanitation worker if it is to survive, for the person who picks up our garbage, in the final analysis, is as significant as the physician, for if he doesn’t do his job, diseases are rampant. All labor has dignity.

— Martin Luther King Jr.

On several occasions, the police attacked the strikers with clubs and mace. They harassed protestors and even arrested strike leaders for jaywalking. On March 5, 117 strikers and supporters were arrested for sitting in at city hall. Six days later, hundreds of students skipped high school to participate in a march led by black ministers. Two students were arrested.

At the rallies, ministers and union activists linked the workers’ grievances with the black community’s long-standing anger over police abuse, slum housing, segregated and inadequate schools, and the concentration of blacks in the lowest-paying, dirtiest jobs.

Despite the escalating protest, the city establishment dug in its heals, refusing to compromise and demanding that the strikers return to work or risk losing their jobs. The local daily newspaper, the Commercial Appeal, consistently opposed the strikers. “Memphis garbage strikers have turned an illegal walk out into anarchy,” it wrote in one editorial, “and Mayor Henry Loeb is exactly right when he says, ‘We can’t submit to this sort of thing!’”

Mayor Loeb and City Attorney Frank B. Gianotti persuaded a local judge to issue an injunction prohibiting the strike and picketing. The union and its allies refused to end their protests. Several union leaders — AFSCME’s international president Jerry Wurf, Local 1733 President T.O. Jones, and national staffers William Lucy and P. J. Ciampa — were cited for contempt, sentenced to 10 days in jail, fined $50 and freed pending appeal.

With tensions rising and no compromise in sight, local ministers and AFSCME invited King to Memphis to re-energize the local movement, lift the strikers’ flagging spirits and encourage them to remain nonviolent. On Monday, March 18, King spoke at a rally attended by 17,000 people and called for a citywide march. He said:

One day our society will come to respect the sanitation worker if it is to survive, for the person who picks up our garbage, in the final analysis, is as significant as the physician, for if he doesn’t do his job, diseases are rampant. All labor has dignity.

His speech triggered national media attention, and catalyzed the rest of the labor movement to expand its support for the strikers.

King returned to Memphis on Thursday, March 28, to lead a march. The police moved into crowds with night sticks, mace, tear gas and gunfire. The police arrested 280 people and 60 were injured. A 16-year-old boy, Larry Payne, was shot to death. The state legislature authorized a 7 p.m. curfew and 4,000 National Guardsmen moved in. The next day, 300 sanitation workers and supporters marched peacefully and silently to City Hall — escorted by five armored personnel carriers, five jeeps, three large military trucks and dozens of Guardsmen with bayonets fixed. President Lyndon Johnson and AFL-CIO President George Meany offered their help in resolving the dispute, but Mayor Loeb turned them down.

King came back to Memphis on Wednesday, April 3 to address a rally to pressure city officials to negotiate a compromise solution to the strike. That night, at the Mason Temple — packed with over 10,000 black workers and residents, ministers, white union members, white liberals and students — King delivered what would turn out to be his last speech. He emphasized the linked fate of the civil rights and labor movements:

Our needs are identical with labor’s needs — decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community.

— Martin Luther King Jr

Memphis Negroes are almost entirely a working people. Our needs are identical with labor’s needs — decent wages, fair working conditions, livable housing, old age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children and respect in the community. That is why Negroes support labor’s demands and fight laws which curb labor. That is why the labor-hater and labor-baiter is virtually always a twin-headed creature spewing anti-Negro epithets from one mouth and anti-labor propaganda from the other mouth.

The next day, James Earl Ray assassinated King as he stood on the balcony outside his room at the Lorraine Hotel.

As Time magazine noted at the time: “Ironically, it was the violence of Martin Luther King’s death rather than the nonviolence of his methods that ultimately broke the city’s resistance” and led to the strike settlement.

President Johnson ordered federal troops to Memphis and instructed Undersecretary of Labor James Reynolds to mediate the conflict and settle the strike. The following week, King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, and dozens of national figures led a peaceful memorial march through downtown Memphis in tribute to King and in support of the strike. Local business leaders, tired of the boycott and the downtown demonstrations, urged Loeb to come to terms with the strikers.

On April 16, union leaders and city officials reached an agreement. The City Council passed a resolution recognizing the union. The 14-month contract included union dues check-off, a grievance procedure and wage increases of 10 cents per hour May 1 and another five cents in September. Members of AFSCME Local 1733 approved the agreement unanimously and ended their strike.

The settlement wasn’t only a victory for the sanitation workers. The strike had mobilized the African American community, which subsequently became increasingly involved in local politics and school and jobs issues, and which developed new allies in the white community.

Like the civil rights movement of the 1960s, there is a growing movement in the United States today protesting the nation’s widening economic inequality and persistent poverty.

Like the civil rights movement of the 1960s, there is a growing movement in the United States today protesting the nation’s widening economic inequality and persistent poverty.

One of the most vibrant crusades is the ongoing battle to raise the minimum wage. In the past 40 years, the federal minimum wage — stuck at $7.25 since 2009 because Republicans in Congress have refused to act — has lost 30% of its value.

As a result, low-wage workers for fast-food chains and big box retailers, janitors, security guards, day laborers and others have forged a grassroots movement to pressure their employers (like Walmart and McDonalds) to raise starting salaries and benefits. These workers and their allies have engaged in civil disobedience and strikes to galvanize public opinion.

Coalitions of unions, community organizations, faith-based and immigrant rights groups have also successfully pushed cities and states to adopt minimum wage laws that will pay families enough to meet basic needs. A growing number of cities — including Seattle, Los Angeles, Kansas City, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, DC, Pasadena and many others — have passed minimum wage laws that will gradually reach between $13 and $15 an hour, typically with an annual cost-of-living increase. Los Angeles County — the nation’s largest county — adopted a law that will raise the minimum wage to $15 in unincorporated areas.

Last year California and New York adopted state laws to bring the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Raise Up Massachusetts, a coalition of community groups, faith-based organizations and unions, is sponsoring a ballot measure next year that would raise the state’s minimum wage from $11 to $15 an hour by 2022 with a $1 increase each year starting in 2019. Twenty-nine percent of the Massachusetts workforce would see increased wages under the initiative, affecting roughly 947,000 workers.

A Pew Research Center survey last year found that 52% of American voters favored raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. An even larger number of Americans embrace increasing it to $12 an hour. Backed by nearly half of the Senate’s Democrats, Senators Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray have introduced the Raise the Wage Act of 2017 which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2024.

President Trump and the Republican Congress are trying to roll back worker protections against wage theft, health and safety dangers at the workplace, and threats to retirement security.

In recent years, New York, California, Massachusetts and Hawaii have adopted different versions of the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights that provides new protections for nannies, babysitters, senior care aides, housekeepers and others — primarily women and many of them immigrants — who are excluded from federal labor protections.

Several states — including California, Rhode Island, Washington, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia — have adopted paid family leave laws. A growing number of cities (including Philadelphia, Austin, Seattle, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Portland, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Washington, DC), and counties (including Missoula County in Montana, Pima County in Arizona, and Kings County in Washington), have adopted laws providing government employees, and in some places all employees, with paid family leave.

These laws require employers to pay workers’ salaries if they take time off from work to care for a new child following birth, adoption, or foster placement, to recover from a pregnancy or childbirth-related disability, and/or to take care of sick family members. This is a right that workers in most other countries already take for granted. As the number of cities and states with such laws continues to grow, Congress will be under increasing pressure to adopt similar policies at the federal level.

Of course, President Trump and the Republican Congress are trying to roll back worker protections against wage theft, health and safety dangers at the workplace, and threats to retirement security. Trump has appointed anti-union members to the National Labor Relations Board who will seek to weaken rules protecting workers.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” King wrote in his Letter From Birmingham Jail. “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

Just as King helped build bridges between the labor and civil rights movements, today’s union activists are forging closer ties to the immigrant rights, women’s rights and environmental justice movements, as well as to struggles to reform Wall Street and to challenge the proliferation of guns and the mass incarceration of people of color.

In his final speech at Memphis’ Mason Temple on April 3, 1968, King, only 39 at the time, told the crowd about a bomb threat on his plane from Atlanta that morning, saying he knew that his life was constantly in danger because of his political activism.

“I would like to live a long life,” he said. “Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And he’s allowed me to go up to the mountain, and I’ve looked over, and I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.”

We haven’t gotten there yet. But King is still with us in spirit. The best way to honor his memory this Labor Day and every day is to continue the struggle for human dignity, workers’ rights, living wage and social justice.

The post Martin Luther King’s Fight for Workers’ Rights appeared first on BillMoyers.com.