Economic Civil Disobedience Economic Civil Disobedience John Asimakopoulos, Ph.D. Abstract Working class strategies for greater equality have focused on co-opted incremental policies within the existing capitalist institutional framework. The outcome has been increasing levels of inequality and poverty. It is argued that militant direct action detached from current institutional and legal frameworks would have a significant impact on inequality via a new strategy of economic civil disobedience (ECD). Such actions include disobeying restrictive labor laws (Taylor Laws; Taft-Hartley; the National Labor Relations Board), mass organized stormings of corporate stores & warehouses, high stakes tax-resistance, financial actions, and electronic civil disobedience. These strategies are suggested as a supplement to traditional work actions which are also encouraged at higher levels of militancy i.e. mass & sympathy strikes, slowdowns, sabotage, militant picket lines, plant occupations, etc. Keywords: Economic Civil Disobedience, Social Movements, Direct Action, Wealthfare Introduction Today there is no labor movement in America other than a disorganized motley crew of unions and activist groups. The old radical labor movement (up to the 1940s) has been coalesced into the institutional framework of the capitalist system. Now, instead of leading the militant rank and file, labor leaders suppress them (Aronowitz 1992; Brecher 1997; Mills 1971); unions in order to obtain contracts gave up the right to strike; more importantly, labor gave up on political action that would challenge the ideological hegemony of capitalism (Brecher 1997). It opted instead for Samuel Gompers’ model of business unionism while aligning itself with the Democratic Party. However, at the heart of any labor movement is the organized resistance to private property rights (Perlman 1966). By accepting the institutionalization of class conflict, workers have de facto submitted to capitalist principles, thus, legitimizing an inherent ideology of control and inequality (London 1989/90). Unfortunately, experience suggests that this is a failed strategy as many writers from the 1970s onward have documented the steady decline in working class incomes, benefits, job security, and overall living standards (Davis 1986; Harrison and Bluestone 1988; Mishel, Bernstein and Schmitt 1997). For example, in 1969 the Gini Ratio for households was 0.391 compared to 0.466 in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau Gini Ratios for Households). The poverty rate for families in 1969 was 9.7% compared to 10.2% in 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau Historical Poverty Tables). The unemployment rate in 1969 was 3.5% compared to 6% in 2003 (U.S. Department of Labor). Unionization rates declined from around 36% in the 1 Transformative Studies Institute