Pearl River      Over the last 25 years, the Organizers’ Forum has organized 23 delegations to visit even more countries that that number with the only break being for two years during the pandemic.  We have only visited one country, Brazil, twice, on the eve of Lula da Silva’s and the Workers Party’s first victory, when we were in Sao Paolo, and again several years ago on his return when we visited Salvador and Recife in 2023.  More recently, we were in Taiwan, Romania, Bulgaria, and are just returning from Barcelona and Bilbao in Spain.

The Organizers’ Forum calls these one-week visits to unions, community organizations, tenant unions, women’s groups, environmentalists, and others “international dialogues.”  The notion was a sharing.  We learn from others, and perhaps they also learn from us as well.  Sometimes that works well on both sides of the table.  Other times, in all honesty, we receive more than we give, as visitors asking questions to our hosts with little knowledge of our groups and our interests.

Some of the most interesting and productive exchanges – almost real dialogues – have been with various types of organizations that are interested in or already employing a membership dues system.  When the lightning strikes here, the sparks fly back and forth as tips and tools are exchanged, although that really only happens when we are lucky enough to have organizers on both sides of the table.  Interestingly, conversations with other unions are almost always productive, perhaps because the language and dynamics of class are different only in context and degree, even when the laws, regulations, and regimes are different.  It still boils down to workers and bosses, private and public, formal and informal, especially in an increasingly global economy.  Similarly, when the women in our delegation interact with women’s centers and groups, these conversations work well, sadly, because the issues faced are often identical.

One of the meetings that got high reviews in Barcelona was our invitation to sit in on a membership meeting of a housing group.  There were two things on the schedule, so our delegates with extensive tenant members and housing issues attended.  It turned out to be a meeting of 15 of their members.  Our folks felt right at home in the meeting because it felt “so ACORN.”

In Bilbao, as another example, in our meeting with Mondragon, we were value-added on several fronts.  When Beth Butler of A Community Voice in Louisiana led off our questions with several about the role of women in governing and their workplace, our guide approached us later in a frank way, saying on women’s issues they had gotten better over the years, “we’re not Sweden” he said, but raising his hands he placed them about 75% of the way up. Same for environmental issues, he said, “we’re not California,” but again he placed his hands 75% of the way up.

In trying to understand how the equity invested by the coop members could be used, answering a question from Joel Rogers, well-known political activist and organizer, and UW-Madison professor, about whether they could use that equity for something like a mortgage on a home loan, our guide had replied in the affirmative.  On a follow-up question, about what happened during the Spanish housing meltdown several years ago and whether people lost their equity then, our guide claimed that despite foreclosures, no member lost their equity.  In a post-meeting follow-up with Rogers, our guide admitted he was wrong.  The coop equity could not warrant a mortgage or act as collateral.  He had consulted their legal department after our visit to get clarification, he admitted.  Turns out he was half-right and half-wrong.  No one lost their equity, even as a member lost their home, because the coop equity could never be used as collateral.

All which makes these exchanges work as real dialogues at their best with both the guests and the hosts in the meeting all taking away valuable lessons and information.