The media have been full of abuse for the Seattle protests. One of their favorite debating points has been to claim that the developing countries adore the WTO, and fear only that perfidious Northern unions will impose labor standards. This of course ignores that the Third World unions and development groups have fiercely opposed the WTO agenda accross the board -- intellectual property rights, investment policy, competition, agriculture, government procurement, etc.
However... What to make of the fact that nearly half of the 50,000 who braved the Seattle police department were Steelworkers and others from the AFL-CIO? On the one hand, as Doug points out, they contributed much to the Seattle demos and the success of the protest owes much to them. But ultimately, their trade agenda is diametrically opposed to the developing world's. They want to keep out cheap Third World imports, while the Third World wants access to the US market. How do we reconcile the needs -- and maintain the rebellious enthusiasm -- of both 1st World *and* 3rd world workers?
I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts.
Seth Ackerman -------------------
I want to use this post and its question to cover several things, so apologies in advance.
First off, congratulations and regards to all who went to Seattle, made speeches, marched, dressed up in costumes, stood around in the way, threw rocks, and did battle with the cops. You all put Capitalism and Imperialism back on the front page--at least our mental front page. Thank god almighty, it's waay overdue. To bad the headlines didn't read, "Seattle sends Capitalist Pigs Packing." Which reminds me to wonder, how come nobody went to Redmond to throw a few rocks at microsuck?
How do we reconcile the needs?
First, don't accept the terms of the argument. There is no conflict of interest between unions here and unions 'there'. The conflict is between the US government sponsored corporate exploitation of the third world, and third world governments' exploitation of their own labor. The conflict occurs between competing capital machines over exploiting labor here and there in a global race to the bottom. We (speaking as the government and industry) want the freedom to exploit their labor and natural resources for our benefit. They want to exploit their own labor and natural resources for their benefit, or rather the benefit of their own capitalists and bourgeois. Where's the conflict between labor in this equation? It is a conflict between capitalists. The media argument is a subtle elision wherein we are given to identify with the needs of capital, rather than the needs of labor. Once we accept the view, we in turn confuse our falsely identified capitalist need with that of labor and see a conflict between labor here and labor there. I don't know about the rest of the list, but I am not worried about the billions I have invested in other countries.
Also remember that the word 'trade' is a euphemism--basically just a lie. The WTO isn't about trade in the old fashioned sense of trading finished goods and raw materials. It is primarily about the US ability to reconstruct its own industrial, manufacturing, agricultural, and service sector economy in other people's countries so as to exploit their human and natural resources, and then re-import the finished results back here. Or, alternatively, just sell it there and bring the money home (the ultimate goal). Our theoretically reduced tariffs and open markets for foreign goods are the result of the US government not taxing its own corporate sponsored imperialism. Why would we want to tax our own products produced there and sent here? In case you haven't noticed we (the US consumer) are not enjoying a wide variety of 'foreign' goods and services. Rather, we get the same old shit, made there and sent here. Are we really supposed to believe that Nikes and Compacs are foreign goods?
So, as a rule of thumb, never, ever accept the media's version of the issues. It isn't that they lie, although that isn't beyond them. Their preferred technique is to present a point of view on events so as to promulgate an agenda without seeming to do so. Since the media are incapable of this sort of analytical performance, they simply borrow their points of view that have been fabricated in advance from the existing political establishment most relevant to the particulars of the story. In this case the executive branch. Clinton with Reagan and Bush before him, and their policy wanks have been busy for years re-designing and re-molding old fashioned ugly imperialism into one new fangled thing after another. It's now called all sorts of things like: democracy, free enterprise, entrepreneurialism, open society, civil society, free trade, globalization, and just about any other damned thing but plain old imperialism. And of course this government promulgated corporate imperialism is just the foreign policy version of the government's Capital uber alles theme on the domestic front where privatizing the public sector (destruction of the welfare state) has continued apace since Nixon.
But hey, let's hear that good old fashion chant, Off the Pigs, Off the Pigs. Really. It was wonderful. My work buddies in the warehouse were laughing at me all week--as if I represented Seattle--I only wish (I always rant on Capitalism--they know me). Things like, "Hey, Chuck, how about that smell of cordite in the morning, smells like victory!" I had to correct Larry G. It wasn't cordite, nobody's shooting yet.
Again, thanks to all who went to send the WTO off packing. Fuck'm. Let'm go hide in Geneva. But we have to have some follow-up, some next event, some next big juicy target. These events are addictive.
Much cheered up,
Chuck Grimes