> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Jeffrey St. Clair
> I have
> interviewed organizers of
> the rally/parade who were sent a memo from their clique of
> funders during the
> weeks before Seattle. In sum, the memo said: soften your message.
> Money talks,
> especially in the land of the ngos. But fortunately those foundations,
> incestuously tied to the DNC, weren't bankrolling the
> street-fighters.--jsc
Yeah, the streetfighters were funding themselves, so since they paid to get themselves to Seattle, that gives them the right to disparage the work of the millions of union workers who voted for their leaders and funded their efforts in Seattle.
Anarchists funding themselves to create disproportionate numbers at meetings and events is just as anti-democratic a funding system for decision-making as foundations setting the agenda.
The free time and lack of family obligations assumed by anarchists in their version of the right to dominate decision-making in the movement assumes an incredibly privileged position.
Not that leadership is always right, but the disparagement by some leftists of leadership is often an excuse for trashing the voices and sacrifice of those who supported and funded the work of those leaders and the work they do.
If we are going to count numbers in Seattle, we should not just count the 30,000 union members who made it to Seattle, but also the far larger number of union members who funded the turnout and transportation of those 30,000 to Seattle. While there were no doubt many people backing up the other activists, I would say it is a fair guess that each union worker marching in Seattle was put there by the efforts of a larger number of people than the supposed democratically funded anarchists.
I am all for nuking the distortions of democracy due to foundation funding in the progressive movement, but replacing it with privileged self-funding by anarchists is a piss-poor replacement.
-- Nathan Newman