Great. Now give us more help (as I know you have, to the WB bond boycott campaign) on strategy and tactics, ok? How do we nix the embryonic global economic-(de)regulatory state?
> But I want to make two points: 1) I'm a little uncertain about the
> process by which a Jubilee South conference can claim to speak on
> behalf of 4 or 5 billion people, and mandate the "North" to do
> anything.
Yah yah, good point, we do tend to talk metaphorically in all of this (mainly because key Jubilee North technocrats have done strange things like endorse the Cologne G-8 scam and unilaterally ally with one J. Sachs and one Pope)(the J2000 South slogan is "Nothing about us without us"). But the same question applies to, say, the process by which the African National Congress -- banned in SA from 1963-90 -- got the support of the int'l progressive community to impose sanctions on Pretoria amongst other naughty tactics, in spite of a myriad of distractions (especially other favoured black organisations) promoted by the apartheid regime, SA white liberals, the State Dep't and Thatcher, etc. There was no scientific way of knowing who could give what mandate, save maintaining good links between South and North to continue checking organisational credibility, resonance of the Line in relation to local conditions, profile of key local representatives, and so on. Same as everywhere, right? This kind of South-North "mandate" is a terribly imperfect process, and depends upon sophisticated means of assessing the integrity of the JSouth comrades, and energetic good will (and consistent skepticism, sure). I suggest you contact people you trust (e.g., 50-Years-is-Enough staff who came to the JSouth Jhb meeting last month) if you are in any doubt that this terrific group of Third World social movement leaders from a myriad of countries (with the glaring exception of E.Europe) can "give a mandate" on the debt issue... unlike black South Africa, there are no other organised Third World Debt voices save mealy-mouthed capitalist-comprador trade/finance ministers (to quote DH on PEN- L) who endorse HIPC or Nafta-for-Africa or whatever for access to various smoke-filled Green Rooms.
> Oxfam isn't accountable to any popular base,
You can say that again, if yesterday's Washington Post report containing an Oxfam USA endorsement of Lawrence Summers' "lean, mean" IMF windowdressing (in the words of Phil Gramm) is real.
> but to whom
> are "grassroots activists" accountable and by what process? Isn't
> there a kind of vanguardism there? These are genuine, not rhetorical,
> questions.
Well, give us your spiel if you don't like mine. With whom do you make solidarity and how? (Peter Waterman has a recent article on this problem, including a helpful typology, which I can send along if you like, Doug -- though I think you've seen it on e-debate.)
> 2) Wimpy compromised reformism is worst when it derails a
> more radical momentum. Right now, having U.S. unions
A more nuanced, unit of analysis, please comrade!
> weighing in on
> the WTO is a net gain; they're not derailing or deluting anything,
> they're adding to the heat.
Until that right turn away from the Seattle convention centre. Or their endorsement of IMF recapitalisation last year. Or etc etc.
> At this point, I think it's best to
> welcome them to the process and disagree with them and try to
> persuade them rather than dismiss them as hellspawn. Maybe a bit down
> the road they'll deserve that, but not yet.
Why not reply to Jeff's queries as to whom in US organised labour
you are working with, and by implication, whom you are working
against?
On 15 Dec 99, at 20:14, Jeffrey St. Clair wrote:
> As Jeff Crosby, the electrical worker local president, noted in his
excellent
> journal from Seattle: many labor organizers pushed for a direct
action
> contingent on the frontlines from the AFL. They were soundly
rebuffed. The
> questions should be: who rebuffed them? why? what did they
gain by doing so?
> was it worth it? are they now benefitting from the actions of those
who took
> to the streets? what will they do with that advantage?
Doug again:
> Nathan, your joy at being on the AC/JSC enemies list looks like a
> sectarian response to me. Why are people so incapable of sustaining
> productive disagreements?
Ach man, cheeky controversy is fun, and keeps the creative juices flowing. Nathan will figure it out, give him time. Last year on PEN-L, as I recall, he was actually endorsing the Republicans' IMF "reform" (higher interest rates and shorter loans, just like Summers' new spindoctoring) until we pointed out the devil in the detail. It seems the problem with Yale is that you become too clever by half, and then need activist reeducation camp... or would you disagree? (Sorry Nathan, forgive me.)