> Theory spawned in practice! Abso-bloody-lutely! So what do you reckon
> that's less abstract and platitudinous than what I reckon?
because, it doesn't (or didn't) take account of, as i wrote, what kind of unity is in fact being proffered here, why, and what the consequences are of any particular variation of such. you said "We don't know." here's a glimpse:
max can write, without offering any kind of substantiation as i asked, "The elimination of limits to migration increases the bargaining power of capital relative to labor. Control of migration has the reverse effect. The latter should be our goal", and later imply that there are no damaging consequences from aligning with buchanan. well, i can understand why he would not think there are, given those previous comments on migration being responsible for the decline in bargaining power; but i do. max has also been particularly vocal on the issue of 'those anarchists'.
why is it necessary to align with the right? why not let them do their own thing somewhere else and, more to the point, regard them (as they are) as part of the problem? is this because people think the right is stronger than the left? if so, doesn't this suggest that the right is capable of driving the agenda more than the left can hope to in any alliance, that the left will end up being the envelope-stuffers in buchanan's campaign?
mike dolan: "Whatever else you say about Pat Buchanan, he will be the only candidate in the 2000 presidential sweepstakes who will passionately and unconditionally defend the legitimate expectations of working families in the global economy."
medea benjamin: "We think it was totally unfair for a small, unrepresentative group to use a massive, peaceful protest as a venue for destructive actions that went against the wishes of the vast majority of protesters." (benjamin, who has yet to make any kind of statement (at least as far as i know) about whether she's comfortable with the presence of, and alliances with, the right. why does it not occur to her that a small unrepresentative group like goldman's has such a purchase on the campaign, and that this might be in fact more of a problem than a few broken windows?)
to put it as plainly as i can: all the hand-on-heart stuff about the need for unity is a corollary of a refusal to separate oneself from the right.
if people think that unity is indeed necessary (and it's not clear to me that at any action like J18 or N30 such unity really operate without opening up what might well be an explosive question of who is excluded and why -- hence the statement you took exception to) then ok, why has this not raised in a more forceful way the question of why would we unite with the right? it did at the paris N30 action, as i already mentioned; but not at seattle. why?
otoh, i'm more than happy with reports that there was some movement toward internationalism at seattle, and i suspect that on the ground this probably exceeds hoffa et al's ravings, esp amongst the more militant sections. those i would encourage; but they can't be encouraged by legitimating, or aligning with, the right.
Angela _________