>>> Russell Grinker <grinker at mweb.co.za> 12/21/99 02:26AM >>>
I always thought a struggle against racism, nationalism, xenophobia, sexism....was a contribution towards strengthening the independent outlook of trade union/worker organisations. Apparently not. A critique of what (admittedly from about 10 000 miles away) seem to be very real problems in the US labour movement is taken by Max as a liberal attack. Where I come from, fighting against bourgeois prejudices amongst working people is part of a long and honourable tradition. Pandering to them would be the worst kind of economism. But unfortunately, there's a long tradition of that too.
(((((((((((
CB: I agree with Russell Grinker. We can conclude that the action in Seattle was on balance positive in the context of so little progressive movement action these days. But we can't accept it wholly uncritically. We can give it critical support. In a general sense, it seems fresh and good that a diverse group of people had a strong sense of opposition to an organ of the New World Order government. This is the beginning of a new type of coaltion against transnational monopoly, a coalition we desparately need. So, we might endorse it with all of its warts. Yet, this new , potential movement must be constructively criticized in an effort to strengthen its ideology and activist goals.
I could be wrong ,but it seemed to me that the position of labor in Seattle was an improvement over the "Buy American" slogan of the last 15 or 20 years. Roughly speaking , labor was demanding, improvement of labor standards, etc., in developing countries. The fuller demand would have been "raise their wages, don't lower ours". Ironically, in the current situation, the demand to "raise labor standards", is now behind the curve a little, even though it is an improvement from the recent past.
The tough contradiction in all of this is that U.S. based transnationals companies and banks ARE the main culprits in superexploitation of developing countries, aren't they ? So, the U.S. unions should be directing their demands and actions directly at these U.S. banks and corporations, and at the U.S. government. As The Manifesto says, each proletariat should settle the score with its "own" bourgeoisie first. The U.S. unions should make this their main goal, and maybe with a little more coordination with unions and workers in other countries than has been the history of the U.S. trade unions for fifty years.
CB