Patrick Bond wrote:
> But now it really is time to talk straight to comrades across this
> growing global movement. Inside-Beltway sharpies--even extremely
> impressive comrades at Nader's office--have got to remember that.
> People get turned off if they are given bizarre messages about
> reforming those monsters, when in their gut and with their analysis,
> every activist knows it's time to blow off the WTO/WB/IMF.
Even *if* one's real goal was to "fix" the WTO somehow, the correct strategy would be to demand its abolition (with no second or backup position). What the Nader people (and those like them, including many Marxists) can't understand is that a resistance movement cannot write and certainly cannot implement complex bureaucratic procedures. Only the Ruling Class and its Lackeys can do that. (I think the old Chinese jargon, lackeys and running dogs, exactly fits many of those who in one way or another want us to join into a mass campaign to "fix" the WTO.)
Incidentally: The same principle applies to Prison "reform." Angela Davis is correct -- the correct demand is to abolish the prison system. Until there is a mass movement demanding the abolition of prisons (and backed by increased numbers of prison riots) there will be no reform of prisons. I don't think Doug exactly understands the tactic (which is not only a Trot tactic) of "making demands you know the system can't fulfill." The demands have to be simple ones (that can be simply expressed in reasonably short slogans). There is no way to craft a set of reforms for WTO (or for prisons) that fits those criteria. Similarly, the demand to reduce military expenditure should be phrased as the demand to liquidate the Pentagon. Etc. Etc. Etc. It is crucial not to get caught up in the game doing the Bureaucracy's work for it. If we can build a large and threatening mass movement around some such demand as "Eliminate X," the Lackeys and Running Dogs in Washington will go to work in the back rooms to craft the details of real changes to the structure that (they hope) will quiet the movement. But the Movement must NEVER try to dictate the details of such reforms.
Jeff is wrong, however, to condemn coalitions as such. There is no way they can be avoided. They can be partly controlled by strong voices demanding simple slogans, and by narrower coalitions indicating that they are going to proceed on their own along certain lines. Beyond that one simply has to fight. There ain't no blue printed roads for movements to follow.
Carrol