> "The anti-China rally yesterday has to stand as a low point in US labor
history. . . .
Max replied:
> Horse shit.
How surprising.
Max has already argued for (in his words) "tactical co-ordination" with the far right. He has made his choices, and they already -- by dint of a parallel assertion of the need for unity -- exclude others within the labour movement. Don't believe me? See note 2 and 3, posting from Dec.
Others need to make their choices. The Revolutionary Anti-Capitalist Bloc looks pretty fine to me [1].
Angela _________
[1]
A16 REVOLUTIONARY ANTI-CAPITALIST BLOC STATEMENT (updated, April 11, 2000)
We are all active organizers and participants of the upcoming protests surrounding the IMF and World Bank on April 9 -17. For us, these institutions are beyond reform. In addition to simply being "undemocratic" in themselves, they play a key role within a global capitalist system that must be abolished outright. That is why we are working with all our energy to bring the most effective resistance possible against them to the streets of Washington, DC. We are calling for an organized bloc of all stripes of anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist revolutionaries at the upcoming demonstrations against the IMF/World Bank. We feel that it is important to present critique of these transnational financial institutions that is anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonialist in perspective, and accompanied by a revolutionary vision which advocates a radical transformation of society that is based on mutual aid, direct democracy and free association.
We feel that the power of each group to organize autonomously based on their own ideas shows the strength of our movement. We would like to emphasize this, which is why we want to open our call to all those who share our struggle for the same revolutionary anti-capitalist goals: the abolition of capitalism, the state, and all forms of hierarchy and oppression. We invite all autonomists, anarchists, anti-state libertarian Marxists, wobblies, syndicalists, council communists, etc. to march along with us. We wish to support the larger anti-globalization movement by organizing autonomously within our own contingent. We do not intend to be divisive in any way but want to develop our actions and present our ideas. We would also like to address our concerns and criticisms that we have around the movement against globalization.
The World Bank, IMF, and WTO need to be seen within a larger framework of global capitalism. While we struggle to change the most destructive policies of these institutions we realize that they are inherently exploitive and imperialist towards workers and communities. That is why we need to connect our day to day organizing with the larger struggle against capitalism. Talk of 'fair trade,' 'pruning' and 'fixing', such as in Seattle, simply ignores the history of working class struggle against capitalism and class society, and defeats any revolutionary goals or consciousness. Instead of a message of reforming these institutions, which would not solve the fundamental problems, we want a message of abolishing these institutions and creating revolutionary alternatives.
Instead of a call for 'fair trade' or 'reform' of the global economy, we call for the international working class and oppressed communities to organize for revolutionary change of the global economy. The strength of the working class lies not only in its own community but most importantly in global solidarity with all workers and oppressed peoples around the globe. The movement against globalization is a fight in every country for dignity and justice and we are strongest in that fight working side by side. We feel that calls for national protectionism and national sovereignty pit the working class of each nation against each other. We feel especially that the stance taken by some of organized labor, and many left-reformists, is not a stance of international solidarity and that it is not the most effective stance for advancing the cause of the international working class. We believe in internationalism and the globalization of our struggle against all of capitalism, regardless of political borders, and we work towards a genuine international unity which will one day lay the basis for a global social revolution.
We believe that the most effective protest is each group autonomously taking action and using the tactics that they feel works best for their situation. We do not advocate one particular tactic but believe that the greatest diversity of tactics is the most effective use of tactics. We are critical of ideologically motivated arguments that oppose this. This is why we do not believe that it is organizationally principled for any one group to set the guidelines for the protests or claim ownership of the movement.
We also realize that if our protests and actions are effective in shutting down the meetings of the IMF/World Bank the police may use repression and violence against demonstrators. We do not necessarily advocate violence or encourage the destruction of property, but simply that the movement recognize the very real possibility for confrontation and be open to a diversity of tactics as a means of legitimate defense.
We would like to recognize the larger globalization movement for addressing some of our concerns around tactics and the role of 'peacekeepers.' This is a call for more active participation of anarchist and other like-minded revolutionaries within the anti-globalization movement to present our vision of an effective revolutionary anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian alternative. Help bring our vision of a free, classless and democratic society to the forefront. At A16 we envision an active and creative contingent of revolutionaries marching under black, red & black, and green & black flags, anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian banners, and a hail of revolutionary drumbeats. We are mobilizing marching bands, radical cheerleaders, and planning a whole assortment of highly organized and creative actions! To all of our comrades who support this call, we encourage you to get in touch, endorse it, and take to the streets with your anti-capitalist imaginations and desires!
Organize, Educate, Create Resistance!
Do not let the blows against this capitalist system cease! From the streets of Seattle, to Washington, DC, may our resistance be as transnational as capital!
¡SOLIDARITY AND REVOLUTION!
Signed, Nosotros Group (Baltimore, MD), Group Anarchiste Emile-Henry (Quebec), Active Transformation (Detroit-East Lansing, MI), Global Action (Eugene, OR), Monongahela Anarchist Group (Morgantown, WV), We Dare Be Free (Boston, MA), Sabate Anarchist Group (Boston, MA), Lancaster Anarchist Black Cross (Lancaster, PA), Flint Jones - Northeast Regional Delegate of the Workers Solidarity Alliance (WSA-IWA), Prole Revolt (Morgantown, WV), Mid-Atlantic Infoshop (Washington, DC), Arsenal (Chicago, IL), Anarchist Action Collective (Eugene, OR), Antioch Anarchist Group (Yellow Springs, OH), Autonomous Zone (Chicago, IL), DC Earth First! (Washington, DC), Chicago Anti-Racist Action (Chicago, IL), New Brunswick Food Not Bombs (New Brunswick, NJ), Brian MacKenzie Center (Washington, DC), Collective Action Notes (Baltimore, MD), Bad Days Will End (Somerville, MA), Red & Black Notes (Toronto), Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists /Fédération des Communistes Libertaires du Nord-est (Northeastern United States / Eastern Canada), Kent Anarchist Black Cross (Kent, OH), Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists - Solidarita (Brno, Czech Republic), Movement Against The Monarchy (London, England)
For general information about the protest see http://www.A16.org For information about anarchist activities at A16, see http://www.infoshop.org/octo/a16_a.html
'A16 Revolutionary Anti-Capitalist Bloc' point of mobilization:
Sunday, April 16th, 2000 Washington, DC 6am @ Rock Creek Park 26th street between M st. and Penn. Ave.
For more information, contact:
Nosotros Group PO Box 65341 Baltimore, MD 21209 email: DURRUTI36 at aol.com
[2] ----- Original Message ----- From: "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> To: "lbo" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, 20 December 1999 11:30 Subject: Re: The Problem with Chomsky
> 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"
>
> [mbs] isn't this obvious? how could it be otherwise?
so, by 'substantiation', you understand the assertion 'it's obvious'?
> [mbs] NOWHERE can you find me claiming that migration is
> 'responsible' for the decline in bargaining power.
is that so? the above sentence looks uncannily like a theory of causation to me.
>It
> could be a factor, and in principle it certainly should
> be.
whether you're claiming it's one factor amongst others, 'could be' a factor amongst others, and -- more to the point -- insist that "in principle" "should be" a factor, all amounts to a claim about causation, liability, in other words, 'responsibility'. still, though, you haven't substantiated any of this.
> Your terminology of "align with the right" is a little
> loose. I was more precise about what, how, and when.
> Fact is right now the anti-global right and left are
> both dwarfed by forces of neo-liberalism. So tactical
> coordination is essential.
i understand alliance as an alliance, your previous words were "block with". doesn't tactical co-ordination assume an alliance?
> This speaks to a more general fussiness that I can see
> from pro-trade lefts. Other people get upset about some
> babble from Hoffa Junior and other politically incorrect
> statements from workers. One of the first debates I got
> into on PEN-L was about the issue of dishonesty in politics.
> Assorted lefts voiced concerns. I was pretty surprized
> as a newcomer. There seems to be a strong Boy Scout
> factor among academic lefts -- a wish for progressive
> politics to be more beautiful and enobling than it is
> reasonable to expect. Call it the no-omelette,
> sunny-side up position.
save the anti-pc, anti-academic rave for someone who might be impressed by it, namely those academics who flip-flop between veneration of the working class and hatred for 'them'. i've no illusions about workers, and even less about left politics -- and even fewer about the ideological inflections of social democrats. first, you're advocating an alliance (oh, tactical co-ordination) with right wing organisations and officials, so you can forget the spin about "politically incorrect statements from workers". second, you're assuming a strategy which excludes those workers whom the buchananite vision implicitly and explicitly derides and degrades.
Angela _________
[3]
----- Original Message ----- From: "rc-am" <rcollins at netlink.com.au> To: "lbo" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, 20 December 1999 1:17 Subject: Re: The Problem with Chomsky
rob wrote:
> 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 _________