The more I read about Seattle the more I get the feeling that it is very similar to what happened in France during winter 95, in terms of 'diversity of resistance'.
As far as I remember, the situation was the following: Chirac had just been elected in June after 14 years of Mitterand's 'socialism' (including 4 years of cohabitation with a right wing gvt after parliement elections were lost, 86-88 and 93-95). At this time the French Socialist Party was trying to reform, under the leadership of Jospin (now PM) and in June 95 Jospin was surprisingly challenging Chirac for the secound round of the presidential elections. The summer was fine, everybody was happy (except a very little few) and the new gvt (Juppe as PM) was thinking of reforms and using the medias to spread the ideas that they were 1) necessary 2) good for the country (read : economy).
At the end of the fall (begining of november ?) Juppe anounces the reforms and the 'resistance' starts. Intelectuals sign petitions, strikes start pretty much everywhere, demos all over the country, then a general public transportation strike starts (third week of nov) along with the student movement. Everything formally stops during the christmas vacations but only to start again in 96 with a national truck drivers movement, massive support to illegal migrants in 97 and an unemployed movement in 98...
The interesting thing is that the resistance was not organized by the fcp or fsp or unions. I won't say it was spontaneous, in fact the 'leaders' were more unknown people who had been active through the 14 years of fsp rule, when you could not really be a credible progressive force if you did not side with the gvt (when you were bound to loose all your strength). During Mitterand's gvts, the leading anti racist group (SOS Racisme) had been totally taken over by the fsp, the biggest student union (unef-id) was traditionaly used as a pool for future fsp leaders and was controling the biggest student mutual fund (mnef) -one of the reasons why Dominique Straus Kahn had to resign a few months ago. The greens were all making funny alliances with the fsp, even creating groups that were almost directly directed by it (generation ecologie) etc etc. Meanwhile groups related to the revolutionary left (mostly LCR from what I understood) were active in the factories and public services, creating independant unions (SUD unions for example).
All this came in the open when the pressure from the right became to big and the traditional opposion was too weak to react.
Even though winter 95 was not really a victory it clearly indicated there were people who were actively and in an organized manner, resisting. Until june 97, when Chirac dissolved the parliement (to reconfirm his majority) the movement(s) got only stonger and more confident. And the 'natural' result of the june 97 elections was a victory of the 'established' opposition. I really believe that the victory of the left is totally related to a raise of conciousness of the voters and this was stired by the movements they took actively part in because they did not feel they were bound by political parties politics.
If Seattle can be a similar seed for america's left that's probably the best thing that can happen at the begining of the new century (a century of the american left ???) I think there are plenty of possibilities from now on. And if France can be taken as an example, there is no need to have an 'organized' movement as a start to have a potential long term resistance. When people are aware of issues, they have no reason not to organize themselves to be efficient.
I'm sorry if it is a little clumsy, it is already 2.30 and I should be in bed...
ps about Nathan's posts on islam : they are what I needed to read tonight. On the same subject there were two really good pieces in Le Monde Diplomatique, in a recent issue (less than 6 months old ?) they must be in english by now. One is by an ex cia-whatever bureau-head and one by a leading theology teacher of the university of Cairo. I'll try to find the references tomorow. If personal experience can tell anything, I had the chance to meet muslim women refugies from Bosnia in 97. As you may know, most muslim in France come from either north Africa or from (how do you say that in English ?) Afrique Noire countries. So the image of islam is 1)arab/black 2)underdeveloped areas 3)terrorist groups. As far as women are concerned, islam's image is of a slightly backward thought, but when you actually meet muslims you realize that it is just as backward as traditional christian thought. Anyway, the bosnian muslim women I met were 1)white 2)coming from a developed country 3)victims of religious epuration, they were not acting as slaves of their male relatives in any way. But it is interesting that christians I know (half french half croatians) who left France to go to Croatia and enter the militias/regular army there had all cliches like the ones Wojtek has. Another personal story (well, this ps is getting really long), I visited the Bekaa valley during june 98. Bekaa is still controled by Hezbollah (not exactly laic) as you know, they are the only group who is 'allowed' to keep arms in the area. Around Baalbek (the main city in the valley) the laymen and the hezbollah are peacefully living together. In fact hezbollah is providing basic social services that the government does not want to fund. In the south, at the border with Israel, they actually control everything. You can't go anywhere without being noticed and reported. They openly sell their anti israelian propaganda on the market places but even though the place is theirs, I did not see anything Wojtek mentions about the situation of women. Well, nothing more than you'd have seen in rural France 80 years ago. As a lot of people agree here, islam has various forms, and reducing a group of half a billion people (more ?) regardless of geopolitics economics and history does not make a lot of sense.
Ok, it's 3 now. I'm off.
Jean Christophe Helary