-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Newman
>
>>On Behalf Of Dace
>
>> Do you have to make everything so personal?
>> Why didn't he support the blockade of the Washington State
>> Convention Center in Seattle? Why didn't he direct his labor march right
>> into the heart of the protest?
>
>I wasn't the one calling others police informants and part of the
>imperialist project. I was questioning your qualifications and experience
>to judge Sweeney's dedication to agitation and mass action.
You take things personally and you make things personal. It's not helping.
>The question you ask are real questions, which if you indicated any
>experience in organizing, you might be able to answer.
>
>First, Sweeney did support the blockade; he just didn't have his own band
of
>unionists participate.
Sweeney did not support the blockade. That is a fact. What he may or may not have said about the blockade does not alter that fact.
>You usually don't start with mass arrests for such new activists in an
>issue. Basic organizing rule. When SEIU has conducted mass action
>campaigns, it has been as a culmination of organizing, where the union
>activists involved have gone through a series of steps of increasing
>activism and commitment. Seattle was no doubt a training ground for union
>folks getting more immersed in the issue, but to expect mass direct action
>at this point just shows astounding lack of sympathy for how hard it is to
>move ordinary folks toward risking arrest and how careful you should be to
>make sure that people are trained for when they do it.
Excuses, excuses. How come the Steelworkers were able to participate in the blockade? They weren't overly concerned about the tender natures of their sensitive, young recruits. I can tell you right now, concern for recruits was not the reason the march was planned to avoid the real confrontation. That was a political decision.
>As for the political issues involved, Sweeney does have a less radical
>political agenda than I would like, but that is quite separate issue from
>his commitment to agitation when necessary. But to call it imperialist is
>silly, unless you also are calling thrid world union leaders who marched
>with Sweeney imperialist?
No doubt many of the Third World labor leaders who marched with Sweeney are wary of alliances with American labor and recognize the possibility that their erstwhile partners will sell them down the river if these alliances ever become a real threat to Washington-Wall Street dominance.
>And to the Sun Tzu (ART OF WAR author) quote that is the base for the
>subject header. The book was recommended to me by a union organizer and it
>highlights what bothers me about the whole Seattle discussion, the whole
>"lefter than thou", macho militancy posturing.
There you go again.
It is the assumption that the
>more aggressive the action, the more dedicated the progressive warrior one
>is. What makes Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR so classic a work is that as a
general,
>he has total disdain for leaders who actually had to fight battles or
wasted
>effort on fruitless fights. When diplomacy worked (that horrible
>"negotiations" that labor unions are accused of engaging in), that was all
>to the good when concrete gains were made. When diplomacy fails, a show of
>force without combat is the next best course. Only when that fails do you
>turn to skirmishes.
Do you think diplomacy is possible with Clinton? Do you think he will agree to any demand that serves to substantially alter the current balance of power in the world? Diplomacy is about as realistic a tactic as military assault. All we can do is gather our force and make a showing of it at every available opportunity.
>Most intellectuals have total disdain for the "preservation" parts of
>strategy, mostly because they are individuals with no troops to preserve,
>just their big mouths to sound off with.
What is motivating this abuse? Do you have any idea?
Ted