In a message dated 8/5/2 10:05:46 PM, you wrote:
>Michael Pugliese wrote:
>
>> Since the protests at Seattle in winter 1999, the dominant mood on the
Left has
>been one of unity.
Chuck wrote:
>This is, of course, wishful thinking. Much of the current anti-capitalist
>movements want nothing to do with the traditional Left and mostly view
>these sects as curious relics of a bygone era.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the Stalinists are not a part of the "traditional Left" in America? Or are you not including them under "much of the current anti-capitalist movement"?
> Many of us certainly have
>no use for the old "united front" goal of traditional Leftism.
I assume you are referring to the "popular front" politics of Stalinism, which included miscellaneous leftists, social democrats, and liberals. I certainly have no use for these, either. But who are you referring to when you say "us"?
>The current
>anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movements are based on networks,
>especially the Internet, and have a greater tolerance for diversity within
>the movements. There is also alot of hostility towards leaders, even
>anarchist ones.
Well, I don't see much of an "anti-globalization" and/or "anti-capitalist" movement out there these days. I know there still *is* one, but I think it's a lot smaller. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that many of the more tame elements of the "grand coalition" everyone lauded-- i.e., liberals, rank-and-file trade unionists in line with the labor bureaucrats, people from NGOs, etc.-- have opted out due to the national chauvinism that now permeates due to the "war on terrorism." As far as the hostility towards leaders: I don't see how we could measure the amount of hostility in the anti-capitalist movement, unless we took a poll. The same with the "tolerance for diversity" bit. Not to say that they aren't worthwhile goals.... However, I think that the type of hostility you are talking about, to the extent it exists, is a result of the non-radical elements' refusal to take a stronger stance on the issue of capitalist global markets in general. They are also unable to ideologically link the demands of those markets to the objectives of militarism. With the lack of any progressive socialist movement in the United States that is actually based in labor, it is the anarchists who take the lead as far as a militance stance is concerned. And I think this militant stance--e.g., the unwillingness to rely on the ruling class to support real change-- would be the basis for constructive dialogue between anarchists and a workers' movement. (If you like, we can also talk about whether we are to be optimistic or skeptical about working class politics in the 21st century United States.)
>If the writer of this sentence really believes this nonsense, they should
>get out more.
Well, it certainly is true that much of the Seattle-type protests were, as you say, a "popular front" sort of activity (i.e., all the liberals, Stalinists, and NGOs that were involved). But I don't think it would be fair to characterize the "anti-capitalism" movements in general as being chiefly comprised of anarchists. But, maybe I am missing what you are saying.....
-- David