> 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"?
Stalinists are certainly part of the traditional Left in America. I have no idea how many of them remain these days--there don't seem to be very many of them and their presence in the anti-capitalist movements is a minor annoyance.
> > 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"?
By "us" I refer to those in the anti-capitalist movements who aren't interested in building a "popular front," "one big party," or "one big movement."
If you think that there is ONE anti-globalization and anti-capitalist movement, you would be mistaken. There are mutiple movements that function together through networks (mainly thanks to the Internet).
Groups like Globalize Resistance (a front for the SWP) in Europe are simply an effort to impose the "popular front" strategy on something that is diametrically opposed to such centralization. These folks in the U.K. published this book recently titled "Anti-Capitalism." I haven't read the whole thing, but I've skimmed enough to say that it gives a very distorted representation of the anti-globalization movements. I'm sorry, but the movements aren't just a collection of socialist groups and NGOs.
> >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.
It's hard to say hwo big it is, but I don't think that it has declined at all. From my sources, it seems that many people, at least in North America, are focusing on local forms of anti-capitalist activism. Of course, the movements around the world are going strong. Take the anti-airport victory in Mexico as a current example.
> 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."
This is an incorrect way to judge the power and strength of the anti-globalization movements. We know that NGO and liberal groups are still doing anti-globalization activism, although they aren't doing as much in the streets. The American trade unions were never players to begin with, being mostly an annoying sideshow in the American wing of the movements. There's this big myth outside and inside the movements that big labor has been crucial to our success. From my experience as an activist organizer int he movements, I'd argue that American labor was a nonfactor even before 9-11.
Fuck, we couldn't even get the pro-capitalist toadie unions to join our protests BEFORE 9-11. I was actually supposed to go to a meeting between the anarchists and the AFL-CIO on 9-11--the meeting was cancelled.
> 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.
You don't need to take a poll. Look around you and tell me who the leaders are? Jose Bove? Maybe. Naomi Klein? She's just a writer. The movement is so successful because it doesn't have leaders in the traditional sense. It's more empowering of the grassroots activists.
> 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.
You can link this stuff to anything. But laundry list leftism is not very popular these days. I consider myself to be a radical (black blocer), but I do understand the importance of having moderates involved. It would be helpful if the Jubilee 2000 movement was more active.
But perhaps times have changed, what with this being a post-Enron era. Middle America is mad at corporations. In a sense, we have grown quite a bit because our issues have become pocketbook issues for the working and middle classes.
>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.)
As many of my anarchist comrades know, I'm a big skeptic towards union-based radical strategies. I'm just dumbfounded that leftists (and the labor-oriented tendencies in anarchism) haven't learned any lessons from the past century of unionism. It seems to me that those interested in worker-centered struggles woudl eb interested in re-inventing tactics and strategies. Capitalism is much different than it was a century ago, yet you still hear leftists talking like it is 1920 all over again. What's even more pathetic is to watch leftist groups (like the ISO) chase the big labor unions around like a small dog with its nose up the ass of a vastly larger dog. I mean, come on, who gives a fuck about those damn Teamsters? This damn union has been the friend of government and big business going back for a long time.
And now they want to endorse the TIPS program?
I'd suggest that the Left should adopt a more hostile stance towards big labor. The big unions have to go, especially the Teamsters. Perhaps one strategy might be to infiltrate these unions an incite the rank-and-file so the unions split up.
At the same time, we should be using new technologies to cause problems for the bosses. Organize cell phone and voice text networks of disgruntled workers so that they can fuck up just-in-time shipments. Use email to organize work slowdowns across an industry.
I think the Left also has to face up to the cold fact that organizing workers into big unions only plays into the hands of the capitalists. We should incite workers to revolt and let that play out naturally. The capitalists then have problems making the dissent legible enough to co-opt it.
> >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.....
Some of it was popular front type activity, even if it was lame and marginal. Like the labor march. The only important thing about the labor march was that it generated enough interest to lure the major media to Seattle.
I wouldn't say that these movements are mostly comprised of anarchists (some of us estimate that 40% are anarchists), but it needs to be pointed out that these movements are much different than the traditional leftist mobilization.
How many of you know that Seattle was just a small part of a bigger international day of protest called "N30"?
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)