Chuck:
>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.
David: But, the effects of organizing from the Stalinist tradition are present everywhere, and certainly were present at the so-called "anti-capitalist" rallies. We're not just talking about people who dogmatically worship the Stalinist worker-states, mind you, but people who are sucked in by Stalinist "popular front" organizing tactics, through front groups like the IAC. There were certainly a number of these in Seattle, etc., and for that matter, every other large leftist event I've been to. Of course, the IAC has been doing a lot around the "war against terrorism," too-- in places where some of the other "anti-capitalist" folks have bowed out.
Chuck:
>> > Many of us certainly have
>> >no use for the old "united front" goal of traditional Leftism.
[....]
>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."
David: How is it that you can speak for an entire tendency within the "anti-capitalist movements"?
Chuck:
>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).
David: Yes, networks and the internet are one of the ways that the liberal groups and NGOs, and popular fronts function, too.
Chuck:
>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.
David: You're right-- I don't think any one group or person can claim to "represent" the anti-globalization movements in any hegemonic sort of way.
David:
>> 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."
Chuck:
>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.
David: I do remember there being lot of rank-and-file trade union folks in Seattle. But, "power" and "strength" seem to be relative terms here.
Chuck:
>There's this big myth outside and inside the movements that big
>labor has been crucial to our success.
David: How are you measuring "success"? It seems to me that stockbrokers have been the main ones contributing to the halt of capitalism these days-- not anarchists per se.
Chuck:
>Fuck, we couldn't even get the pro-capitalist toadie unions to join our
>protests BEFORE 9-11.
David: It sounds like you might be lumping the union leaders together with their rank and file. I remember, in Seattle, when a segment of the AFL-CIO march broke off from its prescribed route and joined the anarchists. It seemed to me that this was a moment-- isolated though it may have been-- of consensus around the bureaucratic leadership's failure to make good. I don't know; what do you think?
Chuck:
>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.
David: ....Ralph Nader, Vandana Shiva, Arundhata Mittal (sp), to a lesser extent Chomsky, Zinn, etc., etc.: I think a lot of folks, would-be "leaders" from the '60s (or at least of that ilk), re-emerged in response to some sort of "rennaissance in activism". Total opportunism, as I'm sure you'd agree.
But again, I am not sure what the yardstick for "success" is, here. Is a lot of people out in the streets for a cause a "success"? If so, then certain endings of NBA finals and Superbowl games would also have to apply.
David:
>> 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.
Chuck:
>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),
David: ...."laundry lift leftism" is less popular than the black bloc, or anarchism in general? You yourself are saying below that anarchists only make up an estimated 40%. What's the other 60%, then? But, regardless, I think those of us who reject the heavy-handed tactics of liberals and the labor bureaucracy share a constructive common ground.
> but
>I do understand the importance of having moderates involved.
This is precisely the Stalinist "popular front" position.
>It would be
>helpful if the Jubilee 2000 movement was more active.
How did we jump from anarchism to Christian ecumenicalism?
David:
>>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.)
Chuck:
>As many of my anarchist comrades know, I'm a big skeptic towards
>union-based radical strategies.
David: As are the Stalinists, as far as union-based strategies in the industrial countries are concerned. The Stalinists, however, often take the reverse tack in their skepticism by supporting big labor strikes as "progressive". The popular front tendencies argue that one can only hope for "progressivism" in the industrial countries (i.e., dependence on the capitalist parties). But both points of view (anarchist and stalinist) are dependent on the cynicism of the revolutionary potential of the working class as compared to the "progressivism" of the union bureaucracy.
Chuck:
> I'm just dumbfounded that leftists (and
>the labor-oriented tendencies in anarchism) haven't learned any lessons
>from the past century of unionism.
David: Well, I think we need to examine the historical position of those "labor-oriented tendencies in anarchism," i.e., the syndicalists. What were the conditions for the growth in the IWW of yore, as well as its counterparts, the CNT and CGT in France and Spain? The conditions were that mainstream labor (the AFL, then as now) were pro-capitalist and non-militant, and an advanced (or "advancing") stage of transition away from peasant-based economies to industry. The conditions are similar today, except that now the soviet union has come and gone, and the syndicalists were long since militarily defeated. Despite the failure of militant unionism in the past, workers still have a desire to advance themselves in order to survive. And I think many workers are not putting faith in the union bureaucracy, let alone the capitalist system itself, to buoy them.
Chuck:
>It seems to me that those interested in
>worker-centered struggles woudl eb interested in re-inventing tactics and
>strategies.
David: The question is not "if," but "how". This is organizing and agitation that must go on from *within* the unions, not without.
Chuck:
> Capitalism is much different than it was a century ago, yet
>you still hear leftists talking like it is 1920 all over again.
David: If anything, I'd say that capitalism is *more* like people *thought* it was a century ago, than it was then!
Chuck:
>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?
David: You are certainly right about the ISO and the Teamsters together. Largely pro-capital organizations-- one a sect, the other an actual organization of workers, though mired in bureaucracy.
Chuck:
>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.
David: ....so that the rank-and-file members have even less than they have today? I don't think this is a great strategy. People want to survive. To survive they need to improve their economic situation. Only reactionaries want a step back. Radical agitation needs to occur within the union structures themselves, so that the pro-capitalist leaderships can be ousted. In addition, there needs to be a workers' party, separate from the democratic and republican parties, to advance the interests of the workers politically. Split-off organizations are sectarian, and are not the answer.
Chuck:
>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.
David: But, again, it seems like you are conflating the rank-and-file with the corrupt leadership-- the "big unions" you speak of are composed of both. But, you are absolutely right about the need for agitation and organization of workers. The shreds of democratic process left within the unions can be exploited to make truly progressive organizations.
Chuck:
>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.
David: Different, yet the same. The other 60% were certainly using tried-and-true liberal tactics that date back centuries. And certainly anarchist tactics (including those of the "black-bloc") certainly predate even Bakunin, Proudh on, and the like. What is "different" is that we are living in a post-imperialist, global society, with pockets of high-level industrialization. Any inkling of progressivism within the advanced capitalist countries themselves is beginning to fail, and capital has reached a point of concentration that was previously unimaginable. Indeed, it *is* "like 1920 all over again"!
Best, David