> 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.
I understand that they are present everywhere, but they just don't have the pwoer and influence that they used to have. If you move in standard Left circles, it may look this way, but if you get around alot, the Stalinists are just a sideshow.
How else would the anti-globalization movements have sprung up? There must be something going on outside of the Stalinist current/
I don't understand why the Left doesn't unite around marginalizaing the IAC, which is the most annoying and disruptive of the Stalinist groups. I've had some success in raising awareness against them, but if this is going to be successful, more people have to speak up. Otherwise, those few of us who challenge and criticize them can be dismissed.
> 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"?
I speak for the tendency because I know the tendency. This isn't anything special or new. This situation has already been explained in books and articles.
> 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.
Yes, but the use of the movements to conduct "netwar" is something different. Harry Cleaver has explained this pretty well and that Rand book also explains.
> 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.
Right. This is an important fact to understand. The movements have been successful because there are many currents. My problem with groups like GR is that they want to claim that THEY are THE movement. I'm sure they do some good activism, but if they decieve people about the nature of the movements, then that is a problem.
> 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.
There was a big labor march in Seattle, but it stuck to tame activities. Despite the efforts of my friends in the IWW to turn the march towards the combat zone (which was somewhat successful), big labor chose not to show solidarity to the folks on the streets. Well, the leadership made that decision, since the rank-and-file DID want to join the struggle on the streets.
The same thing happened in Quebec City. The union leadership kept the ran-and-file away from the fight on the streets. This is how these hierarchical unions discipline dissent for the capitalists. Wouldn't it make more sense, if you were pursuing a strategy of class war, to encourage the workers to take their fight against the capitalists?
> 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.
I think we can safely say that we have been successful. The capitalists have been very worried about us. We've had an impact on what they are doing.
Yes, the capitalists are their own worst enemies right now. Too bad that the Left can't go out and kick them in their teeth. Of course not, we have to argue about it until we find the correct line. (David, this isn't directed at you).
> 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?
I agree and I point this out above. This is a very important fact about Seattle which merits reflection. The union leadership feared losing control of the rank and file. They feared that they would be blamed or prosecuted for what might have happened.
Wouldn't it have been amazing if labor had defected to the streets and hadn't gone back to the stadium?
> 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.
Again, these are just writers and speakers. When I think of leaders, I think of natural leaders in the movement, like Lisa Fithian or Nadine Bloch. Or the women who organize the black blocs. Or the numerous local organizers.
> 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.
You could measure success in different ways. I think one sign of success is the amount of ink that the business press spills in articles and editorials about the movement.
> 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?
Like I said before, there are multiple movements. There is labor and then there are the Jubilee 2000 folks.
> But, regardless, I think those of us who reject the heavy-handed tactics of
> liberals and the labor bureaucracy share a constructive common ground.
Yep.
> > but
> >I do understand the importance of having moderates involved.
>
> This is precisely the Stalinist "popular front" position.
Yeah, that's one way of looking at it, but aren't the Stalinists interested in one program and agenda?
> >It would be
> >helpful if the Jubilee 2000 movement was more active.
>
> How did we jump from anarchism to Christian ecumenicalism?
Because the anti-globalization movement was really kicking ass when there were lots of different people involved.
> 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.
The anarchist viewpoints on this aren't that simple. I think the working class has lots of potential and doesn't need some class of union experts to lead it.
> 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.
Hah. LOL. I think you've provided more analysis on the situation then the syndicalists ever do. They are more interested in being dogmatic than they are in changing for the times.
The IWW of yore saw growth for a variety of reasons, including the fact that it would organize marginal workers and non-workers that the big unions wouldn't touch.
> 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.
Maybe from within and without. Remember that most workers aren't even in unions.
> 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!
I don't know. There is far more temp work now and capitalism has been globalized.
> 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.
I don't want to see workers have it worse. Shit, I can't even make rent this month so I can understand the desire to hang on to the little that you have. But I wonder what could be done to radicalize the unions from within.
> 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.
I'm simply stating that the goal of syndicalist, socialists, and others is to shepard workers into big organizations, be they parties or unions. That becomes the goal and not empowering workers to fight capital.
> 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"!
I just want to point out that many of the non-anarchist elements within the movements have been using anarchist tactics. It becomes very surreal when you see liberals using anarchist process at meetings.
<< 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)