>I understand that they [the IAC] 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.
That's funny.... because the IAC says the same thing about the Anarchists. It's a circular feeding frenzy!
>How else would the anti-globalization movements have sprung up? There must
>be something going on outside of the Stalinist current/
Unfortunately, much about the anti-globalization movements and "anti-capitalism" are quite amenable to Stalinist doctrines, such as the popular front idea we keep mentioning. Think about it: mainstream labor unions, liberals, NGOs, worn-out '60s radicals, academics.... top it off with a few communist revolutions brewing in the 3rd world, and you've got a Stalinist wet dream!
>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.
Perhaps because it is impossible to determine where popular-front Stalinism ends and most Leftism begins? Popular-front Stalinism thrives on the meandering eclecticism and lack of ideology that is so characteristic of the Left.... even many anarchists! Is it any wonder why there is any such thing as a "Che-Leila brigade"?
>> 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.
Stalin: "I speak for the workers because they are close to my heart." Clinton: "I feel your pain!"
>Yes, but the use of the movements to conduct "netwar" is something
>different. Harry Cleaver has explained thisthink 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.
And as for those who say they "speak for the tendency because" they "know the tendency"?
>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.
Now it seems as if you're painting with a pretty broad brush.
>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?
Well, yes and no. It also depends what you mean by "strategy of class war"-- I don't think we're necessarily thinking of the same thing. The only way that workers can better their situation while bolstering meaningful forms of production is to advance politicaldemands and gain power as a class. The demand of increased wages, simultaneous with the immediate reduction of working hours, cannot be delivered by capitalists but by workers who fight, independently as a class, for state power. If it is street fighting, acts of terrorism, and decentralized wildcat strikes that you consider to be "class war," then you're simply asking the state to pile up a lot of dead syndicalists on the ground....
>> 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.
I don't see how this could possible been a foregone conclusion. The capitalists are much more concerned (as someone else on this thread just said) with increased unionization and labor strikes, regardless of whether it emanates from the labor bureaucracy or the rank and file. And the proof of this is not in the fact that workers 'inherently more revolutionary,' or something like that, but that the simple economic fact that the depreciation of surplus value puts a more sizeable gap in the ledgers-- one that Arthur Andersen can't even cover up!
>> 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.
Okay, so you concede that the anarchists, too, have their leaders. And this is true. Lack of a formal leadership structure, in a society with centuries of history rooted in hierarchy, merely ensures that those with more experience, access to resources, or louder voices are going to dominate. Sound familiar? That's right folks-- the Soviet Union! No, sir, you can refer to a leader with whatever acceptable terminology suits you: "natural leader", "co-facilitator", "coordinator," etc. But, by changing the words, you can't change their inherent leadership. Yes, I participated in several anarchist "collaboratives" and "collectives" in my college years; they all had their closet leaders, manipulating things behind the scenes, their closet Stalins.
>> 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.
So, again, NBA finals and Superbowl games would apply. Adolph certainly spilled a lot of ink once he got elected, even BEFORE he was a dictator, when the folks spontaneously marched in the streets.....
>> > 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?
Not in the United States. As I said above, in the developed countries, they revel in eclecticism. The stalinists always preferred to go limp on ideology in the first world countries..... otherwise, the 'Peaceful Co-existence" policies wouldn't have gotten off the ground. Thus the unwitting rapprochement with Anarchists. Sort of a de-facto "separate but equal" policy, if you will....
>> >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.
I seem to remember the Worker's World newspaper also lauding the Jubilee 2000 movement for the same reason.... interesting....
I assume the "kicking ass" equals your "successful" above. You defined success, above, as getting a lot of press and scaring the capitalists. So was it those Christian ecumenicals who really tipped the balance when they made a ring around that stadium and got Bill Gates to crap his pants?
>> 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.
Yes, you're right. There's much more contingent labor without unions, benefits, contracts, right to unionize, or worker protection laws. There's more unemployment, too, pushing people into the informal sector. Whaddaya know, just like the early 20th century!!!!
>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.
Well, for one, there needs to be a worker's party, an entity that fights for workers in the political arena. These should be financially based in the unions. There also exists many opportunities to agitate within the unions themselves, to elect more progressive leadership, and mutiny in the case of power-grabs and purges. There is also a growing sector of non-unionized service workers who could potentially form radical unions.
>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.
Now, this is a really broad-brushing statement, one which seems to ignore even the political efforts of progressive unions. Besides, workers join unions to better conditions for their families, not to get "shepherded"!
-- David