[lbo-talk] Anti-Globalization and Anti-War Movements in the USA

Chuck chuck at mutualaid.org
Mon Feb 12 08:34:34 PST 2007


Doug Henwood wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Chuck wrote:
>
>>As I see it,
>>the anti-globalization movement was successful because it mostly
>>relied
>>on anarchist organizational methods and practice.
>
>
> How was it successful? Seattle was loads of fun, one of the most
> exciting weeks of my life, but I don't see how it or its spawn
> changed much in the real world. Have capital or trade flows been
> altered? Have property relations changed? Is the working class any
> better off or more secure? Is the climate's future any brighter?

Yes. I pointed to some of those successes in my reply to Yoshie. You, of all people, should be able to point out the successes of the anti-globalization movement as opposed to the anti-war movement.

Capitalism has not been toppled by the anti-globalization movement, but it created successes that are the most significant successes by U.S. activists in my lifetime. The global trade talks were derailed, which has been pointed out by numerous people. The institutions of world trade were confronted and discredited. The opposition to the free trade movement forced significant changes in that movement. Capitalists may still be making money, but they are having to make adjustments. The movement forced the state to spend more money on police and repression. The movement inspired more people to get involved in social change.

Those look like successes from my viewpoint. I won't be surprised if the cynical leftists on this list start insisting that we didn't accomplish anything.

Yoshie is simply wrong.

Chuck



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list