Article on Wash. protests

Economic nationalism sets the tone for IMF protests in Washington

      Economic nationalism sets the tone for IMF protests in Washington
      By Jerry White
      3 May 2000


      The Mobilization for Global Justice in Washington, DC April 16-17
      demonstrated that the protest movement which erupted only a few months
ago
      in Seattle has already reached a political impasse. The political
      limitations that were evident in the Seattle demonstrations manifested
      themselves in Washington as an open alliance between student and
      environmental groups and the proponents of economic nationalism from
US
      business and the AFL-CIO trade union bureaucracy.
      In last fall's protests in Seattle against the World Trade
Organization,
      the role of the AFL-CIO was less politically dominant. While there was
a
      definite strain of nationalism in the general opposition to
      “globalization,” there was also a very pronounced and
genuine anger
      against the domination of the world economy by giant transnational
      corporations and its impact on jobs, living standards, working
conditions
      and democratic rights. This was reflected in the tens of thousands of
      trade unionists and other workers in the main demonstration in
Seattle, as
      well as the street protests that involved many thousands of young
people
      from the US and around the world.
      This element of anti-capitalist protest was far less prominent in last
      month's Washington demonstrations. The platform of the main rally on
April
      16 was dominated by AFL-CIO officials, Democratic Party politicians
and
      spokesmen from liberal think tanks, student organizations and
      environmental lobby groups. The rally became the occasion for the
trade
      union officials, with the support of allies such as Green Party
      presidential candidate Ralph Nader, to cloak their protectionist
policies
      in populist garb.
      A second demonstration, organized as an alternative to the
“legal” rally,
      involved civil disobedience protests near the International Monetary
Fund
      and World Bank meetings. But hundreds of police, federal marshals and
      national guardsmen—trained to handle Seattle-like
protests—prevented the
      proceedings from being disrupted. In the end, failing to achieve their
      stated aim of “shutting down” the IMF and World Bank,
hundreds of
      demonstrators volunteered to be arrested.
      Politically speaking, the groups that organized the street protests
were
      heavily influenced by a combination of anarchism, anti-consumerism and
      hostility to technological development. For all of the apparent
      differences between the two demonstrations, the basic perspective of
both
      was founded on an identification of the process of economic
globalization
      with the capitalist institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank,
under
      which this process is unfolding.
      The AFL-CIO and Nader quite crudely counterposed to the global
integration
      of economic life a nationalist orientation which glorified the
national
      state and demanded a strengthening of American sovereignty. But
similar
      nationalist conceptions, in somewhat more radical garb, dominated the
      street demonstrations as well. Neither protest could advance a
perspective
      of struggle for masses of people around the world looking to defend
their
      living standards and democratic rights.
      Although protest organizers sought to bring contingents from
throughout
      the US, only 10,000 people attended. The participants were mostly
middle
      class youth, with few workers present. There were no significant
sections
      of trade unionists in attendance, although the AFL-CIO endorsed the
      demonstration. For the vast majority of workers and youth in the
      Washington area, including the sizable minority and immigrant
communities,
      the protest was little more than a curiosity, except for the
disruption
      caused by the shutdown of a large portion of the capital by the
police.
      The AFL-CIO signed on late to the April 16-17 demonstration, after
union
      officials concluded they could use the protest to bolster their
lobbying
      efforts against trade legislation proposed by Clinton and backed by
the
      most powerful sections of US business. The AFL-CIO is spearheading a
      campaign to block tariff reductions against African countries, prevent
the
      normalization of trade with China and stop the expansion of trade
      agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The
      union bureaucracy is in an alliance with more backward sections of US
      industry, such as textiles and steel, that have been unable to adjust
to
      the globalization of production and are seeking tariff protection
against
      foreign competition.
      This is a right-wing campaign, firmly based on economic nationalism.
      However, in recent years the AFL-CIO, under the leadership of
President
      John Sweeney, has sought to disguise its nationalist orientation,
      portraying its protectionist program as a progressive campaign in
defense
      of labor standards and workers' rights, particularly in Third World
      countries.
      This pretense is demolished by any objective consideration of the
record
      and practice of the AFL-CIO in the US and internationally. The labor
      federation has long worked with the most reactionary forces, including
the
      CIA and the US State Department, to undermine every revolutionary, or
even
      independent, struggle of the masses of the world against US
imperialism.
      The AFL-CIO allies itself with trade union organizations which are
      notorious for their corruption and corporatist relations with the
ruling
      elites in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
      Within the US the AFL-CIO functions more as a labor contractor and
      subordinate arm of corporate management than a workers' organization.
Its
      member unions have all but abandoned the strike weapon. When walkouts
are
      called, they are quickly isolated and betrayed by the union
leadership.
      The AFL-CIO has overseen a continuous erosion of workers' living
standards
      in the midst of the biggest boom in corporate profits and Wall Street
      share values in US history.
      For all their denunciations of conditions in China and elsewhere, the
      union leaders have done nothing to oppose the enormous increase in
      sweatshops and child labor, prison labor and even slave labor within
the
      US itself. Instead, the resources and influence of the AFL-CIO
bureaucracy
      are concentrated on blocking any independent political organization of
the
      working class, through its support for the Democratic Party.
      The AFL-CIO bureaucracy has allied itself with the most right-wing
enemies
      of the working class. During the “Buy American” campaigns
of the 1980s,
      while the auto and steel unions pushed anti-Japanese chauvinism, the
      apparel unions joined South Carolina textile magnate and union-buster
      Roger Milliken in his “Crafted with Pride in the USA”
campaign. This
      relationship with Milliken, a longtime supporter of right-wing
Republican
      causes, continued during the campaign against NAFTA, GATT and most
      recently against trade with China. A section of the union bureaucracy,
      most notably the Teamsters, are promoting Patrick Buchanan, whose
Reform
      Party presidential bid is being bankrolled by Milliken.
      At the main Washington rally, on April 16, environmental and student
      groups sought to cover up the right-wing character of the AFL-CIO's
      “Campaign for Global Fairness.” Some speakers combined
denunciations of
      capitalism and “corporate globalization” with praise for
union officials
      like AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka and Steelworkers
President
      George Becker, whose fanatical anti-socialist credentials are well
known.
      The political essence of the labor bureaucracy's policies was on
display a
      few days earlier, at two Washington rallies held on April 12 by the
      AFL-CIO and Teamsters union to oppose the normalization of trade
relations
      with China. Teamsters President James Hoffa provided a platform for
      Buchanan, whose remarks combined anti-Asian racism with saber-rattling
      against “communist” China. At the AFL-CIO rally, also
attended by Hoffa,
      Steelworkers President Becker denounced China in no less vile terms.
      It should be noted that Roopa Gona, a representative of United
Students
      Against Sweatshops, who praised the union officials at the main rally
on
      April 16, also spoke at the AFL-CIO's anti-Chinese rally earlier in
the
      week. That week hundreds of students met with Steelworkers officials
at a
      Washington hotel to plan efforts to build local organizations. Whether
      motivated by political opportunism or naivete, these students are
aligning
      themselves with one of the most reactionary forces in American
politics.

      Street protests
      It is understandable why young people would be repulsed by the
      conservative and establishment character of the April 16 demonstration
in
      Washington. However, for all their theatrics, the civil disobedience
      protests were unable to present any viable political alternative to
the
      politics of the AFL-CIO. Nor did they express any serious concern for
      reaching the masses of working people.
      The protests were organized by the Direct Action Network, a coalition
      which includes Earth First!, the Ruckus Society, the Peoples Global
Action
      and other opponents of consumerism and technology. In opposition to
      globalization, these groups counterpose an idealized notion of an
earlier
      period of American capitalism when the national market and national
state
      played a more dominant role in economic life.
      What none of these groups ask is why globalization has taken place.
They
      treat the process as either an accident or a corporate conspiracy. In
      fact, globalization is the result of powerful objective tendencies in
      which the productive forces strive to develop on a global scale and
      overcome the suffocating limitations of the national market. This
process
      has the potential, as has every historical advance in the productive
      forces, to enormously elevate humanity's standard of living and
culture.
      However, insofar as global technological and economic advances remain
      within the framework of capitalism, and are therefore subordinated to
the
      pursuit of profit and the competition of rival nation-states, this
      essentially progressive tendency finds a reactionary expression. Under
      capitalism, the global integration of economic life leads to the
greater
      impoverishment and exploitation of the masses of the world's people.
      The great historical task posed in the twentieth century, which must
be
      resolved in the twenty-first, is the liberation of mankind's
productive
      forces from the outmoded property relations of capitalism. But the
      environmental and student organizations involved in the Washington
      protests equate globalization with the capitalist social relations
within
      which it is imprisoned.
      This fundamental confusion inevitably leads to the most pessimistic
      political conclusions. Overlooked are the profoundly revolutionary
      implications of the crisis which is being deepened by globalization.
Above
      all, this outlook fails to recognize the existence of a social force
which
      is capable of resolving the crisis in a progressive and revolutionary
way,
      namely, the working class.
      The “other side” of globalization is the way in which this
process has
      enormously strengthened the international working class. There has
been a
      massive numerical growth in the ranks of workers, both internationally
and
      within the US. In Latin America, Africa and Asia tens of millions of
      people have come from the countryside to work in the factories, while
in
      the advanced countries large sections of people previously considered
      middle class have been proletarianized.
      At no point since Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto has it been more
      clear that the world is divided between two main classes—the
capitalists
      and the vast majority of humanity that is dependent on wages for
survival.
      Moreover, the commonality of the struggles confronting the
international
      working class—against downsizing, falling living standards,
attacks on
      social benefits and democratic rights—creates unprecedented
conditions for
      the realization of Marx's maxim for workers of the world to unite.
      For many of the organizations leading the street protests, such as
Earth
      First!, the sweeping changes of the last two decades are frightening
and
      demoralizing. Seeing no basis for transforming society in a
progressive
      and humane fashion, they target technology, science and modern society
as
      the enemy, and consider those living in urban centers—“the
consumerist
      minority”—as a rapidly-multiplying mass, threatening to
devour the earth's
      resources.
      These groups base themselves on the reactionary legacy of
Malthusianism,
      which proclaims “overpopulation” to be the source of man's
problems. This
      deeply reactionary outlook ignores the ability of man, through the
      development of his productive forces, to reshape the natural world,
and
      his own social environment, in accord with his needs.
      Many of these groups attacked the IMF and World Bank for financing
dams,
      electrification programs and other economic development projects. For
them
      the model of the future is a return to the primitiveness of the past.
In
      the words of Martin Kohr, president of the Third World Network, the
world
      should “rediscover the technological and cultural wisdom of
Third World
      systems of agriculture, industry, shelter, water and sanitation, and
      medicine.”
      In the late 1980s, while famine stalked Ethiopia, Dave Foreman, a
      co-founder of Earth First!, declared, "The best thing would be to just
let
      nature seek its own balance." He wrote to one critic: "Call it fascist
if
      you like, but I am more interested in bears, rain forests, and whales
than
      in people.”
      Foreman and not a few other environmentalists, including the
co-founder of
      Earth Day, Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Gaylord Nelson, and sections of
the
      Sierra Club, have called for curbs on further immigration to the US,
      claiming that the country's natural resources are already
overburdened.
      Notwithstanding some “left” rhetoric, the political
orientation embodied
      in the Washington protests was thoroughly conventional, in no way
      representing a challenge to capitalism. That is why the Clinton
      administration and officials from the World Bank and IMF had no
problem
      expressing their agreement with many of the demands put forward by the
      protesters.
      As demonstrations were under way outside the IMF and World Bank
meetings
      on April 17, US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers was declaring,
“The
      world is rightly and increasingly demanding that assistance be more
      effective in raising human development.” World Bank and IMF
officials
      announced they would concentrate their efforts to fight poverty and
the
      spread of AIDS, and reduce Third World debt.
      There is, in fact, a convergence between the demands of the protest
      organizers and the trade policies being pursued by the Clinton
      administration on behalf of US transnational corporations. Clinton has
      picked up the call for the incorporation of labor and environmental
      standards within international trade agreements as a means of
advancing
      the trade interests of the US against its foreign competitors.
      The IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization serve the interests
of
      global capitalism at the expense of the vast majority of the world's
      people. What they call “free trade” is little more than a
euphemism for
      the more effective exploitation of the working class by the
transnational
      corporations and financial institutions that dominate the world
economy.
      The trade agreements drawn up by these institutions have nothing to do
      with benefiting mankind.
      But the AFL-CIO's call for “fair trade,” i.e.,
protectionism, is
      retrogressive. The answer to the policies of global capital is not an
      attempt to reassert the dominance of the nation-state, but rather the
      building of an independent political party of the working class to
fight
      for the international unification of workers and world socialism.
      See Also:
      Lack of political perspective endangers movement against IMF and World
Bank
      [15 April 2000]
      Anticommunism, chauvinism and beating the drums for war:
      The US trade union bureaucracy shows its colors
      [14 April 2000]
      Marxist internationalism vs. the perspective of radical protest
      A reply to Professor Chossudovsky's critique of globalization
      [21 February 2000]
      Vail, Colorado arson attack
      The reactionary implications of "eco-terrorism"
      [30 October 1998]
      Top of page
      Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.



      Copyright 1998-2000
      World Socialist Web Site
      All rights reserved


Comradely regards
George

Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at
http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/

Subscribe to Revcommy Mailing Community at
rev-commies-subscribe@eGroups.com