< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > >

[Fwd: Labour aristocracy problem]

by christopher chase-dunn

03 December 1999 14:09 UTC


from patrick bond:



Chris, hi, you ask for a bit more info on the progressive split in 
Seattle. Alex Cockburn did his fantastic South African weekly radio 
column on this on Wednesday morning (I assume it'll be in a 
forthcoming Nation column), and I've seen lots of posts from 
eyewitnesses that give further details (see, e.g., one appended).

I see this not just as a tactical division of labour, dividing young 
militants from those with families, who are older, etc. Strategically, 
there emerges a clear contrast between yankee labour leadership 
(and Washington NGO-types) who wanted to join and reform the 
WTO ("seat at the table" with Clinton) on the one hand, and those 
more radical workers, environmentalists, Third World development 
advocates, feminists, students, etc who on the other hand wanted 
to shut down the WTO.

By the way, precisely the same strategic division has emerged in 
the debt cancellation movement. A fortnight ago in Johannesburg, a 
highly spirited Jubilee South Summit called for the IMF and World 
Bank to be shut down, in contrast to the Oxfam types who a few 
weeks earlier welcomed the IMF's alleged turn to poverty reduction 
as some kind of victory.

This is the demarcation I began to unpack in the JWSR article, 
partly by engaging your new book. It strikes me as the most 
significant strategic division within the global progressive 
movement. If a world party can solve it, fine. If a world party starts 
with the assumption that we all desire a world state as a means of 
uniting interests, well then I suspect a huge -- and the most 
militant and in some ways sophisticated -- chunk of the 
constituency will be turned off. Their agenda, simply, is smashing, 
not reforming, the embryonic global state.

Do you see it that way?

Patrick

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent:              Thu, 2 Dec 1999 01:50:36 -0800
To:                     marxism@lists.panix.com
From:                   Tony Tracy <tony@tao.ca>
Subject:                Re: A welcome to demonstrators in Seattle.
Send reply to:          marxism@lists.panix.com

Gary MacLennan wrote:

>Were there any attempts to link up the Hoffa led demonstration with 
>those protesting outside the WTO Centre? That is the combination 
>that would have shaken the world not just Seattle.

there were certainly attempts that took place to link the large 
labour demo (with tens of thousands of participants) with those 
protesting closer to the convention centre at which the WTO delegates 
were meeting, however, these attempts were quite unsuccessful.

we reached a point on 3rd street during the march at which the hoffa 
/ afl-cio leadership of the march had determined that we would be 
making a sharp left turn and then march back towards the stadium.

members of the machinists union (in distinctive red machinists caps), 
who were designated marshals for the afl/cio-sponsored march, were 
directed to link arms and prevent marchers from continuing another 
block or two down 3rd towards the convention centre... instead, they 
diverted marchers down pine street rather than allowing the march to 
continue along 3rd street following the former pre-designated route.

many of us on the march had discussions and arguments with the 
machinists who were marshalling at that corner -- explaining that the 
*safest* thing for all concerned would be a show of solidarity by the 
50,000 marchers with the several thousand folks who were attempting 
to physically close off access to the convention centre, and that we 
should have the march continue down 3rd at least another block 
towards the convention centre.

that sort of *mass* "direct action" by tens of thousands of 
labour-led demonstrators encircling the convention centre & allowing 
no access inside or out would indeed have shaken the world and not 
just seattle. unfortunately it was not to be... for a couple of 
reasons. the afl-cio leadership choose to distance themselves from 
the more "radical" community-based protesters (especially those in 
the "direct action network"), and had brokered a deal with the cops 
to ensure that the march route would be diverted from going too close 
to the convention centre.

so, while we argued with the machinists who were holding the line and 
diverting the march away, they maintained discipline in regards to 
the instructions that they were given -- turn the march to the left 
(physically, not ideologically).

the frustration that many of us had felt at the lack of political 
will on the part of the leadership of the afl-cio bureaucrats was 
shared amongst a large part of the crowd. however, the 
machinist-union marshals were instructed to tell anyone "if you're 
with labour, you'll turn here. anyone that continues down this street 
is against the labour movement".

the longshoremen (ILWU), by the way, didn't buy this argument and 
went through towards the convention centre, where they engaged in 
their own "mass direct action" in a very militant fashion (this comes 
after they closed the ports throughout the west coast in protest of 
the wto... the ILWU never ceases to surprise me with their 
willingness to put their muscle behind social political causes).

cheers,

tony

***

Patrick Bond
(Wits University Graduate School of Public and Development Management)
home: 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094, Johannesburg
office: 22 Gordon Building, Wits University Parktown Campus
mailing address: PO Box 601 WITS 2050
phones:  (h) (2711) 614-8088; (o) 488-5917; fax 484-2729
emails:  (h) pbond@wn.apc.org; (o) bondp@zeus.mgmt.wits.ac.za



< < < Date > > > | < < < Thread > > > | Home