WTO Protest (fwd)

andy wrote:

>force or at least amplify crisis in the system. The errors some Marxists
>commit when they make blanket criticisms of resistance and reform result
>from a crude teleology, namely, by letting capitalism mature as fast as
>possible its end is brought around more rapidly.

that is true. but also remember the fact that Marxists like Lenin
reminded us the dangers of "simple trade unionism" as one of the 
manifestations of bourgeois ideology penetrating to the consciouness of
working classes. Of course, he had anorcho-syndicalism and spontaneism is
his mind, which also includes "some" of the anti-wto protestors, if not
all of them. he also reminded the "labor aristocracy" in the core. they 
were able to improve the standarts of working classes at the expense
of poor workers in the periphery. they still continue to do so.  i do not
want to do third worldism here. what i am trying to say is that i have no
essential problems with negotiating with the bourgeois state and
organizations to improve the well-being of working classes(to the extent
that we can). however, negotiation should not mean coaptation or only
satifying the interests of US workers. if US workers want to protect their
jobs by allying with the US capital,THAT IS FINE, yet to express their
views as we are losing our jobs because of foreigners or imports produced
in third-world countries is unreasonable for me (implictly racist too).
what about the workers in the periphery who are already fucked up? "US
workers are loosing jobs" seem to be a little bit selfish and nationalist.
the "emphasis" is too much on the "US". i am not saying that IT IS WRONG.
i am just saying that it should have been FRASED or ARTICULATED
differently.  if US workers are losing their jobs, it is not because of
particular nation, let's say Chinese or Japanese, it is because of global
capitalism and imperalism that pits the workers of one country against the
workers of another country. if labor aristocracy in the core exists, it
exists. we have to admit it. there is nothing wrong criticizing that.  it
exists because of the structural differences between the econommies of
core and periphery, and capitalists (national and global) who take
advantage of this situation either by protectionist capitalism or free
trade capitalism. 
     

BTW, there are protestors criticizing WTO for being responsible for global
inequalities, slave labor, poverty in the periphery. i give my full
support to them.  my criticism is that these issues should have been the 
TOP priority like domestic jobs  I also understand the fact that US
workers want to negotiate with their bourgeoisie first. hope they can
benefit from "Boeing" much better than waging an open war against the WTO
and US bourgeoisie. i do not know.   

moreover, the unions in the US need more organic relations with socialist
parties so that they can express a coherent program of strategy rather
than pursuing just immediate economic needs. anyway, socialist movement is
weak historically here. this weakness is reflected in the union activity
too.
 
...
>In this view, reform and
>resistance slow the progression of capitalism and postpone the inevitable
>fall of the system, thus strengthening the capitalist system even while
>it
>improves the living conditions of workers.

yes, this is orthodox marxism. it dominated the second international
(Hilferding, Adler)in opposition to Lenin and revisionist Bernstein.

>Some Marxists even advocate a
>program of capitalist modernization globally to create the conditions for
>a global socialist revolution, often misusing Marx and Engels' point that
>workers have no country--forgetting or omitting that M-E argue that
>workers have to settle accounts with their own bourgeoisie first, that
>the
>proletarian struggle is at first a national one, as well as stressing
>that
>communists must actively associate with mainstream national parties to
>advance the interests of working people. 

i totally agree with your reading that Marx and Engels said working
classes should settle accounts with their bourgeoisie first. Only then,
can they have a world wide revolution. Marx explicitly says this in the
Communist Manifesto. no doubt about it.  however, he had revolution
(seizing the state) in his mind not co-optation. reformism has its own
benefits too, which i am not denying, given the quotes you give from Marx.


Mine