>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:52:32 -0500 >From: "����'� HenryC.K.Liu >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >AFTER SEATTLE - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE > > by Jim Smith, L.A. Labor News <www.LAlabor.org> > >The Battle of Seattle couldn't have come at a more auspicious time. As >our arbitrary measure of time clicked over to 2000, signs and portents >are in the air - or at least in the media. The reality behind the media >spin of "violent anarchists" running roughshod in the streets of Seattle >is that we might have just witnessed a turning point in political >struggle in the U.S. In a way, the Battle of Seattle was our initiation >into a worldwide struggle now in progress as shown in other Pacific rim >countries where huge demonstrations have erupted against APEC and in >Europe where massive - but unreported in the U.S. - demonstrations >against the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia have been routine. > >Yet the degree of outrage against the WTO coming from the heart of the >Empire is a unique and important event. It was caused by a coming >together of divergent streams concerned with job loss, a widening income >gap, solidarity with the world's poor and a general dissatisfaction with >corporatization of the planet, and the neighborhood. > >The fight against the WTO is fundamentally a struggle for democracy. If >the corporations continue to consolidate their power and dominance (this >is called neoliberalism in the rest of the world), individuals, groups >and nations will no longer be able to decide their destiny. The struggle >against corporate control and for greater democracy is what brought us >together and what can keep us together. Democratic elements include >extending the Bill of Rights into the workplace; protecting small >businesses against corporate chain stores; ending de facto segregation >and wildly unequal living standards and incomes; reforming the largest >prison-industrial complex in the world and eliminating the death >penalty; and having a "choice," not only in the market place but also in >the voting booth. > >Political democracy is fast fading away as candidates of both major >parties align themselves with big money to win elections. A struggle for >political democracy should include strict campaign contribution laws or >complete public financing of elections; proportional representation; >bringing democracy into the community with local bodies with real powers >that are urban neighborhood. The extension of democracy and the >limitation of the powers of the corporation and the extremely wealthy is >in the interest of all organizations that met in Seattle, regardless of >their particular issue. > >BUILDING A STRONG ALLIANCE > >In order to sustain and build on this confluence of interest, all of the > >major groups and organizations must concentrate on alliance building. >Just because we all came together in Seattle does not mean we have an >alliance. It was a great start. We rubbed elbows and were tolerant of >each other's issues and militancy. But, if Seattle was like a successful >first date, an alliance is like a marriage. If we are to aspire to take >on the corporate powers behind the WTO, neither an occasional >demonstration, no matter how large, nor a short-term coalition will be >sufficient. What is needed is a strong long-term alliance between labor, >environmental, anti-sweatshop and religious activists, immigrants, >communities of color, college students and youth. > >Building a long-term alliance is different than forging a temporary >coalition. An alliance must be based on an agreement of principles and >goals by all participants. Perhaps the hardest part of building a >lasting alliance is the necessity for all participants to give up their >right to unfettered unilateral action, if that action might be >destructive to the alliance. Every participant in the alliance will have >to examine and >subordinate their "special interests" to those of the alliance. > >In the U.S., unions will have to make the biggest change since most lack >a class analysis and many have fallen under corporate influence in a >thousand different instances from workplace "partnership" programs and >supporting development projects regardless of the impact on the >environment or other workers, to joining on a national level with big >business in pacts to fight the Kyoto anti-global warming accords. In >each of these cases, labor has put self interest ahead of the interests >of working people as a whole. In addition, the labor movement weakens >its credibility when it protests the WTO, NAFTA and other trade pacts >while at the same time it supports free-trade politicians. Labor can >make the change but it has to truly "think globally." > >How can unions be expected to oppose a development project to be built >on scarce wetlands if it will create construction jobs, or airport >expansion that will create transportation jobs as it destroys the >quality of life of thousands of working families in the flight path? The >answer lies in acting as part of a "social movement" that works to build >affordable housing, schools and hospitals instead of being the bully boy >for wealthy interests who need labor's clout to win another corporate >development scheme. A "social movement" must examine the "content" of a >job, as well as its wage and benefits. William Winpisinger and the >Machinists' "peacetime conversion" movement of the late 70s needs to be >revived and expanded. The 1930's rallying cry of "jobs or income" must >be taken up again. It is only to the extent that workers feel they have >"survival security" and are not just wage slaves, that they will act in >the general interest and not just in self interest. > >There is no turning back from a global economy. The only question is in >whose interest will it be - corporations or people? It is only by going >forward to a fair trade economy based on improving the welfare of >individuals and regions that we will be able to survive. The labor >movement must reject job protectionism that is based on trade or >immigration barriers. The search for an alternative answer to the >problem of job loss must begin on the societal level, not the plant >level. In the U.S., labor and our emerging anti-corporate alliance, must >begin to define an acceptable living standard - including food, shelter, >recreation, health care, and education - below which no one, and no >family, can fall. This guaranteed annual income would apply to all, >including low-wage workers, the unemployed, homeless, disabled and >retired. It would give a measure of security to millions on the edge of >hopelessness or homelessness. It would serve to replace competition >among workers with unity based on working to constantly improve living >conditions. Other countries might choose to adopt a similar model based >on their own unique cultural and living standards. It should be >understood that to create such a country or world, without starvation, >poverty and homelessness, there must be a radical reversal in the income >gap between the super-rich and everyone else. > >NOTHING LESS THAN A WORLDWIDE MOVEMENT > >Regardless of how we in the U.S. choose to restructure our economy and >society, we cannot dictate our views or solutions to the rest of the >world. On the eve of the 21st century, the entire world is detrimentally >affected by the military and economic power of the United States and its >corporations. Working people and our various organizations and movements >should not make the mistake of emulating those who oppress us. Rather, >we should seek common cause with workers and their organizations in the >developing and developed world. > >Environmental organizations have done a much better job in reaching out >to the third world than has labor. In some important respects, the >AFL-CIO is still fighting the cold war. Although President John Sweeney >and his New Voices leadership has purged many of the spooks from the >federation's international department, old habits die hard. When >international labor congresses held in Cuba attract unions from around >the world, the AFL-CIO is not present. No effort is made to contact and >discuss common problems with, for instance, the All China Confederation >of Trade Unions. Instead it is dismissed as a tool of the Chinese >government, a charge that would have stuck against the AFL-CIO during >the Meany-Kirkland years. Perhaps this is so, but if Nixon can go to >China, and Jiang can be hosted in the White House by Clinton, why can't >Sweeney visit a union hall in Shanghai? > >Instead, leaders of the AFL-CIO seem intent on shifting the attack from >the WTO itself, to China's entry into that organization. They claim that >China's entry into the World Trade Organization, which already includes >135 nations, would make it difficult or impossible to achieve labor >accords. Their position that the WTO can be reformed, with or without >China, is naive. The WTO is a creature of the transnational corporations >and always will be. China and Chinese factories are not the enemy, U.S. >corporations are. AFL-CIO leaders' time would be better spent working to >take the U.S. out of the WTO. An intensive campaign of persuasion and >engagement should be directed at Sweeney and the AFL-CIO Executive >Council to focus on the real enemy. > >The China baiting follows on the heels of Sweeney's signature on a >letter with corporate CEOs that endorsed Clinton's WTO agenda. It is >therefore appropriate to ask why the U.S. labor movement is unwilling to >make connections with its opposite numbers in other countries in the >same way as do churches, environmentalists and others? Clearly what is >needed in the Sixteenth Street headquarters of the AFL-CIO and in union >halls around the country is an approach based on class, not national >boundaries or pro-business ideology. > >SHORT-RUN AND LONG-RUN STRATEGIES > >Even with a class approach by U.S. labor, there exists the problem of >the enormous disparity of income and living standards around the world. >This can only be solved in the short run by a massive transfer of wealth >from North to South, from capitalists to very poor workers. This was the >avowed purpose of the post-World War II Marshall Plan, although its >not-so-hidden agenda was fighting communism. A massive, and fair, >"Marshall Plan" administered by international agencies could eradicate >the worst features of underdevelopment in a generation. If Bill Gates, >alone, would be content to live on millions of dollars instead of >billions, the wealth of the poorest two billion people on the planet >could be doubled instantly. We are so rich as a society and they - most >of the world - are so poor, that it is shameful not to take whatever >action is required to reduce the income gap. The alternative is to live >in a world where everyone confronts a worsening ecological and political >environment. > >While no less than fundamental ideological shifts and massive social >engineering is required to get us out of this mess that has been created >by rapacious capitalism, the first steps in that direction can be small >and manageable. > >The veterans of Seattle need to win the "spin" battle about what really >happened there. Is it lunatic anarchists or lunatic capitalists that we >must fear? We veterans must fan out across the country and across our >communities to educate the uninformed or misinformed and speak to any >audience that will listen to us about corporate domination, >neoliberalism and the crushing of democracy and hope in the future. Let >the Battle of Seattle continue in every town, campus and workplace in >America. And in particular, let's spread the call for even more massive >demonstrations at the pro-WTO conventions of the Republicans in >Philadelphia and the Democrats in Los Angeles. > >We veterans of Seattle - and that includes everyone who wanted to be >there in the streets - know that the World Trade Organization is a >creature - a monster - of its corporate masters. It will stop at nothing > >to defend itself and the few who want to have everything. It must be >abolished. Fair trade, and fairness in general, can be administered >through a United Nations organization where everyone has a seat at the >table and there are open and democratic rules designed to build a better >world for all. > >******************************* >Jim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is a Los Angeles labor activist and >editor of L.A. Labor News, <www.LAlabor.org>. An earlier article, "Labor >Eyewitness to the Battle of Seattle" is also posted on the L.A. Labor >News website. > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
