The following posting to the nc-tld list - which is run by James Love of CPTech, part of the Nader Organization, and which is supposed to be a list for discussion of proposals for non-commercial TLDs - was rejected by the list moderator, Mr. Love, because he doesn't like criticism and doesn't want list members to read anything but posts supporting his own views. Mr. Love also privately flamed me, making insulting remarks about me and using foul language. The posting is a criticism of comments made by Bill Jordan. Mr. Jordan is the General Secretary of the ICFTU, an international trade union confederation which purports to speak for all trade unionists worldwide, but which was formed as a response to socialist trade union confederations that came into existence during the anti-fascist era. Mr. Jordan himself is an engineer, not a worker in the usual trade union sense of that term, and is a person who, according to his replies to the interviewer, believes strongly in top-down control of labor policy. The ICFTU came up on the nc-tld list because it has made a proposal for a .union chartered TLD. Since I am a strong believer in Internet democracy and the bottom-up processes it permits, I felt it my duty to object to any creation of a new name space run in a top-down manner, even if the name space is reserved for non-commercial entities.
> James Love wrote: > > An interview with Bill Jordan > > An engineer by training, Jordan > was previously president of the Amalgamated Engineering and > Electrical Union in Britain. Not precisely a grass-roots union of wage-slaves. > Jordan: If my election proves anything, it proves the Cold War > mentality is over. I received an overwhelming number of > nominations from the developing world. What does this mean, that if there were still a cold war mentality, those in underdeveloped countries wouldn't have voted for him? I don't get it. Furthermore, this stuff about the cold war being over is just a bunch of brain-wash. The people fighting the cold war (perhaps no longer against Russia, but then that was never the real threat) want everyone to think it isn't happening so that they can go around waging hot wars without too much notice. > Governments and politicians used to hold sway over industry and > commerce with the communist [threat], saying "look, we've got to > be careful." That is now gone. In other words, those governments and politicians have won and now don't need an excuse for running industry and commerce? I'll agree to that. > The world is > now global in a way it's never been before, and to match that, you > need a strong international trade union, perhaps for the first > time in the history of the world. If the world is more global than previously, it's due to the growth of multinational corporations made possible by the defeat of national liberation movements around the world, on the one hand, and improved communications, particularly the Internet, on the other. It has nothing to do with the cold war, won or not. As to international trade unions being needed to counteract international corporations, I guess that depends on where you stand. But I don't recall having read that the constituent unions of the ILO were striking the Western arms manufacturers when they have shipped artillery to South American dictators. > Previously, there was no doubt that there was a union > international that represented unions behind the Iron Curtain (the > World Federation of Trade Unions, WFTU), and there were unions > representing what was called the free world (the ICFTU). The free world, like Mexico (a one-party state), Bolivia (usually run by the cocaine mafia), Argentina (under the junta), most of SE Asia (under repressive dictatorships), et cetera. And of course America, which has more racist murder than any other country in the world, and where most whites are drugged by TV and a government-controlled press into voting for corrupt politicians. But Mr. Jordan's simplistic analysis is structurally untrue. Most countries in the industrially developed world have had and still do have trade unions associated with both left- and right-wing parties. It is only in the United States, and perhaps now in England, that all trade unions are in bed with politicians in the pay of big business. > The > WFTU's influence has been devastated, they're a spent force, and > that merely points to the new responsibilities of the ICFTU. What are these new responsibilities? To take over from the WFTU the protection of the rights of underpayed workers? Thank you, Mr. Jordan, for admitting that the trade union federations of the socialist and non-aligned countries have accepted responsibilities that those of the industrially developed world have not. > There > is a global challenge - there needs to be a global response. World government. A dangerous thing when three-fourths of the world's populations live in abject poverty and the daily threat of death for protesting, and the only trades unions with the money to run websites, give interviews, and organize international meetings are those that have already agreed to continue the production of arms, chemical pollutants, et cetera for the few preponderant military powers, bent on subjugating the underdeveloped countries for gain. > I believe that in the past, there has been an emphasis on > "fire- fighting," dealing with the many crises as they arose, one > after the other, with less emphasis on setting objectives > internationally and regionally. Now we have to set our objectives > for what we want on the international scene. And what is that? For example, what does the ICFTU want for the Internet? Does it agree to let e-commerce run it as a means of one-way propaganda, like TV, radio, cable, movies, newspapers are run? Or does it want the Internet to be run by the public for the public? > If, for example, to be a member of NAFTA, each country has to have > minimum standards, including the recognition of free trade unions, > I'm less likely to be dashing over to some Latin American country > to protest about the suppression of trade unionism, because we > would have tackled the problem collectively. The only time that Latin American dictators are going to stop suppressing trade unions is when the unions stop opposing them. If that's what Mr. Jordan means by their having "free trade unions", maybe they'd be better off without that sort of "freedom". > We'll only be able to do this if we strengthen the role of each > union in each country, and set objectives with them, for them to > influence their policy-makers. Uh-oh. Here we go. The only "free" unions will be those which are having their objectives set for them by Mr. Jordan and others from Brussels, New York, and Washington. Hello, George Orwell, welcome back. > MM: Will the ICFTU then play a role in setting national union > objectives? > > Jordan: No, we adopt policies that the national unions recognize > as an international approach, and they have to play their part in > that. It would be clear to them that these are the objectives we > seek, and we would expect them to try to influence their > governments to talk this language when they are taking part in > regional discussions. But the lead does have to come from the top. Huh? > For example, the sheer scale of China's threat means there are > those who say, "Can you ignore them? Can you take a stand against > them?" Clearly Clinton failed to do this. I don't think there's > anyone that doubts that, in his heart-of-hearts, Clinton would not > want to trade with China. Wrong analysis. He wouldn't want to trade with China if it meant that his party lost an election because of it. > He's not the sort of man that believes > workforces should be treated in the way they are in China. And yet he signs agreements to sell American-made arms to Syria, Guatemala, and Indonesia. > But his > decision was dictated by the powerful financial forces in America. Which he hasn't much else to do with. Who didn't put him into office in the first place. > The same sort of pressures come on the ICFTU. Can we ignore them? > I say we can't; someone somewhere around the world, some small > union can waver on this issue, but the ICFTU has to give a lead. Never has worked in the past. Top-down policy-making? Unh-unh. People are too corruptible. The leadership can always be bought off. It's a recipe for co-optation of the world's trades unions. Made easier by having a unique TLD run by the top-downers. > What's wrong is wrong. That's what leadership is all about, that > you take the majority with you. Good-bye, Herr leader. ============================================================ Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927 ============================================================
