Re: Re: UE meeting and comment
I suspect that it is a mistake to regard Ralph Nader as entirely good or entirely bad. He has done some excellent work. For example, I suspect -- but he should speak for himself -- that Patrick Bond appreciates Nader's work about the drug companies in South Africa. At the same time, Nader has made some questionable alliances. Unfortunately, purity is in short supply. Louis Proyect wrote: > At 10:36 PM 4/3/00 -0400, Michael Yates wrote: > >I went to the meeting early so I could hear the other presentations. The > >first speaker was Mike Dolan of Seattle WTO protest fame. > > Mike Dolan runs an outfit called Global Trade Watch that is a wing of Ralph > Nader's Public Citizen. Since Dolan's China-bashing seems suspiciously > linked to the sort of advocacy found in the ranks of some of our more > backward-looking unions (UNITE, United Steelworkers), I was curious to see > if could find evidence of funding from these quarters on Nader's website or > in Lexis-Nexis. > > I discovered something very interesting. > > Nonprofits are not required to divulge the identify of donors of more than > $200. So Public Citizen (and the Sierra Club) take advantage of this. > Although it seems highly dubious for groups charged with the responsibility > for opening up "civil society" to hide their financing in this manner, it > actually reflects their "inside the beltway" mentality and willingness to > cooperate with the powers-that-be. Nader reluctance to run a high-profile > campaign for President on the Green Party ticket last go-round, clearly > related to an unwillingness to raise and spend money on the order of his > Public Citizen, could very likely be related to his embarrassment over some > of their sources. > > Meanwhile, I discovered that Morris Dees is the treasurer of Public > Citizen, which goes a long way in explaining the rather shady attitude > toward funding. Dees runs a nonprofit in the South that raises money on the > basis of northern liberal hysteria about the Klan, but does very little to > actually confront the Klan. Interestingly enough, Dees has gone on an > ideological offensive against the Green contingent of the Seattle > protestors whom he regards as romantic reactionaries in broad brushstrokes > that evokes LM magazine. Alex Cockburn and his co-editor Jeff St. Clair > have made an amalgam between Doug Henwood and Dees on the most flimsy > grounds. Supposedly the "snooty" LBO would also find grounds to disparage > the environmentalists. Obviously the evidence is just the opposite. Doug > and LBO has, to its credit, identified completely with the sea turtle > contingent. > > People like Dolan and Ralph Nader expose a problem in this emerging > movement that was addressed at an interesting panel at this weekend's > Socialist Scholars Conference titled "After Seattle: a New > Internationalism?" Tania Noctiummes, who advises French trade unions on > questions such as MAI, made some very cogent points. She said that the > discourse around the Seattle protests, especially from figures like Dolan, > revolves around "citizens" and "civil society". Such classless categories > can obviously lead to all sorts of confusions with respect to our attitude > toward the ruling class. Are Bill Clinton and the sea turtle protestors > both "citizens" in pursuit of a common political goal? Given Clinton's > demagogic appeals and the past record of inside-the-beltway operations like > the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, one would have to say that an > alternative--namely socialist--is required. > > She also pointed out that there has been very confused thinking about what > it means to be engaged in struggle around "international" issues. After > all, the main terrain is the national state even when it comes to global > trade agreements such as the WTO itself. The trade unions and NGO's > involved in the Seattle protests tend to sow confusion on these questions > because politically they are reluctant to confront their own ruling class. > It is much easier to confront the Chinese government on prison labor than > our own apparently. Wouldn't it make for an interesting leap forward in the > class struggle if the AFL-CIO announced that it would organize prison > laborers in the USA? They haven't lifted a finger for welfare recipients, > so I wouldn't hold my breath. > > Doug Henwood spoke on the same panel as Tania Noctiummes and made many > excellent points, including the need to steer clear of China-bashing. > > Louis Proyect > > (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: UE meeting and comment
At 10:36 PM 4/3/00 -0400, Michael Yates wrote: >I went to the meeting early so I could hear the other presentations. The >first speaker was Mike Dolan of Seattle WTO protest fame. Mike Dolan runs an outfit called Global Trade Watch that is a wing of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen. Since Dolan's China-bashing seems suspiciously linked to the sort of advocacy found in the ranks of some of our more backward-looking unions (UNITE, United Steelworkers), I was curious to see if could find evidence of funding from these quarters on Nader's website or in Lexis-Nexis. I discovered something very interesting. Nonprofits are not required to divulge the identify of donors of more than $200. So Public Citizen (and the Sierra Club) take advantage of this. Although it seems highly dubious for groups charged with the responsibility for opening up "civil society" to hide their financing in this manner, it actually reflects their "inside the beltway" mentality and willingness to cooperate with the powers-that-be. Nader reluctance to run a high-profile campaign for President on the Green Party ticket last go-round, clearly related to an unwillingness to raise and spend money on the order of his Public Citizen, could very likely be related to his embarrassment over some of their sources. Meanwhile, I discovered that Morris Dees is the treasurer of Public Citizen, which goes a long way in explaining the rather shady attitude toward funding. Dees runs a nonprofit in the South that raises money on the basis of northern liberal hysteria about the Klan, but does very little to actually confront the Klan. Interestingly enough, Dees has gone on an ideological offensive against the Green contingent of the Seattle protestors whom he regards as romantic reactionaries in broad brushstrokes that evokes LM magazine. Alex Cockburn and his co-editor Jeff St. Clair have made an amalgam between Doug Henwood and Dees on the most flimsy grounds. Supposedly the "snooty" LBO would also find grounds to disparage the environmentalists. Obviously the evidence is just the opposite. Doug and LBO has, to its credit, identified completely with the sea turtle contingent. People like Dolan and Ralph Nader expose a problem in this emerging movement that was addressed at an interesting panel at this weekend's Socialist Scholars Conference titled "After Seattle: a New Internationalism?" Tania Noctiummes, who advises French trade unions on questions such as MAI, made some very cogent points. She said that the discourse around the Seattle protests, especially from figures like Dolan, revolves around "citizens" and "civil society". Such classless categories can obviously lead to all sorts of confusions with respect to our attitude toward the ruling class. Are Bill Clinton and the sea turtle protestors both "citizens" in pursuit of a common political goal? Given Clinton's demagogic appeals and the past record of inside-the-beltway operations like the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, one would have to say that an alternative--namely socialist--is required. She also pointed out that there has been very confused thinking about what it means to be engaged in struggle around "international" issues. After all, the main terrain is the national state even when it comes to global trade agreements such as the WTO itself. The trade unions and NGO's involved in the Seattle protests tend to sow confusion on these questions because politically they are reluctant to confront their own ruling class. It is much easier to confront the Chinese government on prison labor than our own apparently. Wouldn't it make for an interesting leap forward in the class struggle if the AFL-CIO announced that it would organize prison laborers in the USA? They haven't lifted a finger for welfare recipients, so I wouldn't hold my breath. Doug Henwood spoke on the same panel as Tania Noctiummes and made many excellent points, including the need to steer clear of China-bashing. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: UE meeting and comment
>On my way home I couldn't stop thinking about Dolan. I can't see how a >radical movement, one aimed at worker self-emancipation could ever be >led by such a person. Perhaps others can enlighten me on his good >qualities, but I was very much unimpressed. > >Michael Yates Of course, the 1960s anti-war movement threw up people like (East Coast) Jerry Rubin of the Yippies, who was also a total self-promoter and over-simplifier. Somehow we had an effect anyway. The point is to not worry too much about the leaders but to instead focus on building the mass movement. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
UE meeting and comment
I delivered an address to the officers, staff,and organizers of the United Electrical Workers (UE) in Wilkes Barre, PA. this morning. I thank those of you who commented on a draft of my talk. Your comments were most useful to me. The talk was a great success and generated a long discussion. These brothers and sisters are about as left as you get in the US labor movement. President John Hovis and the other officers are remarkably unpretentious and down to earth. Of course, no officer earns more money than the highest paid member (today the president earns $45,000!!). They are keen on empowering the members. Not servicing them or mobilizing them, but helping them to control their own union. Most remarkable. I went to the meeting early so I could hear the other presentations. The first speaker was Mike Dolan of Seattle WTO protest fame. I must say that I have seldom seen a person so full of himself, even holding up a picture of himself in a Wall Street Journal article about him (why did he bring this with him?) and refering to his organization's website as "his" website. I shook hands with him before the meeting, but he was not at all interested in learning anything about me. He just shook hands and then went off to continue whistling the song "Union Maids." He gave a rather canned pitch complete with annoying histrionics and dumb jokes and many references to himself. Most troubling to me was the incredible China bashing spiel he gave, complete with numerous handouts.(He argued that we cannot let capital win any victoreis and this alone is reason to go all out on keeping China out of the WTO). Now I understand that the China issue is complex, but his talk verged on the worst kind of jingoism and racism. Not one mention of prison labor in the US or sweatshops here or racism here or anything like this or what his organization proposed we do about these things. Nothing about attempts at direct solidarity with Chinese workers. Nothing about what next if China is not admitted to the WTO. He had a lot of slogans but not much in the way of analysis. In addition, he seemed the kind of person not one bit interested in anyone other than himself. Fortunately the unionists seemed in agreement with me when I said in my talk that the China issue needed to be carefully considered, especially in light of the long history of absolutely horrible racism of US labor against Chinese immigrants. On my way home I couldn't stop thinking about Dolan. I can't see how a radical movement, one aimed at worker self-emancipation could ever be led by such a person. Perhaps others can enlighten me on his good qualities, but I was very much unimpressed. Michael Yates
