AUT: Seattle, now what?

[Alvaro Reyes <areyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

	Having just read Steve's post I though it would be a good time to
share some thoughts on the meaning of Seattle.  The thing that strikes me
the most is the inability of the left to articulate its position with the
disputes that were taking place inside the WTO conference.

	From my perspective what Clinton was trying to do in the conference itself was
to make a final attempt at re-nationalizing the wealth of the global
market economy.  That is, if Clintons labor standards were implemented and
enforced it would reduce the attractiveness of foreign markets while
avoiding any serious domestic regulation of Capital (i.e. any type of
taxation) This would in effect allow domestic neoliberals to
reinsert organized labor into their agenda-where labor
could continue to live somewhat comfortably at the expense of the rest of
the world.(Something Sweeney would obviously be more than happy to
accept) I believe this new "national compromise" between Clinton and
Labor would go a long way too re-assembling some type of social majority
to legitimate the state, a task that has been nearly impossible
considering the hightened individualism of the neoliberal imaginary, the
falling wages of labor,
and the rightful emergence of claims from outside of the
traditional
labor-management divide (i.e. women, latinos, african americans,
environmentalists, ....)
	   On the other side of the WTO table you had "Third World"
neoliberals fiercely opposed to Clinton's plan. Why? Because they now
have much to lose if they can no longer contract out their populations
for slave wages. These global neoliberals have now become Capitals' most
ardent representatives-they now feel Capital is strong enough to break its ties to the U.S.
They must feel like the force of capital is now on their side and they
and capital are stronger than any one nation-I mean it is pretty bold of
them to just flat out say no to Clinton's plan and walk away from the table.
	
	So what about the protests outside?  Well as we all should now by
now many of the Union members would be happy and comfortable with
Clinton's new national compromise and they would be happily resubsumed
into the conservative role they have played for some time-they will
continue to see "third world" and unwaged laborers as competition and not
as people they can share solidarity with. THus, it will be easy to meld
their wage concerns with those of the theological right who will continue to
rebuild America on the basis of the exclusion and incarceration of large
rates of African Americans and Latinos.(more polic brutality, more INS
raids, ...)
	Well as for the rest of the protestors they can not be happy with
either of the positions within the WTO. Thats obvious enough, they can
not settle for Clintons compromise because they represent unwaged
laborers and third and fourth world peoples, and they can equally not settle
for
the continued deregulation that the Third World delegates were calling
for as this too would be to their detriment.  So, what's their position?
This is the proble, although the protesters were effective in shutting
down the WTO they have been almost totally silent on explaining how their
position differs from that of Clinton's.  I think that many of the more
mainstream organizers of the protest fail to understand the complexity of
the problem with which they are faced, and they have thus been unable to
offer any alternatives to the nationalistic twist offered by American
elites
(from as far right as Pat Buchanan and William Saphire to as far left as
Clinton and Gore). It is tragic that the reformism of many of the protest
organizers has blinded them to the fact that they have been used by the
most reactionary of politics.
	Moreover, I believe that the compromise that Clinton is
attempting to form will fail in the long run-it could only be a temporary
fix to the eventual total denationalization of Capital.

I would appreciate any feedback on these thoughts

Alvaro


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---