Re: How It's Gonna Be

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Max,
     I know that you and the folks at EPI
and many AFL-CIO activists are committed
to the goals you have laid out below genuinely.
But the cynical view is that the goal of the
demo was to stop the conference to block
moves against the US's anti-dumping suits.
I know most think this is boring.  But this was the
number one anti-US move that would have come
from new negotiations, and you have all but
admitted that the AFL-CIO is for such suits (hey,
there is predatory pricing, although conveniently
it is an "empirical swamp" just how much....   ).
       Anyway, AFL-CIO did get what it wanted
which does probably help protect jobs in certain
industries against the interests of workers in other
countries and other workers in the US who must
pay higher prices.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Max B. Sawicky <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Lbo-Talk <lbo-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Pen-L <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, December 09, 1999 12:36 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:14513] How It's Gonna Be


>IS ANYTHING MORE GOING TO HAPPEN?
>
>No one seems to want to respond to my core questions on this.
>
>Carrol
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Au contraire.
>
>In this post I will not indicate approval or disapproval
>of any political course, but try to show what is going
>to happen, whether anybody here likes it or not.  This
>goes to the difference between idealized notions of
>struggle, and the way the working class actually struggles,
>as someone once said.
>
>There was an unusual symbiotic relationship in Seattle
>between the sit-downers and labor.  Without the sit-
>down, the labor march would have been a yawn.  Without
>labor, the sit-down would have been a bunch of hippies.
>I think this relationship is fleeting.  The sit-downers
>made an invaluable contribution by showing you could
>gum up the works and affect events at a high level
>with minimal material resources.  My suspicion is
>that labor learned this lesson.  It doesn't need
>the anarchists anymore.
>
>The Seattle coalition, such as it was, is not
>THE coalition.  The latter is labor and the big
>green and development groups, and the Nader types.
>They need each other.  They don't need anarchists.
>They have latent strength, like Frankenstein's monster
>(who wasn't such a bad fellow), but they needed
>a jolt of electricity.
>
>The next period will have a dual programmatic
>focus.  There will be the negative side (no WTO
>place for China, no Fast-Track, etc.), and a
>positive side (what a trade pact should consist
>of).  Some on the Right will join on the first,
>but emphatically not on the second.  Basically,
>by blocking with the Right on 'no' stuff,
>the left forces the Administration to make
>a deal that leaves the Right out in the
>wilderness.
>
>Labor wants a positive package that protects
>existing, better-paying jobs in the US. To sell
>this package beyond organized labor, it has to
>have two elements:  it has have something in the
>social area, and it has to have something
>for workers in the Third World, 'global South,'
>or whatever you want to call it.  In both cases,
>something substantial.  The prospect of such a
>deal is what holds the real coalition together.
>Labor MUST be internationalist to proceed.
>As with all politics, some of the internationalism
>will be bullshit (not unlike some green support
>for labor could be).  What is clear is that
>anarchism makes no sense in this context.
>Anarchists are now only instrumental in
>'no' actions, like the Right.
>
>The principle is pretty simple, in class terms.
>The movement rejects policies (WTO/IMF/WB)
>aimed at redistributing income within the
>working class, as all quasi-supporters of
>free trade would have it.  The goal is to
>share gains at the expense of capital, not
>to share losses for the sake of capital.
>An import restriction that hurts Africa
>could be matched with debt relief and other
>possible aids.  I think there is an under-
>standing now that this needs to be put
>forward in specific terms, and with numbers.
>
>Yoshie's suggestion re: progressive isolationism,
>Marty's on public sector and minimum wage, or
>US labor rights, or Louis on the cab drivers
>all neglect the fundamental issue for labor,
>which is not "capitalism," but the further loss
>of above-average pay manufacturing jobs.  That's
>what motivates labor.  Not left-wing hobby horses,
>however cherished in our own views.  You can say
>capitalism caused this job loss, but that is not
>how the problem is generally viewed, rightly or
>wrongly.
>
>Frustration with the way labor actually struggles
>leads to silly suggestions about attacking the
>Democratic Party, "destroying the WTO," or
>opposing US military aid.  Silly not because
>these would be bad things to do, but because
>that's not the game in progress now.  There's
>no sense in trying to join a poker game and
>demand that canasta be played instead.
>What precisely has gotten workers' attention
>is the relevant question.
>
>In politics a standing question is getting from
>here to there, but much commentary here seems
>to start from there and ask how we can get here.
>
>I haven't said what is right or wrong about all
>this, though it would not take a genius to surmise
>that I take it to be positive overall.
>
>mbs
>
>