Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:05:52 -0500
From: Chuck0 <chuck-AT-tao.ca>
Subject: Fwd: response to "So who did win in Seattle"



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 14:18:08 -0500
From: Scott Weinstein <weinstei-AT-zoo.net>
To: chuck0-AT-infoshop.org
Subject: response to "So who did win in Seattle"

Response to Alexander Cockburn & Jeffery St. Clair’s: So Who Did Win in
Seattle? Liberals Rewrite History"

I was in Seattle for five days, participated in the NGO presentations,
legal demos, illegal street blockades and other direct actions - and
have a different opinion than Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St.Clair. 

While many of their points are correct, their overall critique is
one-dimensional. Before going any further, the "Battle of Seattle" and
"Shutdown Seatown!" exceed expectations. I and the other experienced
protesters I spoke with not only had a righteous blast, but were
especially impressed with the kids, and had mixed opinions of the other
counter-WTO events. 

The exciting results of Seattle is that we are excited - with the
expectation that we can beat the corporate-capitalist system. The air is
full of opinions, criticisms, and suggestions with the passion to make
it real.

Some of us criticized the organized trashing of the corporate buildings
during the day of blockades. It is not that we respect corporate
property. It was tactically and strategically wrong to trash at that
time. The vandalism diverted media attention from the massive and
exciting direct-action street blockades. We thought it drove a wedge
between the unionists and the direct-action popular movement at a time
when it is critical to nurture this historic unity. (We also criticized
the overwhelming white ethnicity of the direct-actionists - but that
seems to be an issue no one else is touching).

Cockburn and St. Clair can justifiably criticize the liberals and the
NGOs, but the fact remains that for the moment, they provided a valuable
role in educating and mobilizing many of us against free trade. These
wonks, academics and liberals did some mighty fine research and
propaganda. Maybe they are not the people we want ORGANIZING our
movement, and certainly we need to go beyond simple reformism, but we
should at least acknowledge their contributions in firing up the WTO
opposition. This may seem like a contradiction in the simple analysis of
Cockburn and St. Clair, but it is political reality. The anti-free trade
movement needs intellectual understanding, broad unity, union
solidarity, organizational capacity, and militant direct-action to take
on the globalism beast. 

Another tone I dislike about Cockburn's and St. Clair's piece is their
trashing the union leadership. I hate to think that we should give up on
John Sweeny’s administration - after all, he backed the great
direct-action many of us participated in several years ago when we
supported the SEIU's Justice for Janitors' organizing campaign and
blockaded the Virginia-DC bridges. Sweeny and his people need to be
examined critically - but to simply dismiss them and the AFL because of
some of their backward politics is to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. The AFL is moving great distances from the cold-war
CIA-allied union they used to be. Many of us are, or know companeros who
are working in the unions - and do so with the intention of creating a
viable and powerful working class organization. Without a strong allied
union movement, an American left has no chance of making radical social
change. 

As I was leaving Seattle, I walked by Pat Buchanan doing a TV interview
on the sidewalk, and yelled "Fascist!" at him. But isn't it sick and
weird that he is the only major presidential candidate that will oppose
free trade. Now the New Republic is saying that he and one of the main
organizers of the anti-WTO legal protests, Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen,
are funded by right-wing billionaire Roger Milliken. 

So what is our North American anti-free trade movement all about? It is
a witches’ brew of right wing nationalists, America-First
protectionists, Third World communists, middle class unionists,
Earth-First!ers, farmers, do-gooder liberals, socialists, academics,
anti-imperialists, religious activists, soft environmentalists, food
purists, Mumia supporters, radical democrats, anarcho-syndicalists,
anarcho-feminists, punks, Raging Grannies, newly politicized youth, NGO
careerists, and tens of thousands of others. All of us are coming to
terms with this movement that finally deserved to call itself that name
after Seattle. Some are jockeying for position and trying to muscle
others out. But unless we want to divide into tiny intolerant groups, we
need to recognize who our allies are, how we can work in unity, develop
our organizations, and ensure our movement is progressive and powerful. 

-Scott Weinstein

weinstei-AT-zoo.net