councilor.org
| Source | Louis Proyect |
| Date | 00/01/04/21:28 |
| The Battle Beyond Seattle, part I, by George Windau
[George Windau (gwindau@hotmail.com) is a Left labor analyst and member of the U.A.W.] Tools for Analysis In the summer of 1863, a small town in southern Pennsylvania became the focus for a fierce battle between two determined armies in a great civil war. The town itself had no military or political significance. In fact, even though the region that the town was located in, was nominally part of the 'Union' north, it would be fair to point out that perhaps a majority of the population was sympathetic to the 'Confederate' south. Thus, a small town with no strategic significance (compared to places like Vicksburg or New Orleans) containing a population with contradictory allegiances, became the focus of a great military struggle. While some amateur history buffs may speculate on the immediate consequences of a 'Confederate' victory at this Battle of Gettysburg, the underlying material fact remains that the Confederacy was not physically capable of enduring a long and punishing war. On the other hand, the Union was well equipped economically for such a long and grinding war. With this knowledge it might be fair to speculate that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg, in 1863, might have merely separated the process of one American Civil War into two (or three) separate civil wars with ultimately the same effect. That identical historical effect would have been the irreversible destruction of the 'Confederacy' and a reimposition of the so-called 'Union.' The purpose of this short historical excursion is not to speculate on the possible variations of American history from a comfortable 'hundred-year perspective', but rather to pick up the same analytical tools to look at another interesting battle from a 'less-than-comfortable' proximity. The so-called 'Battle in Seattle', the street brawl and media circus focused on the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in 1999 is our modern counterpart for the Battle of Gettysburg. The rallying cries for tens of thousands of labor, student and single-issue protestors from the extremes of the Far Left and Far Right were against the WTO while the mantra of the respectable establishment news media was in favor of so-called 'Free Trade'. Yet, just as in the great Battle of Gettysburg, where tens of thousands committed themselves based upon allegiances to 'Preserve the Union' or 'Defend States' Rights', the unspoken issue had not yet boiled to the surface. In the great American Civil War, 'slavery' or 'the abolition of slavery' was the unspoken issue with perhaps only one soldier in a thousand fighting and dying with the idea that he was either defending or resisting the institution of slavery. So too, in Seattle in 1999, few of the protestors or policemen in Seattle could unequivocally articulate why they were either 'gassing' or 'being gassed' over a loosely affiliated organization of 135 nations founded less than five years before this great 'Battle in Seattle' took place. While 'slavery' was the latent unfinished American business of the Civil War, the issues that boil and churn beneath the surface of the 'Battle in Seattle' go back ten, twenty or even thirty years into recent US history just as the issue of slavery had been an irritant long before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter. The Mobilization of Labor Is it significant that almost 70 thousand people marched in Seattle against some aspect of the policies formulated by the WTO? No! You see, 70 thousand people, or any number of people even larger than 70 thousand are not significant in and of themselves unless it can be demonstrated that this set number of people are merely the 'tip of the iceberg'. Thus, a large demonstration of itself is not significant unless it indicates a drastic change or shift in public opinion on the part of a major segment of the populace (who did not march or could not march in Seattle). In this case, the significant segment of the population was 'Organized Labor'. For it was organized labor that formed the great 'tip of the iceberg' which made this 'Battle in Seattle' significant. It is my contention that the unspoken grievances of American Labor are the counterpart to the unspoken issue of 'the abolition of slavery' in the great Battle of Gettysburg in 1863. While the puny distractions of a handful of rowdy anarchists were elevated by the media in an attempt to tar this 'tip of the iceberg' in Seattle, the fact remains that this iceberg won't melt no matter how many coats of tar that the media paints it with. It won't go away because the underlying issues won't go away. The news media can elevate juvenile street fighters all they want in an effort to alienate the public from this movement, but they cannot stop the 'shift' or 'change' in public opinion by their 'demonization' tactics. Perhaps the news media spin-doctors have already realized this to some extent but they do not realize the scale and mass of the iceberg that sits below the surface of the American political scene. Yet, there are many astute observers who do appreciate the scale and mass of this 'shift' in public opinion and working class opinion. The union bureaucracy are those who are closest to this 'shift' in the mind-set of American Labor and it is the formal union leadership that is in the unenviable position of being caught between the proverbial 'Devil' and the 'Deep Blue Sea.' The basis of the discontent among the rank and file union membership is not contingent upon some sophisticated political analysis but rather upon the empirical realization that their corporations will not only demand 'give-backs' during the worst of economic times but also in the best of economic times. The general effort to crush the American/Canadian wage rates in the 1980's is now aggravated by the tendency to increase the length of the work week combined with a tendency to eliminate jobs and overload those who still have jobs with the work of their laid off co-workers. Thus, the 'Devil' in this parable is Capitalism, which is even more unyielding in boom times than it was in the bad times of the 1970's and 1980's. The 'Deep Blue Sea' in this parable is the mobilization of labor which can and will take place in either a mode of its own dynamic or in the mode of a 'directed' or 'misdirected' expression. In the 1980's it was sufficient for the union leadership to make appeals to racist jingoism and 'direct' their suffering membership to demolish Japanese Toyotas in the annual Labor Day Parade! But now that false target has lost its effectiveness as a punching bag for angry workers. The new false target that has been chosen for the exhaustion of the workers energy of discontent is the WTO, a relatively new and certainly unstable consortium of trading partners, most of whom are caught in a system of unequal exchange and an unfavorable balance of economic power. Yet there is a danger even in the choice of this false target for in effect, the upper layers of the union bureaucracy now find themselves in the uncomfortable position of marching with New Leftists instead of being the irregular shock troops against the Leftists, as was the fashion in the days of the super-patriotic 'hard hat' riots of the early 1970's. The Orwellian 'New-Speak' of the union bureaucracy must be tempered by the realization that the workers can clearly see that things won't improve for them in either good times or bad. Furthermore, workers can see that Labor alliances with the Democratic Party have not reduced the flight of jobs and capital to the underdeveloped low wage-rate nations, but rather have accelerated that process with a version of Super-NAFTA formulated by the Clinton administration which went far beyond even the wildest imaginations of the original framers of the NAFTA concept. When it makes no sense to rekindle Japan-bashing, when it makes no sense to instruct workers to 'vote Democratic' so that the Democrats can pave the way for US jobs to slide down to Mexico, what else can the union bureaucrats do? The WTO is a safe target. It does not alienate the union leaders from their masters in the Democratic Party and any credibility blows struck against the WTO will harm the weakest nations in the dynamics of unequal exchange more so than the strongest nations in this relationship. The false target headquarters does not exclusively fly the Stars and Stripes and thus does not inspire a rethinking among the workers about the nature of government complicity in their suffering. The false target itself is a weak and fledgling organization which cannot defend itself or justify itself. Only the tactics, the mobilization of workers into the streets (of Seattle or elsewhere) is a minor concession to the pressure of the Deep Blue Sea. Thus the union leadership can dissipate the energy of discontent among the workers without seriously challenging the anger of the Devil of capitalism. Instead of hitting the true enemies of the workers where it would hurt the most, such as an effective series of strikes or general strikes, the union bureaucrats hit the Devil where it hurts him the least. While the academic eggheads in the Newest Left (which is the latest American expression of 'rump moralistic leftist politics') congratulate themselves on welding together a tight coalition in Seattle, the fact is that their participation or instigation is incidental, not essential, to the nature of the real processes that are unfolding. While they view themselves as hard hitting street soldiers who have finally persuaded the labor movement to join them, the fact is that these Newest Leftists have only a temporary symbiotic role to play with this latest ploy by the union bureaucracy. The Newest Leftists cannot claim to have a shadow constituency behind every street soldier they pour into the streets. The Newest Leftists hold no cards to their chest. In each action they choose, all their cards are placed on the table, or on the street, so to speak. The Newest Left has no memory of getting beaten to a bloody pulp by flag waving 'hard hats' in an ostensibly peaceful non-violent demonstration. Those with no memory of this will naturally assume that a temporary alliance is a permanent commitment by labor for whatever one-issue fanaticism they promote. It is a dangerous illusion to assume that there now exists any form of stable alliance between the Newest Left and the Labor Bureaucracy simply because they ate the same clouds of tear gas in Seattle. Two years from now the same worker you linked arms with in Seattle may have your head in a scissors lock in San Francisco, ready to customize your face and leave you for the police to scrape off of the streets. The Collapse of the Political Center The constant prayer of thanksgiving from Seattle was that 'nobody got killed' which is, of course, a fortunate thing. Yet, something did indeed die in Seattle, although the corpse of this 'something' has not yet begun to smell. The casualty of Seattle was the death of an illusion. That mainstream illusion was that everything that Capitalism and the new Global Economy does, will eventually be good for everybody, not just the wealthy somebodies. That illusion died, but the news media pundits are still in denial about this untimely death and as of yet, are still carrying the corpse of this illusion around with them. After Seattle, after seventy thousand people marched, the illusion was a trampled, mangled mess and can no longer be effectively passed off as a taken-for-granted assumption to be peddled to the masses. Seventy thousand people, American people at any rate, do not march into the streets when everything is just fine. It just doesn't happen like that and to have union bureaucrats mumbling quasi-malcontent sound bytes, well that doesn't happen when everything is just fine either. So, while the illusion died in Seattle, they still have not hired a new illusion to take the old one's place. No, we still hear Al Gore praising NAFTA. We still hear Wall Street experts speaking about the 'Boom without End', we still hear that America is a 'workers paradise' with jobs begging for people to fill them. This old illusion has not begun to give off a putrid smell yet, or at least the ruling rich of America have not noticed the smell yet, but it is only a matter of time. The consequence of this state of denial by the ruling rich, is that their political hired hands in both the Democratic and Republican Party, are beginning to look comically irrelevant to the masses of working people. They don't seem to be tuned in to the fact that everything is not 'just fine' anymore. This rapid devolution of mainstream political parties into political irrelevancy is known as "the collapse of the political center". The Battle in Seattle is a wonderful example of the mainstream political center in American politics being caught off guard and left totally out of the picture. We can expect so much more of this type of thing in the future, not just because the ruling rich and their hired political hands are so attached to their political and economic fairy tales, but rather because they live in a desperate fear of the political/economic truth. The truth, the relevant truth is ultimately subversive and those mainstream parties that cannot find a suitable orientation to this rapidly unfolding 'truth' will be seen as irrelevant and impotent. The collapse of the political center begins when mainstream political parties cannot cloak themselves in a mantle of 'political-me-too-ism'. Although President Clinton sincerely tried to hedge his bets by stating that he could understand and sympathize with the sentiments of the Seattle demonstrators, the fact remains that he could not publicly state that he 'felt their pain' because the political line of both parties is that 'there is no pain' to feel in this magnificent Global Economy. Thus we did not see even minor figures in either the Democrat or Republican parties linking arms and marching with the demonstrators in Seattle. We did not see any chairs reserved for these 'me-too' politicians simply because there was no political place for 'me-too' chairs on the speakers platform in Seattle. No, indeed, only the evolving Far Left and Far Right remained relevant. For it was only the Far Right and Far Left who previously articulated the levels of suffering and discontent that would be caused by this Global Economy. Let us be precise in saying that the buzz words 'Global Economy' is analogous to the insubstantial battle cries of the American Civil War for 'Preserving the Union' or for 'Defending States' Rights.' The buzz words have no meaning in and of themselves, they only have a thread of a meaning when we look below the surface to see that the institution of slavery was the real issue bubbling to the surface with each unfolding battle, as young Christian white men fought bitterly to decide the fate of enslaved black men and women. Thus, the modern counterpart to the rallying cries of the Civil War are these buzzwords known as 'The Global Economy'. The real issues bubbling to the surface underneath this modern day face-off over the so-called Global Economy are the issues of jobs and wages. The mainstream ideologues find their advocates among the educated elite in their schools of Economics. These ivy-league cheerleaders for Capitalism, such as Professor Paul Krugman of MIT, write extensively about the long-term benefits of 'cheap labor'. (In Praise of Cheap Labor, Slate magazine 1997). On the other hand, Labor's union bureaucrats mouth simplistic phrases about a 'race to the bottom' with respect to wages, hours and employment levels in the US and Canada. The disillusioned working classes of America and Canada, with decent paying jobs, now realize that they have no 'job security' and the myth of their status as middle class members of society is in jeopardy. They are ready to listen to those who are talking about these issues of jobs, the export of jobs and the erosion of wages. Thus, populist and anticommunist ideologues of the Far Right, such as Pat Buchanan, find attentive listeners among the crowned princes of the Teamsters Union when they speak of a day of reckoning. Thus we see the temporary alliance of fat cat bureaucrats of the AFL-CIO with anarchists in ski masks from the Far Left. What is the response of the political center as they speak through their ivy-league economists such as Paul Krugman? "They're all kooks" is the pseudo-articulate response of these super-educated cheerleaders of capitalism. Krugman says (Enemies of the WTO, Slate magazine, November 1999) that the motley assembly of WTO critics in Seattle is nothing more than the moral equivalent of the 'nut militias' of the Far Right when they rail against the United Nations. That is too bad for Krugman and Capitalism, because it will be the political center (for which Krugman is an esteemed spokesperson) that will steadily be seen as irrelevant, not the 'nut militias' or the 'mangy anarchists'. The fixed and dedicated political line of the center is that there is no problem to be concerned with, while only the Far Right and the Far Left will address the problems and fears of the working classes in the US and Canada. Be patient, the Krugmanites insist, it will all turn out for the best for everyone. Somehow the 'relative slavery' of exotic low wages will produce some sort of general prosperity for all. "Patient" is the operative word in the Krugmanite declaration. If we reduced this required political patience to a purely economic issue, perhaps Krugman might have a different take on the subject. If a certain consumer found that he or she was not getting his/her hamburgers fast enough at a certain fast-food restaurant, Professor Krugman would be the first to advise the consumer to switch his/her patronage to another faster fast-food restaurant. The same dynamics apply in the realm of political allegiance. Workers will switch their political patronage to those who are addressing the issue of jobs, wages and the length of the workweek. It just so happens that the political center is not moving fast enough, or rather cannot move fast enough to maintain their credibility with the working classes of the US and Canada. While we must agree with Krugman that the WTO is a false target, we must, in any case, further point out that a pretty good shot was taken at this false target which indicates that the clash of forces was the significant aspect of the Battle in Seattle, not the location or the character of the battle cries against the WTO. Just as the town of Gettysburg had no political, military or strategic significance in and of itself, so too the focus on the WTO had no significance in and of itself. Gettysburg just happened to be the place where two armies clashed unconsciously over the question of slavery. So too, Seattle and the WTO just happened to be the place where two political forces clashed unconsciously over the issue of the flight of capital and the reimposition of the 'relative slavery' of exotic low wages in the under-developed world and the elimination of good paying jobs in the developed industrial world. The fact that the ruling rich and their cheerleaders will continue to deny that there is any type of problem, the fact that Krugman and his school of thought are not only identified with but consciously maintain a perspective that praises 'cheap labor' will extend and intensify the collapse of the political center. This will leave only the Far Right and the Far Left to contend for the allegiance of the working classes in the US and Canada. In short, those (please pay attention Professor Krugman!) who freely use the term 'kook' today are destined to become the 'irrelevant clowns' of tomorrow. Those who understand 'fast food' in the realm of economics must begin to study 'fast politics' in the context of this new Global Economy. |
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho