[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [sf-core] Fw: Bill Fletcher Jr: Seattle At Five

[Morton K.Brussel]

[A cogent analysis by Bill Fletcher for those interested in relations 
between
the U.S. labor movement, the anti-war/anti-imperialism effort, and 
global justice.
Worth the long read. MKB]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "david johnson" <unionyes at ameritech.net>
> Date: October 24, 2004 9:38:39 PM CDT
> To: <@returns.groups.yahoo.com;>
> Subject: [sf-core] Fw: Bill Fletcher Jr:  Seattle At Five
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <moderator at portside.org>
> To: <portside at lists.portside.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 8:27 PM
> Subject: Bill Fletcher Jr: Seattle At Five
>
>
>> Seattle at Five:
>> The Future of Labor and the Global Justice Movement
>>
>> Address by Bill Fletcher, Jr.
>>
>> A Conference on Global Unionism
>>
>> Inaugural Event of the Cornell Global Labor Institute
>> September 23-24, 2004
>> New York City, ILR Conference Center
>>
>> http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/billfletcher.htm
>>
>> Good afternoon and let me begin by thanking Sean Sweeney and
>> the staff of Cornell ILR for the invitation to address this
>> conference on the topic of the future of labor and the global
>> justice movement.
>>
>> Organized labor in the USA has had difficulty interacting
>> with the global justice movement not so much because these
>> are different sectors with different traditions-though that
>> is certainly a factor-but because there is no strategic
>> agreement on the nature of the enemy.  While there are many
>> critical remarks I can make about the global justice
>> movement, I would rather focus on the challenges facing
>> organized labor in addressing not simply the global justice
>> movement, but also the issue of global justice as such.
>>
>> To the credit of organized labor in the USA, beginning with
>> the Seattle WTO demonstrations, greater attention was paid to
>> what can broadly be defined as global justice than had in the
>> past.  The specific focus, however, was on trade related
>> issues and their impact on the USA.  The growing interest in
>> the global justice movement- by which I mean those forces
>> united in their opposition to neo-liberal globalization -
>> stumbled when the AFL-CIO chose to mount a campaign against
>> China's inclusion in the WTO.  I believe that this campaign
>> was a mistake in many ways, not the least of which is that
>> the focus of the campaign was, by definition, on China being
>> the problem.  It is not the principal problem.  The problem
>> is the WTO; the trade regime of which it is a part; and the
>> manner in which global capitalism is restructuring itself
>> (and this latter point is actually the essence of what we
>> call "globalization"), an issue with which US organized labor
>> had difficulty grasping.
>>
>> In fact, earlier, in the days leading up to the Seattle
>> demonstrations, the notion of challenging the existence and
>> raison d'etre of the WTO was ridiculed internally within the
>> AFL-CIO by some senior staff people who alleged that since
>> the planet needs a mechanism for regulating trade, the WTO is
>> what is on the table (and therefore, we must reform it).
>> That the WTO was a Clinton-supported project presented
>> apparent difficulties for many union leaders, fearing that
>> open opposition to the WTO would mean undercutting our
>> alleged friend in the White House.  Few people wanted to
>> acknowledge that the WTO was as rotten in its essence as raw
>> meat sitting in the hot sun.
>>
>> At the same time and in a more progressive direction, in 2000
>> the AFL-CIO and some of its affiliates became increasingly
>> interested in educating their members to some of the issues
>> of global justice.  Elements of what had been called the
>> "Common Sense Economics Education Program" (originated in
>> 1997) were utilized in order to create a union member-
>> oriented "global fairness" education effort.  There were two
>> problems that emerged:  one, as with Common Sense Economics,
>> there was and remains a faltering commitment both within the
>> AFL-CIO and most of its affiliates to develop and fully
>> operationalize a comprehensive educational effort.  This is
>> something that haunts the US trade union movement.  The trade
>> union movement often confuses education with information
>> provision and does not realize what is necessary if we truly
>> wish to interact with our members on the questions of ideas
>> and analyses.
>>
>> The second problem was that the conceptualization of global
>> justice and global fairness by the trade union movement was
>> somewhat restricted to concerning ourselves with the
>> activities of multi-national corporations and trade
>> agreements.  While this is certainly part of neo-liberal
>> globalization, it is not the whole story.  This became much
>> clearer in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 terrorist
>> attacks and the response of most of US organized labor to
>> them.
>>
>> In the wake of 11 September there was a tendency in the US
>> trade union movement to revert to what I would call a World
>> War II paradigm, i.e., to assume that national unity could be
>> built in response to the crisis.  There seemed to be the
>> expectation that Bush would change his spots and recognize
>> the importance of workers and unions and refrain from his war
>> of annihilation against trade unions.  Things did not work
>> out that way.  Instead he chose to wage a war on two fronts,
>> so to speak.
>>
>> What I believe to be the deeper problem, however, is that the
>> US trade union movement is and has been caught in a ferocious
>> bind.  This movement, over the last 120 years, has developed
>> within the context of a capitalist country which has imperial
>> ambitions.  Those imperial ambitions have translated into
>> foreign policy adventures, most of which have either been
>> justified by the US government in the name of patriotism, or
>> justified as being in the defense of US lives and property.
>> With certain exceptions, the official trade union movement,
>> as opposed to, let's say, the Industrial Workers of the World
>> (Wobblies), tended to support US foreign policy almost
>> without question as an expression of what it believed to be
>> its patriotic duty.  It also encouraged a disconnect between
>> this foreign policy and the actions and plans of US
>> corporations.  Ironically, in some cases the officialdom of
>> organized labor did not disconnect this linkage but saw that
>> linkage as positive.
>>
>> During the Cold War, support for US foreign policy was again
>> seen as a patriotic step.  Yet, with the various actions of
>> the AFL-CIO in particular, but most of organized labor
>> generally, the credibility of US organized labor came to be
>> questioned.  To the extent to which the AFL-CIO (and I am
>> using this to reference the officialdom of US organized labor
>> since most unions supported the policies of the institution
>> known as the AFL-CIO)supported or assisted in coups and
>> disruptions, such as British Guiana in 1964, Chile in 1973,
>> and mischief in South Africa during the 1980s, it was seen
>> around the world, not as an expression of the interests of
>> the US working class, but rather an arm of the US state, thus
>> the notion of the AFL-CIA (a reference often heard in the
>> global South when speaking of the "old days").
>>
>> So, let me summarize at least part of the problem:  organized
>> labor in the USA has refused to acknowledge, or in the worst
>> cases has supported, the imperial ambitions of the USA.  This
>> is now all coming home to haunt us, resulting in our
>> inability to distinguish within our ranks and in the broad
>> front against neo-liberal globalization, right-wing populism
>> from progressive sentiment; our movement has a partial and
>> inconsistent response to neo-liberal globalization itself;
>> and we have witnessed a strategic paralysis within organized
>> labor with regard to responding to the specifics of US
>> foreign policy.
>>
>> Let me specify this a bit more.  Our movement has been unable
>> to speak with our members about how to understand the
>> connections between US foreign policy and the growth of the
>> multi-national corporations.  It is not just about treaties
>> that Clinton, Bush or anyone else has signed.  It is, as
>> well, about wars that have been fought.  It is about the
>> steps that the US has taken to clear the ground, as if with a
>> political Daisycutter, of all opposition to neo-liberal
>> globalization.
>>
>> In order for the union movement to understand the question of
>> global justice, we have to understand the problem of empire,
>> or if you prefer, imperial ambitions.  There is simply no way
>> to avoid it, particularly in today's world.  The reason?
>> One, we are living in a world where the corporate/government
>> connections are strengthening, and with them increased
>> repression of progressive and democratic forces in the face
>> of unfolding globalization.  In the aftermath of the Cold
>> War, the imperial ambitions of the USA have become more
>> blatant as the US attempts to lead or direct the
>> reorganization of global capitalism.  That reorganization is
>> linked not only to trade deals, but also to changes in the
>> production process, wealth polarization on a global scale,
>> and, as noted, repression in order to enforce neo-liberal
>> globalization.  It is in that light that we can better
>> understand initiatives such as so-called USAPatriot Act, and
>> other measures which infringe on our civil liberties and
>> basic democratic rights.
>>
>> Two, there was a period in time when sections of US capital
>> saw in the official US trade union movement a possible
>> partner, or at the least, an irritant that had to be
>> mollified.  The US trade union movement was, for instance,
>> useful in opposing left-wing labor movements around the
>> world.  After all, it had credentials.
>>
>> Social peace on the basis of some level of a modus vivendi
>> between capital and organized labor was needed not only in
>> the USA, but also around the world.  There were also sections
>> of capital that recognized that trade unions were useful in
>> terms of keeping other sections of capital "honest," so to
>> speak, that is keeping wages out of capitalist competition.
>>
>> That day is gone.  We should have no illusions about that.
>> We are as useless to capital and the US state as a bicycle is
>> to a fish, to borrow from an old feminist expression.
>>
>> But, here is the challenge:  when one has built a movement on
>> the basis of an incorrect assessment of reality, and based on
>> the provision of incomplete and often inaccurate information
>> to its members and supporters, it becomes problematic to
>> shift gears.  How does one do it?  How does one explain new
>> alliances, such as with the so-called "Turtles?"  How does
>> one explain that those we condemned overseas a decade or more
>> ago, we now must embrace, whereas those we supported have
>> often turned out to be our staunchest opponents?  How do we
>> explain the lack of patriotism, for lack of another term, of
>> US capital in abandoning the US worker, and the policies of
>> naked aggression and implied genocide that this same US
>> capital encourages in US foreign policy?  How do we reply to
>> the questions that I constantly heard when we delivered the
>> Common Sense Economics education program during the 1990s?
>> Participants would respond very favorably to the train-the-
>> trainers, and the workshops themselves, but they would
>> inevitably ask the following:  "Can we get more of this?"
>> That is a great question, and one that an educator always
>> wants to hear.  They would also ask:  "Why did we not know
>> this before?"  The answer to that latter question goes to the
>> heart of the history and culture of organized labor in the
>> USA.
>>
>> What is needed within US organized labor is an understanding
>> of how other trade union movements (and other social
>> movements more generally) outside of the US understand the
>> workings of US foreign policy and its implications.  This is
>> a very difficult discussion because it runs up against the
>> assumptions upon which the US trade union movement has been
>> built.   It is an uncomfortable discussion because it
>> additionally challenges the way we think of ourselves and how
>> we think that we are viewed by the outside world.
>> Nevertheless, it is a discussion that must take place
>> otherwise there will be no international solidarity.
>>
>> The second point is that we must fuse the discussion of
>> global justice-as-anti-multi-national corporation, with
>> global justice as anti-empire, and specifically, with a
>> critical examination of US foreign policy.  This will be
>> especially difficult because it forces us to examine the
>> manner in which the conception of patriotism has been
>> manipulated by both capital and political elites in order to
>> advance their unsavory business.  It also forces us to
>> examine how we have been played for chumps.
>>
>> Let's look, for instance, at the question of Iraq.
>>
>> We were sold a bill of goods.  The allegations of weapons of
>> mass destruction and imminent threats were lies, pure and
>> simple.  The desire to invade Iraq dated back at least till
>> 1992, and it has subsequently been revealed that prior to
>> 9/11 planning was underway for an invasion of Iraq.  The only
>> thing that was lacking was the pretext.  9/11 was the
>> pretext.
>>
>> Although the AFL-CIO raised questions about the war, somewhat
>> late in the game, once the war started the AFL-CIO felt
>> compelled to issue a statement supporting the troops, and by
>> implication, supporting the war.  Yet, in the manner in which
>> its statement read, the notion of supporting the troops was
>> identified with our patriotic duty, thus, the AFL-CIO fell
>> into the trap that supporting the troops means supporting the
>> war.
>>
>> For the Bush administration to suggest - and for the US trade
>> union movement to implicitly accept - that those of us who
>> opposed and continue to oppose the war are not supporting the
>> troops is the height of insult.  The notion that we should
>> shut our mouths because the troops have been deployed is
>> ludicrous.  We who opposed the war support the troops; that's
>> why we want to have them brought home.
>>
>> But a trade union activist broke this all down for me shortly
>> before the war actually started.  I had been explaining my
>> position on the war and he said, "Bill, look at it this way.
>> If you have a son or daughter who is in a gang and that gang
>> engages in some sort of illegal activity, does your concern
>> about your son or daughter mean that you support the illegal
>> activity?  Not at all!  Instead, you want your son or
>> daughter out of that illegal activity; out of harm's way."
>>
>> The invasion of Iraq was as illegal as the day is long, and
>> the US military is being used as a gang by the powers-at-be,
>> to borrow from the terminology used by the former Marine Corp
>> general and two time Medal of Honor winner, Smedley Butler.
>> Yet the trade union movement has been all-too-cautious about
>> calling things as they are.  Can we look forward to the day
>> when our movement will even entertain a discussion where the
>> opinion you are about to hear - that of General Butler - is
>> verbalized?
>>
>> Let me quote of few of his words on his own experience and
>> analysis:
>>
>> "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe,
>> as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
>> people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It
>> is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense
>> of the masses. . . .
>>
>> There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military
>> gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out
>> enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men"
>> to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-
>> Nationalistic-Capitalism. It may seem odd for me, a military
>> man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I
>> spent thirty- three years and four months in active military
>> service as a member of this country's most agile military
>> force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks
>> from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
>> period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-
>> man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
>> short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I
>> suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am
>> sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession,
>> I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My
>> mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
>> obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with
>> everyone in the military service.
>>
>> I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American
>> oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent
>> place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
>> I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American
>> republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
>> racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
>> international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912
>> (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to
>> the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
>> In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way
>> unmolested.
>>
>> During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would
>> say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could
>> have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to
>> operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three
>> continents."
>>
>> Organized labor in the USA has been held in check by the
>> manner in which it has interpreted patriotism and by its
>> failure to critically evaluate US foreign policy.  Thus, we
>> have on the one hand the surprise and support that greeted
>> AFL-CIO President John Sweeney at the 2000 ICFTU World
>> Congress in Durban, South Africa with his strong denunciation
>> of neo-liberal globalization, but our inability, on the other
>> hand, to speak with our members about the nature of US
>> foreign policy and the difference between patriotism vs.
>> culpability in a crime.
>>
>> Is there any hope?  The answer is "yes," but it depends
>> entirely on the willingness and ability of the US trade union
>> movement to cross a line into what has hitherto been a
>> forbidden zone for US trade unionism.  This forbidden zone is
>> a political space where the US trade union movement begins to
>> look at the interconnections between multi-national
>> corporations, US capital and US foreign policy.  It is a
>> space that begins to question the motives and actions of the
>> US government, and particularly the role of the US government
>> in crushing progressive social movements around the world.
>> It is a space that dares to ask whether there is a role the
>> US trade union movement can play, not simply in being
>> partners with unions in other countries, but where we can be
>> a champion of consistent democracy, both in the USA, as well
>> as globally.  Consistent democracy, it should be said, is the
>> real core of a genuine global justice movement.  And that
>> global justice movement desperately needs organized labor
>> advancing a program of international solidarity against neo-
>> liberal globalization.
>>
>> Let me conclude with a word on a word:  "solidarity."  I have
>> been recently informed that there are some unions that no
>> longer use this word.  They apparently believe that it is
>> antiquated and unrecognized by their members, and, therefore,
>> it should be dropped from trade union lexicon in favor of the
>> word "unity."  While I have no problem with the word "unity,"
>> I believe that expunging the word "solidarity" is a major
>> mistake, and interestingly enough, relates to today's
>> discussion. "Solidarity" conveys something akin to "unity"
>> but not necessarily the same thing.  "Unity" often assumes a
>> similar context or environment.  The beauty of the word and
>> concept of "solidarity" is that it suggests the active
>> bridging of the gap between the unfamiliar.  In that sense
>> solidarity is in some respects a step toward a higher level
>> of unity.
>>
>> Some may think of solidarity as something rhetorical.  I
>> believe that the late leader of Mozambique, Samora Machel put
>> it best:  "Solidarity is not charity, but mutual aid in
>> pursuit of shared objectives." Shared objectives.
>>
>> Solidarity is addressing the process of bridging that gap
>> between whatever the unfamiliar may be, whether geography,
>> industry, race, ethnicity, or gender, just to use a few
>> examples.  It is a process of building a linkage where one
>> does not currently exist; a linkage tied to a common project
>> or opposition to a common enemy.  In that sense I must
>> respectfully disagree with some remarks offered earlier with
>> regard to international unionism.  Cross-border solidarity
>> develops when there is mutual respect and there is no sense
>> of one being dominated by outside forces.  Solidarity means a
>> coming together of partners"voluntarily" but with shared
>> objectives, as suggested to us by Machel.
>>
>> Thus, global unionism does not or should not be seen as
>> resulting from the expansion of US-based so-called
>> international unions, but rather through the creation of a
>> new, international partnership.
>>
>> When thinking about renewed trade unionism and global
>> justice, the concept of solidarity must be at the core.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> (c)2004 School of Industrial and Labor Relations
>> Cornell University
>>
>> _______________________________________________________
>>
>> portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>> discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>> Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>> provide varied material of interest to people on the
>> left.
>>
>> For answers to frequently asked questions:
>> <http://www.portside.org/faq>
>>
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
>> <http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>>
>> To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
>> <moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>>
>> For assistance with your account:
>> <support at portside.org>
>>
>> To search the portside archive:
>> <http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XgSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     sf-core-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 22557 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20041024/054e948a/attachment-0001.bin