MIM NOTES No. 201            January 1, 2000

Seattle protests bolster Amerikan chauvinism

by a MIM Comrade & RAIL Comrade

From Tuesday November 30 to Friday December 2, more than 50,000 
people from around the world gathered in Seattle to protest 
opening of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Meeting 
from various class perspectives. Seattle riot pigs unleashed tear 
gas and rubber bullets against protestors who had successfully 
blocked streets and prevented WTO delegates from attending the 
Tuesday meetings. The mayor of Seattle declared a state of martial 
law in downtown Seattle and called in the national guard. Police 
arrested hundreds of protestors over the next few days. Despite 
what many people saw on TV, the majority of those arrested were 
arrested for non-violent civil disobedience, not the scattered 
window smashing.

To listen to the mainstream media, and much of what passes as 
"alternative," critics of the WTO in Seattle raised three main 
complaints. First, Third World workers are allegedly stealing 
"Amerikan" jobs. Second, the WTO erodes Amerikan environmental and 
"human rights" laws, because, for example, laws that restrict 
environment-unfriendly imports are seen as a barrier to trade. 
Finally, the WTO doesn't provide a forum for input from the 
masses.

MIM does not raise any of these criticisms, as we explain in this 
article. Instead, we focus our fire squarely on the entire system 
of imperialism, which is responsible for the terrible exploitation 
of Third World workers, for the starvation and disease which 
persist there, for the wholesale destruction of the environment, 
and for breeding war.

The first criticism above is clearly a reflection of the economic 
nationalism of the labor aristocracy (that is, bourgeoisified 
workers in the imperialist countries; more below). The second 
amounts to flattering the Amerikan bourgeoisie and restricting the 
debate within the framework of bourgeois democracy. Real 
environmentalists recognize that the imperialist bourgeoisie is 
the main culprit making this planet less and less habitable by 
humyns; real environmentalists do not rely on the state set up by 
the imperialists themselves to stop this process. That is why real 
environmentalists ally themselves with the revolutionary movements 
among the oppressed nations, who will overthrow imperialism and 
have the most to gain by adopting environmentalist policies.(1)

The third criticism is just more bourgeois democratic formalism. 
As long as imperialism dominates the world's economies, life and 
death decisions for millions will be made behind closed doors, 
with profits as the guiding criterion -- whether or not some 
people have a formal voice.

The non-radical nature of these complaints was made clear when 
President Clinton adopted them wholesale in his speech to the WTO.

In the rest of this article, we discuss the following points. 
First, what the WTO is; second, the reactionary trap of an 
exclusively anti-WTO movement in the imperialist countries; and 
finally the line of some of the anarchist groups which 
participated in the protests. Elsewhere in this issue, we debunk 
the myth that "Third World workers are stealing Amerikan jobs" in 
detail, discuss the implications of the upcoming entry of China 
into the WTO, and review the Seattle International People's 
Assembly, a conference which met before and during the protests, 
made up chiefly of anti-imperialist delegates from the colonies 
and neo-colonies. The article on the People's Assembly explains 
how anti-WTO movements in the countries oppressed by imperialism 
can be progressive.

What is the WTO?

The imperialist states, headed by the U$, control and use an array 
of international agencies, like the IMF, the World Bank, and the 
WTO. The WTO is an instrument for dictating trade policy to Third 
World countries, requiring them to drastically reduce or eliminate 
tariffs (taxes on imports or exports imposed to raise revenue or 
protect domestic companies from import competition). The WTO is 
also a forum where imperialist powers can try and settle their own 
trade disputes.

Even though the WTO was created in 1995, it is not new. Its old 
name was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT 
was a framework for discussion of international trade, not a 
particular agreement. There were eight trade agreements under the 
GATT framework since 1948. The eighth round established the WTO 
and expanded GATT's rules to apply to services and intellectual 
property rights, things like patents. 

It is a mistake to speak of the WTO as if there were no GATT or 
previous trade treaties between the capitalist classes of 
different countries. Attacking just the WTO is like opposing the 
Republicans, but not mentioning the Democrats as a party of 
imperialism. The WTO is only different in that it establishes a 
mechanism for dispute resolution. So the GATT was a weaker 
negotiating group. Some people focus solely on the WTO because 
they are new to politics and have not thought out their positions 
fully yet. Others are committed reformists who do not see the need 
for a revolutionary struggle against imperialism.

Amerikan Chauvanism and the 'Critics'

MIM does not necessarily get involved in opposing individual trade 
treaties between the capitalist classes of different countries, 
because MIM seeks to overthrow the whole capitalist system, not 
just a particular treaty. Nor does MIM see any progressive use at 
this time for an Amerika-first nationalist movement, often 
referred to as protectionism when it comes to foreign trade 
matters. MIM is internationalist and does not base itself in the 
Amerikan labor aristocracy, with its nationalist class 
collaboration with the imperialists; hence MIM does not care where 
the imperialists hire their workers.

As we have discussed in earlier articles,(2) struggles over trade 
policy in the united $tates are dominated by three large forces: 
The internationalist bourgeoisie, the Amerika-first bourgeoisie, 
and the labor aristocracy. The internationalist bourgeoisie is in 
favor of "free trade," because it hopes to profit off of investing 
and selling its products abroad. Clinton is a bourgeois 
internationalist. The Amerika-first bourgeoisie represents those 
capitalists who cannot compete internationally, like the textile 
industry in the South. It is represented by Pat Buchannan, Jesse 
Helms, and the like. They favor protectionism.

The labor aristocracy are those workers who share in the spoils of 
imperialism's global plunder, and become petty-bourgeois both in 
ideology and class character.(3) They are currently allied with 
the internationalist bourgeoisie, but distrust what they see as 
threats to their privileged position. The economic nationalism of 
the Amerikan labor aristocracy was plain to see in Seattle, often 
in its more chauvinistic forms:

* The AFL-CIO gave anti-China groups prominence in its march (see 
photo page 1), and the United Steelworkers hosted the "Seattle 
Steel Party," modeled on the Boston Tea Party. The idea behind 
this rally was to dump Chinese steel into the city harbor. The 
head of the United Steel Workers gave a speech there denouncing 
China as a "rogue state" out to deprive Amerikan workers of jobs. 
It was a conservative, Buchannanite speech sure to set the stage 
for more war mongering against the Chinese regime. (Interestingly, 
this rally was held during a day when the rest of downtown was 
declared "protest-free.")

* The United Steelworkers hired large, mobile billboards which 
read "WTO: Destroying millions of American jobs."

* Patriot militias were at the protest. They see the WTO as the 
beginnings of a one world government that would end Amerikan 
sovereignty -- funny, considering the united $tates and other 
imperialist powers dominate the WTO.

* Pundits in the Seattle Weekly listed Japanese investment and 
competition from Mexican workers as examples of the adverse 
effects of the WTO on Amerikans.

* Local labor hack Ron Judd made it clear that Amerikan trade 
unions are not against monopoly capitalism and imperialism, per 
se. "We're not against trade. A huge percentage of the people I 
represent -- machinists, longshoremen, truck drivers -- their 
paychecks every week are delivered because they're trading a 
product."

Hence the Amerika-first bourgeoisie stokes the fires of 
nationalism, in order to win the allegiance of the labor 
aristocracy. This is why Buchannan endorsed the protests in 
Seattle. A nationalist alliance between the Amerika-first 
bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy would greatly increase the 
amount of fascism within u.$. borders and heighten the possibility 
of war. This is yet another reason why MIM does not raise slogans 
here in Amerika opposing trade treaties like WTO, GATT, NAFTA, 
APEC, etc. -- we would be tailing an objectively fascist movement.

How 'bout them anarchists, huh?

The explicitly anarchist groups which participated in the protests 
gave prime examples of the dual aspects of anarchism. On the one 
hand, they share the same goal that we communists do: A society 
without war, without class, nation, or gender oppression, where 
humyns work collectively and voluntarily according to the 
principle "from each according to his/her ability, to each 
according to his/her needs."

Anarchist groups were among the few who criticized opponents of 
the WTO for remaining within the framework of capitalism and 
bourgeois ideology. The Eugene based Anarchist Action Collective, 
for example wrote: "The liberal-populist outlook always tries a 
watered down approach to reality so as to have a more agreeable 
tactic in organizing the masses. We reject this manipulative, 
dishonest, reformist game as utterly lacking in vision. [It is] 
irresponsible and trivial to prepare for the WTO showdown with 
one's horizon limited to a mere curbing of the power of 
multinational corporations. The problem, the challenge, is so 
profoundly a more fundamental one than that of liberal-populist 
politicking!"

On the other hand, in the realm of strategy, anarchists are 
idealists. They don't want to face the messiness inherent in real 
world movements to overthrow the repressive bourgeois state; they 
replace strategic thinking with moralism. In particular, 
anarchists differ from communists in that they reject the need for 
the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the formerly oppressed 
use coercion to ensure that remnants of the oppressing classes do 
not resurrect the old society.

This aspect of anarchism could be seen in the attacks on downtown 
businesses. (We should note that although shots of protestors 
breaking windows and setting fires in trash cans dominated much of 
the media coverage of the protests, very few actually engaged in 
this activity.) At least one anarchist group has come forward and 
claimed responsibility for some of these attacks. In defense of 
their actions, they wrote: "When we smash a window, we aim to 
destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private 
property rights. At the same time, we exorcise that set of violent 
and destructive social relationships which has been imbued in 
almost everything around us. By 'destroying' private property, we 
convert its limited exchange value into an expanded use value. A 
storefront window becomes a vent to let some fresh air into the 
oppressive atmosphere of a retail outlet (at least until the 
police decide to tear-gas a nearby road blockade). A newspaper box 
becomes a tool for creating such vents or a small blockade for the 
reclamation of public space or an object to improve one's vantage 
point by standing on it."(4)

Certainly MIM sheds no tears for a looted Starbucks. But the above 
quote demonstrates the moralist emphasis of anarchism. There is 
little concern for whether or not trashing a few stores helps 
dismantle the bourgeois police or army, or creates independent 
institutions to serve the oppressed here, or helps organize large 
scale reparations to oppressed nations outside of u.$. borders. 
All that is important is that breaking stuff seems to wash the 
stench of private property off of a few individuals. MIM hopes 
that the scope and organized nature of the cops' violent response 
to the protests causes some anarchists to think hard about 
revolutionary strategy, especially the need for strong 
organizations of the oppressed and long-term public opinion 
building.

One lesson which MIM and RAIL take away from our encounter with 
these anarchists is the necessity to boldly put forward our 
revolutionary agenda. If we soften our line to please social 
democrats who are uncomfortable with the "r" word, we will lose 
the respect of the masses who are completely fed up with this 
rotten, imperialist, patriarchal system -- exactly the people we 
need to be organizing and recruiting! In the absence of a strong 
and highly visible Maoist party, most of these people will drift 
off into dead-end politics or become disheartened.

Notes:

1. See, for example, "On Capitalism and the Environment," in: MIM 
Theory 12: Environment, Society, and Revolution.

2. "GATT is a trade framework, not a trade system," MIM Notes 96; 
"Buchanan steals phony Marxists' thunder," MIM Notes 109; 
"Correction," MIM Notes 130 "Buchanan reveals fissure in ruling 
class," MIM Notes 199.

3. See e.g. MIM Theory 1: A white proletariat? and MIM Theory 10: 
Labor Aristocracy.

4. "Communique from part of the Black Bloc," at: 
http://damn.tao.ca/wtopage/wto.htm