After Seattle: Strategic Thinking About Movement Building

Monthly Review, July, 2000 by Martin Hart-Landsberg

The Seattle anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) actions have justifiably generated a lot of excitement, renewed political activism, and considerable serious discussion on the left about next steps. For the first time in a long time, we are in the position to think and act strategically, with movement-building in mind. In what follows, I evaluate the Seattle experience; examine several political initiatives; explore the relationships among issues, campaigns, and movements; and suggest political criteria and a program of action to guide our organizing efforts. My aim is to help achieve the political clarity and unity necessary to realize the potential of the period.

Celebrating Seattle

The Seattle actions were noteworthy for their inclusiveness and creativity, as people of many different ages, motivated by many different concerns, joined together in opposition to the WTO and the neoliberal policies that define its agenda. Those directly involved in the demonstrations withstood attacks by the police and National Guard with incredible spirit, determination, and solidarity. Demonstrators have done an excellent job carrying the message of those days back to their communities, often to large and enthusiastic audiences. Many have published useful summaries and critical analyses of the events. [1]

While we celebrate the battles won on the streets of Seattle, it is important that we not lose sight of the broader social developments that give the Seattle events even greater political significance. The following are among the most important: a substantial and growing number of working people are angry that their working and living conditions have shown little (if any) improvement during this period of economic expansion. In addition, many are coming to understand that this situation is not the result of a natural, evolutionary process (often called "globalization"), but rather of conscious choices that reflect political interests defined primarily in terms of capitalist imperatives. And many are also beginning to realize that working people throughout the world face similar trends and political processes, and that joint action is not only possible but necessary if positive changes in living and working conditions are to be achieved.

The overwhelming majority of people who participated in and supported the Seattle demonstrations would not define themselves as radicals, but their understandings and motivations demonstrate receptivity to a radical understanding of capitalism and socialist-oriented political action. The post-Seattle period thus represents an important and exciting opportunity for those of us committed to building strong and democratic movements for socialism.

At the same time, there is nothing automatic about the future direction of political developments. Most of the teach-ins, both before and after the WTO protests, offered an array of political perspectives, from anticorporate to anticonsumerist to anticapitalist. Some presenters advocated elimination of the WTO; others called for its reform through the incorporation of labor and environmental side-agreements. Calls for defensive struggles to protect labor rights or the environment often mingled uneasily with calls for new forms of living and working in intentional, self-sufficient communities.

Therefore, this period requires--if not demands--that we think carefully about how to respond to the anger and energy people are feeling and expressing. In other words, we need to develop a strategic focus that can help us build movements for change that embrace the principles of equality, democracy, and solidarity in both practice and vision. Lacking such a focus, it is all too likely we will miss a highly favorable moment for making real progress towards socialism. However, urgency does not always bring clarity.

A Flawed Strategy: The China Campaign

Concern over deteriorating labor and environmental conditions motivated many working people to oppose the WTO. President Clinton, recognizing the seriousness of this concern, sought to blunt its radical potential by acknowledging it and advocating adoption of a labor study group as a first step towards the incorporation of labor standards into the WTO. A number of activists and groups involved in the Seattle actions have proposed a different response to this concern, one that they hope will strengthen ties between labor and other social groups and popular opposition to the WTO. Their strategy is to direct popular energy into a campaign opposing China's entry into the WTO. Unfortunately, this is a seriously flawed strategy. Such a campaign misdirects the political energy of the period. It is unlikely to deepen an understanding of the nature of capitalism or build a socialist-oriented movement for change.

Shortly before the Seattle meetings, the United States and Chinese governments agreed on terms under which the United States would approve China's entrance into the WTO. These terms said nothing about labor rights or environmental standards. However, for the agreement to have force, the U.S. Congress must first vote to grant China permanent Normal Trade Relations (NTR).