Socialist Action /September 2000
Youth in Action
Prospects for the new youth movement
By ADAM RICHTER
This last year has seen a virtual explosion of youth activism across
the United States and beyond.
This is a very important development; thousands of young people are searching
for how to best fight the evils of capitalism and build a better world.
A major component of this new radical activity overall has been termed
the "anti-corporate movement." "Anti-corporate" is a
very vague term, but is appropriate considering the diverse elements and
the numerous unsettled debates raging within, concerning everything from
what is the exact mission of the movement to what tactics are appropriate
for it.
The new anti-corporate movement is in reality a coming together of a
wide range of existing movements that have been active for some time. Among
them are the environmental, anti-sweatshop, Third World solidarity, and
anti-racism movements, along with a number of individuals and organizations
from the anarchist and socialist movements.
The anti-corporate movement is not a single issue campaign like an anti-war
movement. It's not something that has a steering committee, or a National
Office that you can write to for more information.
It can't even be called a coalition of the above mentioned movements
and groups, for while there has been a lot of collaboration and planning
behind many of the actions (like Seattle), for the most part it's far more
informal than that.
It is something more akin to the New Left movement of the 1960s, representing
a revolt against capitalism and capitalist ideology, but in a very amorphous
and confused way.
This "decentralization" has been held up by many in the movement
as one of its strengths, making the claim that such a model allows people
from all kinds of different political backgrounds and with different preferences
in terms of tactics to come together. Others within the movement, though,
are beginning to seriously question the effectiveness of this, citing the
lack of direction and focus in the movement that has resulted.
A good example of this debate was seen at the recent national conference
of United Students Against Sweatshops, which became split between the "non-hierarchical"
wing and those favoring a more centralized and professionally organized
organization.
While the current disorganized state of the anti-corporate movement is
a serious handicap, the debate about it is a healthy one. As Marxists we
have the opportunity to participate with our experiences in the trade unions
and other forms of mass organizing, which illustrate the need for organization
and direction-as well as democratic decision-making.
At the same time, we can help develop the anti-corporate movement into
something that rather than releasing steam in any and every direction can
instead focus it on specific targets on the national and international level
and thus become much more effective.
As Marxists we have the perspective that the working class and its allies
have to rise up and overthrow capitalism in order to build a better world,
but how to introduce this perspective to students and other young people
in a way that will speak to their experiences is a tricky matter.
In some ways the generic "anti-corporateness" of this new movement
is an advantage since there are many activists in it who are already looking
at the big picture and are receptive to revolutionary politics in their
entirety. But the unevenness of the consciousness of the movement overall,
and its disorganization, necessitate initiating campaigns around specific
demands and coordinating these campaigns by building mass-action coalitions
on the national level.
There's much more that could be said about the anti-corporate movement,
and about the question of "what is to be done." This article is
no more than a humble attempt to grapple with the questions before us, and
to begin a more in-depth discussion.
We encourage readers to send in their responses and reactions to what
is said above. For our part, we pledge to continue this discussion with
more articles and discussion pieces in the future.
Al Gore: the Pinocchio
By STEPHANIE JOHNSON and ADAM RICHTER
As socialists, we know better than to ever vote for the Democrats or
Republicans. The Dems and Reps are dishonest, distasteful, and often downright
boring. And we know they'd take the lone slice of white bread out of our
hungry hands to feed to some rich donor's fluffy little toy poodle.
Despite this (perhaps due to some latent masochism) we somehow ended
up sitting in front of the TV for hours, waiting for Al Gore's Democratic
convention acceptance speech.
First came Al's family members taking the stage and a lengthy video featuring
previously unreleased footage of Al Gore the Warm-Blooded Human Being. Then
the clouds parted and there he was.
Forget all of the jokes of the past eight years regarding his stiffness.
We now know him to be a loving father, a rowdy (and randy) husband, and
an idealistic political warrior: the Prince of the Democratic Party.
Ever so casually he meandered out onto center stage, waving and smiling
at his adoring legions. Then he began to speak-you know, with the unique
(and less than convincing) Tennessee drawl of a man who spent most of his
life in Washington, D.C.
That's when we should have cut our losses and quit, friends. What followed
was an almost unbelievable mosaic of colorful contradictions, fluff, and
plain old hoo-hah.
It turns out Al is a pretty big man, determined to gather all Americans
into his warm embrace.
How else could you characterize a man who says he is thrilled to death
by the prosperity of Wall Street and the huge profits that have been made
by big business during the Clinton-Gore administration, and then in the
next breath appeal to working families to support him in "making the
American dream a reality"?
Yes, Al had something in his speech for everyone! He had socially conservative
themes that would feel right at home in a rally promoting Pat Buchanan's
"culture war." He had pleas to defend our environment. He proudly
lauded welfare reform. He threw the phrase "working families"
into every other sentence. He even at one point had the heart to say that
he would not forget the mentally ill if elected president!
By the end of that speech we weren't sure who we had just heard: it could
have been Pat Buchanan, Franklin Roosevelt, or even George Washington!
Why do you suppose that was, folks? Here's a theory: we're 23 years old,
and neither of us can remember a single time when his "liberal"
party did a thing for anyone we know. We half expected Al's nose to shoot
out 15 feet from all the lies and half-truths he was spouting.
The Democrats, supposedly a "farmer-labor" party (at least,
up in Minnesota, where we live), have long claimed to be a friend to working
people, Blacks, Latinos, and women, as well as to the environment, etc.
Yet all they've ever done was kick working people in the teeth at every
opportunity.
They claim we're living in boom times, but nobody outside of Wall Street
believes it. In fact, instead of the oodles of jobs and positively "touched
lives" that the Democrats claim to have given us in the last eight
years, all that Al and his buddy Bill have really given us is welfare reform,
slashed affirmative action, U.S. troops and bombers dispersed around the
world and-despite Gore's many inferences that his blood is nothing less
than a healthy, foresty shade of green-more destruction of our national
forests than that of any other administration in our country's history.
Well, guess what? You can only kick someone in the mouth so many times
before they start to develop some less than fond feelings for your boot.
That's why you've suddenly got an Al Gore with the phrase "working
families" tattooed to his forehead. Of course he's still got the same
"butcher the poor to feed the rich" politics, but he's trying
to get people to pucker up for the Democratic Party's boot one more time.
Will it work? Maybe. Though with fewer and fewer people voting, and with
even less feeling like the government is at all concerned about them, we'd
say that the days of the Democrats and Republicans are numbered. According
to the Newsweek of Aug. 28, in 1980 people making under $30,000 a year comprised
47 percent of registered voters; by 1998 that figure was down to 26 percent.
Working people aren't stupid. We know when we're getting a raw deal.
But, unfortunately, most people don't see an alternative-yet. That's an
opportunity for us reading this newspaper. As socialists we understand that
the only acceptable alternative will not come in the form of another pro-business
party like the Reform Party, or even the Greens. What we need is a working-class
alternative-a party by and for working people.
We now have the opportunity and responsibility to reach out to people
fed up with the status quo and offer them our alternative. We invite all
our readers and supporters to join us in this by distributing this paper,
organizing discussions with their friends and coworkers, and joining Socialist
Action or Youth for Socialist Action!
Socialist Action /September 2000 |