2. We are searching for a way forward, because it becomes more and more clear that capitalism is a catastrophe for humanity. A radical change in the organisation of society, that is, revolution, is more urgent than ever. And this revolution can only be world revolution if it is to be effective.

3. But it is unlikely that world revolution can be achieved in one single blow. This means that the only way in which we can conceive of revolution is as interstitial revolution, as a revolution that takes place in the interstices of capitalism, a revolution that occupies spaces in the world while capitalism still exists. The question is how we conceive of these interstices, whether we think of them as states or in other ways.

4. In thinking about this, we have to start from where we are, from the many rebellions and insubordinations that have brought us to Porto Alegre. The world is full of such rebellions, of people saying NO to capitalism: NO, we shall not live our lives according to the dictates of capitalism, we shall do what we consider necessary or desirable and not what capital tells us to do. Sometimes we just see capitalism as an all-encompassing system of domination and forget that such rebellions exist everywhere. At times they are so small that even those involved do not perceive them as refusals, but often they are collective projects searching for an alternative way forward and sometimes they are as big as the lacandon jungle or the argentinazo of three years ago or the revolt in Bolivia just over a year ago. All of these insubordinations are characterised by a drive towards self-determination, an impulse that says "No, you will not tell us what to do, we shall decide for ourselves what we must do."

Political parties have to change of course...and I mean parties ranging from left to right ideologically. It would be nice if progressive Republicans (they do exist!), progressive Democrats, Red Tories and the NDP could win elections and form coalitions, but I believe certain conditions must exist on the ground before these kind of electoral victories can have the kind of potential impact I believe they could have.

Before corporatist agendas solidify any further activists on the right and left need ways and means of uniting around what they value in common. As the situation is now, in Kansas at least, and this likely holds true to the rest of USAmerica, such a space hardly exists at all and so the corporate paymasters of America get away with inserting wedge issues into every political campaign.

One possible means of creating space for left and right to mobilise against the merchantilist model of globalization is to take politics beyond electoral campaigns and the capitol and parliament hills everywhere and take politics straight into the marketplace. There are many examples of how this could be done...the Mondragon experiences and the flexible manufacturing networks supported by the Italian left, both Communist and Christian, in northern Italy, and Quebec is also of note here.

Political power always follows economic power. The big political ship is steered about by whomsoever has hold of the economic rudder. Our objective on the left and as members of the working-class should be to increase the proportion of our political power steadily by building economic power in the marketplace...we need to capitalise a social movement so that a social market exists. What do I mean by this?

I don't know for sure! But one of the thoughts I've had for several years now is that people need a corporation "of, by, and for the people." A corporation that embodies a social movement in its mode of being a social market. I wouldn't hesitate to charter it as a for-profit corporation or membership corporation where shares are held in the form of nontransferable rights of participation in the activities and profits of this corporation. What would set this corporation apart from all others is precisely that it would be membership-based and would be built up organizationally through campaigns to educate people about the relationship between the well-being of their families and communities and the workings of an economy. If successful in building the organization to sufficient strength in at least some locations then such a corporation would be able to participatively design capital strategies, partner with other organizations such as union pension funds, as well as serve as the market needed to build up a network of affiliated firms...hopefully cooperative and employee-owned in nature.

We could change the world by refusing power: declining the rewards of service to an aggressor and the benefits of alignment with an economic elite; by disobeying tyrants and ridiculing bullies. Power cannot exist without a broad base of popular support. The only way to fight power is by ignoring it.

One the strategies of bringing Americanization into Canadian unions is to change the way it does business. Your point is actually something that I too contemplate, because, as much as some like to think not, bad corporate citizens exist. Who do not care about these social things, other then to climb and consolidate power.

So the seed is planted, and full recogition is given to the population (monetary) base of organized labour? We recognize the trends that could swing it's democratic principles to support social programs, and if strong enough, vote in a government that would support and hold these ideals?

Yes polarization of thinking, immediately sets up resistance, and the opposite government is considered because of the radical change social programs need our support? Since it is supported by labour, then it must be a bad thing?

There is a issue brewing in BC about Independant truckers, using the aid of union negotiators, and cutting out contractors who this companies deals with.

Has the indepenant Truckers now brought the idea of new Union principles into organized labour?

My experience with CLAC operations said indeed the Americanized union is bogus from the start, having only the executive and no members, it negotiates a contract. Being inferior in bid, squeezes the labour to it's lowest wages. Hence this tactic, as well with independant truckers, to force wages rates lower. I have little sympathy for the tuff times experienced by these people. The truckers evoke little emotion, although suffering the plight of corporate multinational views, only those who have the bottom line will work. So I sympathize with the tactics of being squeezing, that we have experienced in one form or another. That I would like to see a social conscience emerge out of corporate citizens. Is this to much to ask?

So like ideas here spread, what shall a person do with the truckers?

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]