Folks on the Net: I've shared this net-wide, instead of just replying to Dave personally, because I'm hoping it will aid in addition thinking, discussion and reflection--I think he raises some important issues. Kim Scipes

Dear Dave Graham--

I just read your recent report, and I want to thank you for the time and effort it took to write such an informative and analytical report. It is the most well-reasoned and thoughtful analysis I've seen on the overall impact of the dockers' struggle. While others much closer to Liverpool may perhaps challenge particular parts of it, I am impressed with your efforts to really try to understand what's going on.

I think you are correct on your points about the rationalization of international shipping--and that Liverpool IS probably screwed. Thus, I support your point that the international dockers' efforts for "one more push" is probably not accurate--I think what we're seeing is the beginning, not the ending, of the overall struggle. Multinational capital was apparently planning to just off port after port, but the skousers on the docks of L'pool messed up their program by refusing to go quietly; and messed it up a lot by rallying support by dockers around the world. Thus, to me, the dockers in L'pool have made a much greater contribution that just merely fighting for their jobs, even though that is important in and of itself. Accordingly, international links and contacts that have been developed, in my opinion, need to be continued and developed.

Along those lines, the European-wide dockers organization that existed in the early 80s needs to, if at all possible, be recreated and built upon. Certainly in organization and approach, La Coordinadora in Spain has much to teach port workers, and especially those in NW Europe (and the US, too!), about not allowing themselves to be hampered by the old methods of top-down trade unionism that is prominent in NW Europe and particularly the East Coast of the US. L'pool in itself may be screwed, but multinational capital CANNOT function without Europe as a whole, and if dockers are going to have a say in what's going on it will only be because they have developed the POWER to force capital to deal with them.

But just saying "no" is not enough--I think we've all learned that against a relentless foe that has tons more resources than ourselves, that if we just keep saying no, they will be able to divide off our support and then just crush us over time. We cannot afford losses of one or two people a week, or so, because they can outlast us AS LONG AS WE FIGHT ON THEIR TERMS. If this fight is going to be more than just another "marvelous defeat," we've got to make it on our terms, not their's.

This suggests a two-pronged approach--both defensive and offensive. Defensively, while difficult, at least we know what needs to be done. The dockers need support, and that must continue to be built--both domestically and internationally--and particularly by port workers organizing and taking direct action against the shipping companies. Thus, while I also support the international efforts to build solidarity, I think your point about the need to organize dockers across the UK is terribly important. As long as one major port is unorganized, capital will use it to screw all the organized ports. I am talking about the need to develop power to stop or at least slow down the international transport of goods by sea. (And ultimately, if the ITF has any heart, it will organize airline transport in parallel, so that air shipment cannot replace sea shipment.)

The other part of the struggle--which I believe is ultimately the more difficult--is an offensive strategy. Basically, the larger issue is how do we want to live? And how shall the UK, as well as every other country, develop in the future? Will it be along the lines that multinational capital desires, where workers are nothing more than mere tools for their plans to efficiently make profits AND THUS WE ALL SUFFER. Or can we devise an alternative vision of what a just, humane, anti-capitalist world would look like?

Now there are two ways that I can see to develop an alternative strategy: (1) we can say this is how things are now, and how can we make them better? or (2) we can say, let's not be trapped by the past--if we (each one of us) was "king of the world," what would we like to see?

I think the first approach is the one that has been more than well-tried by the Left, and it has been a failure to go beyond liberal, democratic capitalism. Basically, it seems that social democracy is perhaps the outer ring of possibility for this approach. And social democracy has been and is being destroyed in Europe (where it was most developed) by multinational capital and their friends in the state. In other words, this approach seems to me to be a failure before even getting off the ground. But perhaps the most significant weakness to this approach is that it is based on the continued acceptance of the shafting of people in the 'third world'. We in the so-called developed countries have benefitted--not near as much as the capitalists here and there, but we HAVE benefitted--by the continued economic exploitation and political oppression of the countries of the "third world." (If you think I'm being dogamatic on this, compare the general social conditions of any of these countries with the same in any of the so-called developed countries.)

The second approach, which I favor, is less defined, but I think the more important way to go. I do not have a blue print to offer--which probably many would reject, anyway. But I think I DO have some questions that hopefully will stimulate further thinking, and hopefully conversation among people around the world. Now these questions are only focused on the economic sphere of society, and are not meant to subsume issues such as around family and kinship, politics, etc--others need to think out further questions, etc for these spheres: mine apply ONLY to the economic sphere, which I do NOT think dominates all of the others.

In any case, here are three questions that I think must be answered in order to create an alternative economic system: (1) what do we need to create (in traditional terms, "produce") to enable each of us to live in a way of life that nutures all of us--and thus, is possible to implement if every person in the world chose to do so--and how can we make this production as ecologically and economically sustainable as possible? (2) how to we want to organize this production?--is is hierarchical, with boss-on-top, shit-roll-down-hill on the workers as today, or do we try to decentralize and make it as democratic and egalitarian as possible? And (3) how do we allocate this production most equitably?

Key to this, in my opinion, is #1--there is a tremendous amount of shit that is produced today under capitalism that simply is not needed, or worse, is destructive: advertising and military production come immediately to mind. (Or if you go to your local grocery store, can anyone tell me why we need 37 million different types of breakfast cereal?) If we limit what is produced, then we could spread this production that remains out to people, and thus, qualitatively reduce the number of hours needed to work outside one's home or community. And then, the other questions follow.

An approach like this offers the chance to stir the immagination--and we saw what happened the last time this was done (albeit with many problems, weaknesses, etc) in the late 1960s. This would allow people to use our intelligences and our hearts to help create a better world literally for ALL of us.

I think folks might get the drift of this--and please feel free to take it much futher!!! But I think the questions the L'pool dockers are ultimately asking--even if they might not put it out in the same terms--is how do we want to live that maximizes the potentials in all of us EVERYWHERE around the globe?

Ideally, the dockers themselves might call for discussion, debate, etc, on these points, or even conferences or whatever. They certainly have earned the moral legitimacy to do so. But that also would seem to place a burden on them that they may not want to carry--after all, they're carrying one hell of a load as it is! But I think the rest of us need to take from them the moral courage to ask the hard questions and, not only to ask hard questions, but to verify answers. It's time to move forward.

I would love to further this discussion. I hope people will respond. And to Dave, who got me started today, thanks again for your excellent report.

In solidarity--and love. Kim Scipes