Learn from Seattle

Your commentary The Battle after Seattle (WL63) frustrated me enough to want to write in. I'll start from the top: to start off a piece on post-Seattle with negative criticism, I feel, completely misses the point. Don't get me wrong, not that I think what you call the "street-activist movement" is perfect and beyond criticism. I think many people get many things wrong and a self-critical attitude is vital for any movement if it is to actually go forward. Indeed, many in the movement are self-critical; issues such as the tyranny of structurelessness are often discussed.

To answer some points that were made in your commentary... First, you question the validity of demonstrations that call for "end this" and "shut down that". No-one's claiming that shutting down the WTO or the IMF will overthrow capitalism. But, at the end of the day, decisions are made in these forums that result in countless deaths. If we manage to stop the WTO's millennium round of trade negotiations then that is a huge success, symbolically and in real terms.

In terms of not having a clear idea what we're fighting for, I don't think that's necessarily true. It's unclear who you criticise for not knowing what they're fighting for. True, there is no one clear demand for the future that everyone can unite around, but that is not to say demands aren't being made - from "Drop the Debt" to "Horticultural Anarchy" people are making their voices heard. Different demands need to be consolidated in the face of a common struggle. This is impossible to do through centralised "democratic" control. Forums are being established (usually non-hierarchical): Direct Action Network in Seattle, People's Global Action, Anti-Globalisation Network in the UK. Through struggle people of various backgrounds talk to each other, meetings are held, people share platforms as well as ideas. And out of these, ideas of what we're fighting for emerge, unfortunately though meetings and discussions don't make headlines. Riots do.

Second, "socialists must strive to offer the street-activist movement perspectives broader and more immediate blah... blah... blah...", and other such patronising statements in your commentary have little to offer to the movement. Any one individual, or political organisation, that would like to see a more social, environmentally and economically just society has much to offer to their comrades. Regardless if you're an anarchist or a socialist, we have a lot to learn from each other. Besides striving to offer the "street-activist movement" anything, socialists themselves have a lot to learn from the different and diverse ways of organising, and the wonderfully diverse politics of the movement.

"In the same way as dispersed local action is inadequate against an enemy, global capital, which operates both locally and globally, so also an 'anti-political' stance is inadequate in a struggle..." At best that statement is a gross misrepresentation. People talk of co-ordinated local action; groups like Reclaim The Streets in London have global links through networks such as People's Global Action. Furthermore, "soft anarchism" does not mean being anti-political. By its very nature everything we do is political. Just because people wish to steer clear of parties and leaders does not mean people have an "anti-political stance".

Finally, I think the fact that your answer to all this lies in a revolutionary party shows you haven't grasped the newness of what's happening. In the face of continuing injustice and oppression, people that have never come together are finding commonalities in their struggle. The slogan "No issue is Single!" has been taken up by many "single issue" campaigns. On June 18 when groups organised to target the financial centres of the world, at the same time Jubilee 2000 held a demonstration outside the Treasury. Not only are people starting to see the links between capitalism's casualties, they are beginning to act on them. Seattle was not brought about by the "street activist movement", it was the joint and collective work of a wide range of people, from Anita Roddick of the Body Shop, to trade unionists, NGOs, socialists, environmentalists, anarchists, all under the umbrella of the Direct Action Network.

Diversity and difference can bring about wonderful and exciting things, but it is not the easiest thing to work with. How easy would it be, instead to "have people who specialise in the tasks of central co-ordination, who should be duly elected... etc.'. It's not that simple, there are people within these new networks who have huge disagreements of how the world should be organised, let alone those who fundamentally disagree with central co-ordination. If they won't change your mind, and you won't change theirs, what are you going to do? We need to find ways in working together, ways that don't feel like compromise, but that are revolutionary in and of themselves.