Bill M. asked: >I recall that it was Harlan or Paris - one struggle one fight, Jerry . whatever >did that mean other than an allusion to a dichotomy - union person or scab? The allusion to "Which Side Are You On" was in in support of two (what I viewed as uncontroversial) propositions: (1) In class conflicts, the first question that must be asked is: which side are you on? Do you support the bosses and the state or do you support the workers in struggle against them? This doesn't mean, though, that we have to uncritically support such struggles. Many of the issues that Bill raises are valid and I would certainly not be the one to say: let's forget about the real limitations and problems with a particular conflict and the "leadership" of that conflict. While an important question, though, it is a secondary question to: do you support or oppose that struggle? From my class perspective, the answer is clear. (2) internationalism. The struggle in France is related to struggles in other countries around the world against austerity and budget cuts. That struggle also has relevance for countries that are less developed capitalist economies where workers and others are opposing IMF "structural adjustment" policies. What goes on in France, in other words, will have international repercussions just as surely as peasants and workers in struggle in Chiapas, Mexico has international effects. I support both struggles despite their limitations. If we had to wait to support a struggle whose total perspective and leadership we supported, we would end up not supporting any major struggles. "I am a citizen not of Athens or Greece, but of the world" -- Aristotle. Jerry
