|The new left and the old unions
In 1997 two journals, representative of the old New Left in Britain
and the US, spoke out on globalisation and trade unionism internationally.
There was a special issue of the New York-based Monthly Review (MR)
on `Labor in the Age of "Global" Capitalism’ (Wood, Meiksins and Yates
1997). And there was a number of the London-based New Left Review
(NLR) which, amongst a range of items on globalisation, carried an article
by one of the contributors to the MR special, Kim Moody. This had the title
`Towards an International Social-Movement Unionism’ (Moody 1997a). Kim
Moody had a book on unionism coming out with Verso, the publishing house
twinned with NLR (Moody 1997b). He is also the founder-editor of Labor
Notes, the Detroit-based monthly newspaper of left trade unionism in
the US. For reasons of economy I will address myself primarily to the Kim
Moody piece. I want to welcome it, take issue with it and thus contribute
to the discussion around the future of trade unionism called for in MR
by Ellen Meiksins Wood.
Social-movementism and internationalism
Kim Moody sees social-movement unionism (SMU) as less an ideology or
political tendency than a broad orientation, distinct from either party-led
or bargaining-dominated unionisms:
In social-movement unionism neither the unions nor their members are
passive in any sense. Unions take an active lead in the streets, as well
as in politics. They ally with other social movements, but provide a class
vision and content... That content is not simply the demands of the movements
but the activation of the mass of union members as the leaders of change
- those who in most cases have the greatest social and economic leverage
in capitalist society. Social-movement unionism implies an active strategic
orientation that uses the strongest of society’s oppressed and exploited,
generally organised workers, to mobilise those who are less able to sustain
self-mobilisation: the poor, the unemployed, the casualised workers, the
neighbourhood organisations. (Moody 1997a:39)
In the face of a neo-liberal globalisation, a renewed and energised internationalism
is an essential part of Kim Moody’s vision:
Other crucial elements of his vision of a renewed unionism include: current
worker rebellion against capitalist globalisation (53); that this rebellion
can be found across the dominant global triad (US, Western Europe, Japan)
and in both the global North and South; that it challenges class-collaborationist
and bureaucratic leaderships; the recognition or even embrace of differences
within the working class; the reaching out to wider communities of the
poor; the required linkage of democracy, solidarity and mobilisation (59).
Whilst finding instances or moments of such a cross-sectoral and cross-ideological
movement in the North, he considers it to be already exemplified in countries
like Argentina, Venzuela, Ecuador, Colombia, South Africa, Brazil and South
Korea - the last three of which provide the North with `role models’ (70).
To say that most struggle is ultimately national or even local
is not to say that international links, coordination, organisation, and
action are not critical to the success of social-movement unionism in today’s
globalising international economy. Internationalism must be part of the
perspective and practice of union leaders, activists, and members if global
capital is to be contained at all. (62)
He points to a growing understanding by national and international unions
of `the contours and vulnerabilities of international production chains’
(57), and mentions a number of cross-border alliances and networks across
the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), or between Europe and North
Africa. He picks out as exemplary the Amsterdam-based Transnational Information
Exchange (TIE) for its role as ginger-group, educator and occasional exemplar.
He looks forward to the possibility of such networks going beyond this
and eventually impacting on transnational management decisions and changing
the rules of the game (64).
Kim Moody’s argument is welcome for coming from the heart of the labour
left in the USA. It is based on a long, deep and broad knowledge of the
union movement nationally and internationally. His argument, furthermore,
is not unfamiliar: related or identical ideas have been expressed since
the 1980s in, or in relation to, union developments and labour struggles
in South Africa, the Philippines, Poland, Brazil, Western Europe and North
America. They have found expression in the South African Labour Bulletin
(SALB), the Newsletter of International Labour Studies (NILS, 1978-1990,
The Hague), International Labour Reports (ILR, 1984-90, UK), Nueva
Sociedad (Caracas), Z Magazine (Boston) and in a series of monographs
and collections, mostly published in the US or UK, often by South End Press
in Boston or Zed Press and Pluto Books in London.
It is a pity that neither of Kim Moody’s articles goes into these experiences
or shows awareness of the literature, two or three significant examples
of which were published several years earlier in the US - one of them by
MR Press itself (Brecher and Costello 1990, Brecher, Brown and Childs 1993,
Brecher and Costello 1994). This literature would have been more worthy
of critique than that chosen by Moody or Wood. By arguing only with those
to their right, Moody and Wood imply that theirs is the voice of
the left. Both the experiences reported and the strategies argued for,
in much of this left literature, reveal contradictions that Kim Moody’s
NLR piece slides over. I will try to confine myself to two issues here,
one related to his understanding of SMU, the other to internationalism.
Kim Moody’s SMU represents a union alliance with the labouring poor,
with leadership in the hands of the well-organised workers, who occupy
strategically central positions in capitalist society. and who potentially
possess emancipatory consciousness and vision (the underlying argument
in the MR collection also). This is a contemporary expression of classical
19th century Marxism. It differs from some versions of Marxism in so far
as it takes distance from vanguardism. But it replaces this, I think, by
a workerism related to the 19th century anarcho-sindicalist tradition.
It represents, implicitly, the expectation that now that Marx’s capitalism
has become global, Marx’s working class will fulfil its emancipatory role,
socially and internationally. There is, it seems to me, nothing in history
to justify this vision, since this rather reveals industrial worker struggles
ending in vicious repression, profound class compromises, false utopias
- or, most problematically, succesful reform. Contemporary evidence - West,
South and East (the ex-Communist world ignored by both Moody and Wood)
- points in other directions to those suggested by Moody. The exemplary
cases he mentions, such as Brazil and South Africa, reveal attempts at,
or moments of, something that could be called social-movement unionism.
But the workers here find themselves mired in much the same mud as those
of the North, and the unions tend to find themselves increasingly deeply
involved in webs of industrial relations institutions, laws and values
(Barchiesi 1996 shows that South African unions provide less a `role model’
than another problematic case). The centrality of the industrial
or wage-earning working class to capitalist production, distribution and
exchange is not necessarily correlated to their primacy in emancipatory
struggle. The contemporary Mexican case presented in the MR collection
(Roman and Velasco Arregui 1997) demonstrates - despite the authors’ intentions
- something quite different. The initiating role and radicalism came from
the rural areas, the indigenous minorities, the geographical periphery;
and both Zapatistas and radical unions are aiming at democratisation and
self-determination (indigenous, popular, national) rather than socialism.
Socialist consciousness and transformatory intention rest here, as they
so often have, largely in the minds of the authors. I see no way that Moody’s
model of a labour/popular alliance could make room even for what
is happening next door to the US - for the Canadian Labour Congress’ national
conference of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers (Kinsman 1997). We obviously
need a model that can. It could start from the belated recognition that
Marx’ revolutionary proletariat was a philosophical necessity rather than
a sociological discovery (compare Engels’ study of the English working
The internationalism of the working class, also assumed by Marx, is
fraught with similar problems. Kim Moody allows for one of these in so
far as he recognises that whilst capitalism is increasingly global, workers
live and fight nationally or even more locally. Historically, as Eric Hobsbawm
has pointed out, when workers and unions have had to chose between class
and national or ethnic identity, they have tended to opt for the latter.
It can be argued that historical labour internationalism was a national
internationalism (seeking the right to nations of those who had none, and
rights within them for those who had). It can also be argued that proletarian
internationalism had most social impact when it was least proletarian (combined
with democratic, anti-fascist, pacifist, anti-imperialist internationalisms).
Whilst, in the contemporary period, there has been a welcome increase in
labour and even union internationalism, this again tends to be most successful
when most-closely articulated with other internationalisms (women’s, human
rights, ecological/consumer, peace).
Absences and silences
I do not think that Kim Moody’s 21st century internationalist social-movement
unionism can come into existence on the basis of his largely-19th century
vocabulary. This is the language of opposition to national and industrial
capitalism. He is attempting, with these tried and (t)rusted weapons to
slay the dragon of a complex, globalised and informatised capitalism. Just
as this new capitalism escapes the vision and reach of national/ist working-classes
and unions so it does from Moody’s conceptual vocabulary. Let me suggest
a few necessary new concepts or understandings. These relate to globalisation/informatisation,
social movements, relational form, identity/culture, and internationalism.
These ideas come, incidentally, from another literature ignored by Kim
Moody and the MR special. I call it `theoretically critical and politically
committed globalisation literature’.
Globalisation/informatisation. The present era is deeply marked
by the globalisation and informatisation of the social relations of capitalism.
Globalisation is a phenomenon with economic, political, ecological, gender/sexual,
ethnic and communicational/cultural causes/effects. These are increasingly
interdependent, making traditional distinctions between `base’ and `superstructure’
increasingly irrelevant. Capitalism becomes simultaneously omnipotent (bending
localities, nations and regions to its demands) and intangible (centred
in a global and electronic sphere both out of sight and out of reach).
Workers - and other people - are increasingly global subjects, as well
as local, national and regional ones, but they are not yet global citizens.
The increasing flexibility of a networked and globalised capital makes
the employer/enemy increasingly difficult to identify, whilst generalising
commoditisation (competition as the measure, explanation and justification
of everything). The terrains of struggle multiply, with those of the local,
regional and global relativising the centrality of the nation state (actually
the state-defined nation), or requiring its radical-democratic reinvention.
`Politics’ increasingly moves from geographical place (the hustings, the
street, parliament) to electronic space (TV, the Internet). This transformation
represents a revolution within capitalism at least as profound as that
from a craft/local to an industrial/national one.
Social movements. The traditional social movement of national
and industrial capitalism (labour), or movements of such (labour, nationalism),
find themselves replaced - or at least displaced from the centre - by those
of the `new’ social movements; of women, residents, ethnics, citizens (human
rights), ecological/consumer, peace, communications/culture. Many wage-earners
may invest as much in such interests/identities as in their worker ones.
The extent to which these interests/identities - including that of worker
- are `central to’ or `subversive of’ a globalised and informatised capitalism
is not a matter of pronouncement but of experience, experiment and evaluation.
In the Netherlands of the 1980s, 10-20 times more unionists turned out
on the famous peace demonstrations than have ever done on a union one.
In South Korea, in the hot winter of 1996-7, the new unions combined worker
and liberal-democratic demands, and temporarily led the cross-class opposition
to authoritarianism. The emancipatory movement of our day is not structurally
pre-ordained: it is a matter of the dialectic and dialogue between (and
within) such movements. The `new social movements’ are themselves no more
ordained to succeed than the old one(s). The old one(s), however, certainly
need to re-invent themselves in the light of the experience of the new
ones. And the unions have to find a way of communicating to and within
the others the significance of the struggle against alienated labour.
Relational form: The dominant relational form of industrial and
national capitalism was the organisation. Almost all previously existing
forms became subjected to its logic. The national industrial trade union
is thus a political form of industrial and national capitalism,
as well as an opposition to it. Thus it is that the typical party form
of industrial and national capitalism was invented by the German labour
movement - the hierarchical and bureacratic political party with its separate
and subordinate wings or fronts for workers, women, sports, peace, culture
and language (the worker Esperanto movement of the the interwar years).
The dominant relational form of a globalised and informatised capitalism
is that of the network - which is also the typical form of the new alternative
social movement. Thus, the labour movement has 124 million members in one
organisation, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, and
its related International Trade Secretariats. The International Transport
Workers Federation has done as much to prevent as to facilitate international
solidarity with the Liverpool dockworkers (for which see below). These
organisations are, moreover, invisible to an increasingly global public
view. And whilst essential and often effective in defence, and progressive
within the parameters of capitalist society, they offer no alternative
beyond this. The international women’s movement has no single organisation,
few formal members, but impacts on the public internationally, has been
globally visible and effective (Beijing), and proposes an alternative civilisation.
The national/industrial trade union, illegitimate child of national and
industrial capitalism, had to claim its rights against the guild of local/craft
capitalism. A contemporary international movement on labour questions (industrial,
office, rural, parttime, sub-contracted, domestic, household) will need
to reinvent itself on network lines to be effective today.
Identity/culture. Marx/Engel’s socially emancipatory and internationalist
working class was, as I have said, a philosophical requirement rather than
a sociological discovery. Neither the Chartist movement in the UK nor the
Paris Commune were as proletarian as Marx and Engels liked to suggest.
When the working class failed to act as it `should’, they pulled out of
their hat `labour aristocrats’ (class-compromised) and `semi-proletarianised
peasants’ (disorganised, anarchic and manipulable). Later Marxists developed
vanguard parties and organic intellectuals to tell the empirical working
classes what its true class consciousness was. Actually-existing proletarians
and other wage-earners (such as academics) have an immense variety of identities,
and cultures that contain the most diverse and contradictory elements.
Nationalism, racism, sexism, homophobia, consumptionism, intolerance are
as much a part of these as are democratic, pluralistic and tolerant elements.
The development of the latter elements, along with internationalism, environmentalism
and anti-militarism, is a matter of the dialectic and dialogue with other
social movements, nationalities, classes (which have their own blindspots
- often in relation to labour). In opposition to, or at least surpassing,
these limitations and blindspots, we need: 1) a recognition within the
labour movement of the increasing centrality to society - and its transformation
- of the `imaterial’ sphere of communication (e.g. email, the internet
and World Wide Web), 2) a re-specification of solidarity, as an ethic that
does not assume identity, and that recognises the value of difference for
variety, flexibility and self-renewal.
Internationalism. This is, etymologically and historically, a
relationship between nations, nationalities and nationalisms. It needs
to be today surpassed by a `global solidarity’, recognising global problems,
global subjects/citizens, global movements and necessary or desirable global
solutions. In one sense `the global’ is out of reach of labour and other
popular sectors/classes. It is represented by institutions and instances
to which one can at best send, well, representatives. But a globalised
capitalism is one in which locales are also globalised. This implies that
one’s local activities must be informed by an understanding of and alternatives
to globalism - customarily framed in global dialogues and fora. Thinking
globally also means thinking holistically. Today, for example, the `national
question’, or the `woman question’, or the `labour question’ can no longer
find a solely `national’, `women’s’ or `labour’ solution. Or, if they do,
then it is likely to be in essentialist, particularist or fundamentalist
terms. A new labour internationalism must therefore see itself as just
one component of a more general movement of global solidarity.
A new social unionism
Out of such arguments as those above, I have tried to develop my own
understanding of an `international social-movement unionism’ (Munck and
Waterman Forthcoming). Indeed, I contributed to the conceptualisation of
the `new labour internationalism’ and coined that of `social-movement unionism’
10-15 years ago (Waterman 1984, 1993). I now use the concepts of the `new
global solidarity’ and `new social unionism’. The former points beyond
labour and inter-nationalism, suggesting the necessity for labour to place
itself within a broader and deeper internationalism. The latter points
beyond `economic’, `political’ or `political-economic’ unionism and reminds
unions of the necessity to address themselves to civil society and the
new social movements as well as capital and state. This new name does not,
of course, settle the matter, since `social unionism’ is also the concept
preferred by a commission of the Congress of South African Trade Unions
(COSATU), attempting (as it seems to every year or so), to obtain an effective
grip on a new, hostile, complex and slippery world order (Collins and Ray
1997, Holdt 1997). My own understandings are offered as a contribution
to a debate, in which I hope that organisations like COSATU (or spokespeople
for it), Kim Moody, and many others will take part. It certainly overlaps
with their understandings in many particulars. And my specification below
could certainly be strengthened by theirs. By a new internationalist social
unionism I mean that which is:
1. Struggling within and around waged work, not simply for better wages
and conditions but for increased worker and union control over the labour
process, investments, new technology, relocation, subcontracting, training
and education policies. Such strategies and struggles should be carried
out in dialogue and common action with affected communities and interests
so as to avoid conflicts (e.g. with local residents, with environmentalists,
with women) and to positively increase the appeal of the demands;
2. Struggling against hierarchical, authoritarian and technocratic
working methods and relations, for socially-useful and environmentally-friendly
products, for a reduction in the hours of work, for the distribution of
that which is available and necessary, for the sharing of domestic work,
and for an increase in free time for cultural self-development and self-realisation;
3. Intimately related to the movements of other non-unionised
or non-unionisable working classes or categories (petty-commodity sector,
homeworkers, peasants, housewives, technicians and professionals);
4. Intimately related to other non- or multi-class democratic
movements (base movements of churches, women's, residents', ecological,
human-rights and peace movements, etc) in the effort to create a powerful
and diverse civil society;
5. Working for the continuing transformation of all social relationships
and structures (`economic', `political', `social', `residential', `domestic',
`sexual', `cultural') in a democratic, pluralistic and cooperative direction;
6. Related - but a little less intimately? - to political forces
(parties, fronts or states) with similar orientations (i.e. which demonstrate
their recognition of the value of a plurality of autonomous social forces
in an emancipatory and transformatory direction);
7. Intimately related to other (potential) allies as an autonomous,
equal and democratic partner, neither claiming to be, nor subordinating
itself to, a `vanguard' or `sovereign' organisation or power;
8. Taking up the new social issues within society at large, as
they arise for workers specifically and as they express themselves within
the union itself (struggle against authoritarianism, majoritarianism, bureaucracy,
sexism, racism, etc.);
9. Favouring shopfloor democracy and encouraging direct horizontal
relations both between workers and between the workers and other popular/democratic
10. Active on the terrain of education, culture and communication,
stimulating worker, popular and alternative culture (up to and including
computer-mediated communication), supporting initiatives for democracy
and pluralism both inside and outside the dominant institutions or media,
locally, nationally, globally;
11. Favouring direct shopfloor, grassroots and community contacts
and solidarity internationally, both with workers and other popular or
democratic forces, regardless of social system, ideology or political identity,
in the struggle to create some kind of a global civil society and a global
12. Open to networking both within and between organisations,
understanding the value of informal, horizontal, flexible coalitions, alliances
and interest groups to stimulate organisational democracy, pluralism and
The British socialist labour specialist, Richard Hyman, once responded
to an earlier version of my argument in a tone that suggested both his
attraction to it and his scepticism about it (compare his five scenarios
for European unionism in Hyman Forthcoming). He wrote, if I remember correctly,
`who is going to bring this about?'. This was a question that had
arisen in my (hopefully) realistically-utopian mind, though possibly with
less force than in that of someone more embedded in and aware of the nature
of actually-existing unionism. The answer is, of course, that `social-movement
unionism' requires a social movement within the trade unions.
The problem of agency and organisation
Under traditional capitalism the force for turning economically-conscious
trade-union caterpillars into politically-conscious working-class butterflies
was provided by a (or the) socialist party This was sometimes a vanguard
and/or internationalist party, often a nationalist socialist party, occasionally
a National-Socialist one. Under contemporary conditions, it seems to me,
what is required (and often anyway present) is the unionist who is simultaneously
and equally a feminist, an ecologist, an anti-militarist, a radical-democrat
and an internationalist. They have always been there, anyway, but they
today need to have an increasing presence and impact. The new social movements
are still looked on disparagingly, or despairingly, by state- or capital-fixated
socialists, who cannot see how they could possibly transform anything in
the absence of a (or the) socialist party . This problem has occurred to
me, also, since it is evident that even ten social-movement swallows do
not necessarily make a post-capitalist summer. Neither, history tells us,
does a social or socialist revolution. The continuing nation-state focus
of of Kim Moody (and the nation-state fixation of Wood) suggests their
continued attachment to the notion of this as the privileged instrument
of socialism - patriotism as the last refuge of socialists? The matter
is transformed - for both traditional and post-traditional socialists -
if we think not of power but empowerment, not of power
as control but power as capacity. How can, how will, this be
Communicating a radical-democratic unionism
Here we can reflect on the experience of the United States - and the
`subject position’ of Kim Moody. The major principle of coordination amongst
militant unionists in the United States may well be his monthly Labor
Notes. Labor Notes, which is not controlled by any union, circulates
widely both within and beyond the US, organises an important annual conference,
and produces much-respected handbooks. This periodical has played a significant
role in supporting the significantly-named `democratic caucuses' within
some of the major US unions. The monthly is (or was) actually a project
of a minuscule Trotskyist party, smart enough to hide any Marxist-Leninist
light under a militant union bushel. In the fateful year of 1989 I had
some 24 fascinating hours with these people. I spent the day with the magazine.
In the evening I was invited to a fund-raiser for the party. Here the eminently
pragmatic left unionist journalists were transformed, Jekyl-and-Hyde, into
the true-believing talmudic scholars of Leninism, familiar from my Communist
youth. (Or maybe there were two shifts, with the ideologists replacing
the pragmatists - I had already had several glasses of expensive, fund-raising,
wine). I remember kicking myself for getting involved in a polemic in which
the memorable phrases (theirs or mine) were `what about Kronstadt?’, `what
about the militarisation of the Soviet unions?’
Now for Lenin, Iskra, his pre-revolutionary newspaper, was also
a pre-party form. But that was under the marginally-industrial and marginally-capitalist
conditions of tsarist Russia. Today, it would seem, the relationship is
reversed: organisation is surpassed by communication. Guarantees against
any such type or product of communication seeing itself, or being perceived,
as the Vanguard Periodical, are provided by other publications, and by
other means of communication that are less expensive, less organisationally
demanding and less `one-to-many'. Computer mediated communication (CMC),
for example, is increasingly employed for exchange of information and ideas
within and between national and international labour and other social movements
It is, incidentally, the Internet, the World Wide Web and an increasingly
multinodal and multimodal cyberspace, that holds out the promise of global
effectivity to working people who are admitedly rooted in national, local
or enterprise spaces. Both Kim Moody and the MR Special are nervous about
the global as space for effective working-class presence, action and impact.
They tend to discuss it in negative terms, as being not or not
necessarily excluded from a nationally- or locally-based internationalism
(a re-born nationalist internationalism?). Yet the truly amazing international
campaign in solidarity with a handful of Liverpool dockers, itself mentioned
by Kim Moody, has revealed the combination of traditional means and forms
(international conferences, collections and donations, exchange visits,
common or complementary protest activity) with the use of email, an electronic
mail list and a web site. The computer-mediated communication has itself
largely rested on the activity of an unemployed Cambridge worker and ex-vanguardist,
Chris Bailey (who told me, bemusedly, that he had done more, with a friend,
for international solidarity, in a couple of years on the Net, than in
20 years within his former party). The global electronic space created
by the movement of solidarity with the dockers is one that has already
allowed for a cross-national and cross-class dialogue, circumventing repeated
efforts by both national and international unions to ignore, destroy or
control the movement. As the internet and TV merge, workers, or the computerwise
children thereof, will have both the motivation and the means to do this
with even less `mediation’ than at present.
Conclusion: The Need for Recognition and Dialogue
in Creating a 21st Century Unionism
I had just finished writing this when three things happened.
1. I was made aware of a Global Labour Summit organised by the Danish
General Workers Union, early-summer 1997 (General Workers Union 1997).
The discussion document for this event makes clear that it is an attempt
to create a global social-democratic project for the 21st century. This
is a welcome sign that the labour movement is recovering from the `present
shock’ of neo-liberalism and globalisation. Remarkable is that - in its
recognition of the importance of the new social movements, global arenas
and cyberspace - this old institutionalised left is often in advance of
the Moody position. Oh, and it can be found on a World Wide Web site that
also promises space for debate at: http://summit.sid.dk.
2. I received an invitation from the Korean labour movement to
attend the Seoul International LaborMedia ‘97 Conference (LaborMedia 1997).
This revealed the extent to which the Korean movement is conscious of the
role of both media and the Internet in creating international solidarity.
Although currently representing here the most advanced union model, this
was not how the Korean participants presented themselves, being highly
sensitive to contributions from the - mostly marginal - pioneers of internationalist
labour communications from abroad.
3. In September, the ICFTU traded in its dull bi-monthly bulletin, Free
Labour World, for an illustrated monthly, reminiscient of the important,
but equally marginal, international labour monthly of the 1980s, International
Labour Reports. Its second issue had four pages on unions in cyberspace,
which even provided space for the electronic activity of the problematic
Liverpool dockers (David 1997a, b).
These cases and contributions suggest to me that a new international
social-movement unionism is, and has to be, a matter of a dialogue between
all left, democratic and internationalist tendencies, rather than being
pronounced or claimed - even implicitly - by one. This in turn implies
recognition of the contribution of the customarily-excluded Other. We therefore
need not only new terminology but new styles of acting and speaking, which
overcome sectarianism, authoritarianism and politicking. The Internet does
not guarantee this, but, with its infinite space and flexibility, it allows
for it in a way that the old union and political organisations of the working
class, national and international, have not. Maybe we therefore need a
new slogan for 1998, 150th anniversary of the Communist Manifesto:
`Workers of the World, Relate!’
Barchiesi, Frank. 1996. `South Africa in Transition: Scenarios Facing Organized
Labor', Critical Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 79-112.
Brecher, Jeremy & Costello, Tim. 1994. Global Village or
Global Pillage: Economic Reconstruction from the Bottom Up. Boston:
South End. 237 pp.
Brecher, Jeremy, Childs, John Brown and Cutler, Jill (eds) . 1993. Global
Visions: Beyond the New World Order. Boston: South End Press. 317 pp.
Brecher, Jeremy and Costello, Tim (eds). 1990. Building Bridges:
The Emerging Grassroots Coalition of Labor and Community. New York:
Monthly Review Press. 352 pp.
David, Natascha. 1997a. `When Mice Attack Elephants...’, Trade Union
World, Vol. 1, No. 2, October, pp. 6-7.
David, Natascha. 1997b. "Cybe-pros" and "Cyber-proles", Trade Union
World, Vol. 1, No. 2, October, pp. 8-9.
Collins, Deanne, Ray, Malcolm. 1997. `The September Commission: Confronting
the Future', South African Labour Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 5, October,
General Workers Union. 1997. `A New Global Agenda: Visions and Strategies
for the 21st Century’, SiD’s Global Labour Summit, Copenhagen, 31 May-1
June, 1997. http://summit.sid.dk.
Holdt, Karl von. 1997. `The September Commission Report', South African
Labour Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 5, October, pp. 6-10.
Hyman, Richard. Forthcoming. `Five Alternative Scenarios for West European
Unionism', in Munck, Ronaldo and Waterman, Peter (ed), Labour Worldwide
in the Era of Globalisation: Alternative Union Models in the New World
Order. London: Macmillan.
Kinsman, Gary. 1997. `The First CLC Conference on Lesbians, Gays and
LaborMedia. 1997. `Seoul Information [International] Labormedia ‘97’
(Materials of the LaborMedia ‘97 Conference, Seoul, 10-12 November, 1997).
Lee, Eric. 1996. Labour and the Internet: The New Internationalism.
London: Pluto. 212 pp.
Moody, Kim. 1997a. `Towards an International Social-Movement Unionism',
New Left Review, No. 225, September-October, pp. 52-72.
Moody, Kim. 1997b. Workers in a Lean World: Unions in the International
Economy. London: Verso. 342 pp.
Munck, Ronaldo and Waterman, Peter (eds). Forthcoming. Labour Worldwide
in the Era of Globalisation: Alternative Union Models in the New World
Order. London: Macmillan.
Waterman, Peter. Forthcoming. From Labour Internationalism to Global
Solidarity: Social Movements, Globalisation and the New Internationalisms.
London : Cassell.
Waterman, Peter. 1993. `Social Movement Unionism: A New Model for a
New World Order', Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, Summer, pp. 245-278.
Waterman, Peter (ed). 1984. For a New Labour Internationalism: A
Set of Reprints and Working Papers. The Hague: ILERI Foundation. 258pp.
Wood, Ellen Meiksins, Meiksins, Peter and Yates, Michael (eds) . 1997.
`Rising from the Ashes: Labor in the Age of "Global" Capitalism', Monthly
Review (Special Issue), Vol. 49, No. 3, July-August, pp. 1-14?.