On 17 Sep 99, at 14:55, Doug Henwood wrote:
> What about a progressive internationalism that doesn't focus on
> creating a world state, but instead focuses on building links among
> unions, NGOs (the good kind, not the icky Ford Foundation kind), and
> activists around the world? This sort of thing seems to be giving the
> bourgies fits these days. And it's schemes like NAFTA and the WTO that are
> bringing together this new international.
Agreed, Doug, that's exactly the point of this definition of what I take to be a progressive *nationalism* (namely that the power to regenerate national sovereignties will only be constituted to a large extent through radical international and more precisely anti-world- state activism):
"... popular movements [should] join forces across
borders (and continents) to have their respective
state officials abrogate those relations of the
interstate system through which the [neoliberal]
pressure is conveyed."
Arrighi, Hopkins and Wallerstein,
Anti-Systemic Movements, London, Verso, 1989
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Max Sawicky)
>Date sent: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 16:57:39 -0400
>>c) a "progressive nationalism" (again, a PEN-L phrase) which, in
>>advocating WB/IMF defunding, takes heart and strength and
>>knowledge from the potential unity of the variety of particularistic
>>struggles against local forms of structural adjustment,malevolent
>>"development" projects and Bretton Woods interference in social
>>policies . . .
>Question: do you think there can be progressive nationalism
>for the U.S., and if so, what might it look like?
>mbs
Do you not have a couple of extremely good examples just North and Northwest of you, Max, in the Nader offices and Preamble Center?
(I would add the Int'l Forum on Globalization out of SF, which has actually published a book on new protectionism, but I know Doug will jump all over me.)
What does Bob Naiman of Preamble say? Is this ideological signposting even semi-accurate?
On 17 Sep 99, at 14:15, Jim Devine wrote:
> I don't think the progressive internationalism that was discussed on pen-l
> involved establishing an alternative world state as much as resisting the
> current globalization via solidarity from below. It might mesh well with
> "international reformism" in that progressive internationalists (if
> successful in their organizing efforts) would provide a back-bone for the
> reformists, a reason for the international power elite to make
> concessions.
Sometimes to "mesh well" in this context is to take good advantage of radical pressure, as in the Jesse Jackson combination of "tree-shakers and jam-makers" (urban community activist groups and non-profit community development corporations). On the other hand, it sometimes leads to screwing up progressive strategic work by undermining a movement to deeper change. To illustrate, in the anti-apartheid movement, the concessions made by Washington reformists in the mid-1980s (agreeing to the "Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act" which destroyed the momentum for sanctions) once street and campus pressure had really intensified, did far more harm than good to the movement, both in the US and SA; luckily the SA comrades were not ready to cut the same deals and indeed anyone looking to "reform" apartheid by working with Pretoria was widely ridiculed in townships, churches and shopfloors. Without that strength of purpose, the SA democratic movement would have long ago agreed to the bizarre convolutions of democracy proposed by the Afrikaners, way short of one-person, one-vote demanded and finally won.
I think around some of these world-state issues we may be at a similar juncture of international strategic decision-making, particularly around problems such as whether to promote a new round of WTO with labour/environment clauses (as the AFL-CIO appears ready to do in Seattle notwithstanding huge mobilisations against a new round), or whether "debt relief" schemes like HIPC+ESAF (the "Leach Bill") end up strengthening the workings of the interstate system that convey neoliberal pressure. The Jubilee South groups therefore have a fully rejectionist line on HIPC and ESAF, while some central Jubilee USA groups have been terribly confused about Leach.
> ...
> If progressive internationalism is to get anywhere, it has to figure out
> how to harmonize international goals with national ones (or else this
> movement will have as much impact as the 4th International) and keep the
> nationalists from fighting each other (and thus dividing and conquering
> themselves for international capital).
So Jim, aren't "international and national goals" spelled out even by Keynes--in favour of the globalisation of people, against the globalisation of capital--pretty clear as first principles?
> Progressive nationalism would have a hard time keeping its progressive
> credentials in an imperialist country like the US (assuming that by
> "progressive" we mean pushing what's good for the international working
> class and other oppressed groups).
Yes, that's not a minor worry. When Nader and Buchanan do tactical alliances, a) will these slip into strategic territory, and b) who calls the shots when the deals get done (as the IMF recapitalisation fiasco demonstrated last October)... ?
Again, the answer is largely within the balance of forces, once clarity is gradually achieved on these broader strategic problems.
Patrick Bond (Wits University Graduate School of Public and Development Management) home: 51 Somerset Road, Kensington 2094, Johannesburg office: 22 Gordon Building, Wits University Parktown Campus mailing address: PO Box 601 WITS 2050 phones: (h) (2711) 614-8088; (o) 488-5917; fax 484-2729 emails: (h) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; (o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
