Re: Engels on GATT

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not replying to any particular response to this thread or the Marx on
the FTAA, but as a whole I think nearly all of you have missed the point.

You are treating a historical situation as an abstract one, it is not.

1) We are not in a position to stop the FTAA.
2) There is widespread and substantial fear of the consequences.
3) The anarchists appear to have stolen the moment as far as progressive
politics is concerned.
4) Nothing is being said of struggle once the FTAA becomes realised (point 1).
5) No one cares about our abstract positions.
6) There are programatic consequences which are not being discussed at all.
A communist program should be an order of battle towards creating
Proletarian Socialism as such then something definite must be said of how
such a state would go about its business, considering that it may have to
begin where it finds itself (that is in relative isolation and part of
world trade).
      a) How is such a state to build its industrial infrastructure?
            i) Is there not a role for limited protectionism.
            ii) Is there not a role for "free" trade as well.
      b) What is the role for building such an infastructure.
           i) A diversified industrial base that allows workers to better
realise their interests.
        ii) A cultural and social superstructure which feeds into a diversified
base and also provides the basis of the proletariat enjoying its interests.

Provided point 6 is seen as having some substance, then what does that
imply as far as point 2 and 3 are concerned (the real fears and the defacto
current leadership of FTAA opposition). Given point 4 we are obligated to
say something about the proletariats immediate and long term interest about
the FTAA which is not abstract (point 5) and thus brings us to confront
point 1 (that is we are unlikely to be able to stop the FTAA no matter what
we abstractly feel about it).

All of which brings us back to saying something concrete about the FTAA
that is neither abstract support or abstract opposition. Saying something
politically concrete brings us not necessarily in opposition to Free Trade
but definitely gets us into opposition to the FTAA which is not an abstract
argument nor Free Trade itself.

The FTAA more than any recent events brings the proletariat into direct
conflict with the state only insofar as the state is not even considering
its interests but intends by this to make life harder for them. Which again
brings us back to a practical political platform which we have not got. The
catch-22 is that we continue to speak in abstractions because we lack a
practical attitude and by not grounding these abstractions we also deny
taking on a practical approach.

The FTAA is not an abstraction but a concrete act a real response required
dealing with unclean things such as protectionism, regional interests,
national development, union inadequacies, reforms, democratic shortcomings
- that is all the details that can not be cleaned up by comforting
abstractions. Remaining pure is not an option.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia