Re: Comments on a Leo Panitch article in the latest MR

[Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby@xxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
(I'm snipping the bulk of you v Panitch, for I agree with most of this...)

. For many of the NGO's, it is a
> term that suggests displeasure with the way capitalism is being operated,
> not to capitalism itself.

Nonsense. The NGO's do not pronounce themselves anti-capitalist. While it is
true that the designation is only beginning to mean anything, NGO's are busy
making one piece meal deamnd, switching in midstream (anarchists and others may
summit hop, what drives me bonkers even further is people like Bono and other
Third World "solidairty" NGO types, who say "let's talk about African poverty
for now!!" then it gets passed, they yap about it, do next to nothing, then say
"hey let's talk about women working in Indonesian Nike factories now!! Yeah,
that's the ticket!" Then proceed... problem is, they won't take a systemic
analysis and no, they do NOT attack capitalism. They usually don't even question
the motives of imperialism (which it isn't, either)- left then, only with how
the current plan isn't good enough.

As far as demands, if there is one that speaks to the movement, it must come
forwards then. Need I remind people that the strength of the movement is also
the weakness: Turtles and Teamsters, and all that jazz. Most single issue
demands cannot take all of the movement into account.

For better or worse, the "anti-globalisation" aspects of the movement are what
needs sharpening. Sharpening of analysis, for one. One of the most invigorating
aspects to being an attendee at the Montreal anti-war conference was that one of
the most packed workshops (out of approx. 50 or so) was the one designated "Wars
in Africa" (which took on both the modern "neo-liberal agenda" as well as the
current myriad of conflicts strewn about in the wake of colonialism). The reason
soon became obvious, although I expected (as happens withy African issues most
often times) that I would be in a minority attending, not among the highest
numbers.

Anyhow, here's the crux. (I can reply later in better detail) The movement as it
is constituted is advancing somewhat like it might in an election: The demands
cannot possibly be met. But, on the whole, the point is to get everyone talking
about these issues. Almost any aspect of so-called globalisation can be the one
that makes a personal linkage to people rightwhere they live. Day Care centre is
closing up the street- my answer to angry people at the coffee shop? "It's from
cutbacks, they come from the provincial government, who are in power with their
mandate not independantly but part of the global situation, which is currently
swinging massively right, which is inherent ..." Along those lines. The
environmental slogan "think globally, act locally" is way beyond the greenies
now; it's becoming understood by more than the "political" layers of society.

This movement has done something that cannot be done in the Third World. It has
restored the right to dream of a better world. For the Third World, socialism is
a simple matter of survival. The relationship between the periphery and the
core, first and third world- whatever you want to call it-- the interwoven
nature of our fates, rather than the better-than-nothing-but-wrong-analysis we
have had of the juxtaposed realtionship between imperialist and imperialised. As
the movement matures in global understanding, the reason why a homeless man on
Burrard subliminally knows he is living better than as an unprotected worker in
Mexico might starts to get into our planning. Then, perhaps, the utopian screeds
demanded by people trying to eke out a living may disappear. When that happens,
we will have new opportunities.

This has got me thinking; I plan to write more from the office later, if I have
a moment. Sorry to cut myself off.

Macdonald




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.