[PEN-L:11625] internationalism, etc.

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 17 Sep 99, I 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.<<

Patrick Bond responded on Sept. 21: >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)... <

that's the meaning I had: it takes "street heat" to provide backbone for
the reformists. Reforms never come from reformists. Rather they are a
compromise that reformists are able to make with the anti-reform forces
because of the more radical threat of the left (in the case of worthwhile
reforms: the radical right wins disgusting reforms.

I also wrote: >>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?<

That's a pretty big question that I won't try to answer here, except to
note that I would employ a more inclusive definition of "capital" than
Keynes did.

>>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.<

exactly. If the progressive nationalists get into the wrong alliances, they
can be disgusting. Even though the domestic successes of Western European
social democracy are to be admired (especially when compared to the present
situation), the SDs typically aligned themselves with US imperialism,
trying to buy worthwhile reforms by joining into the anti-commie crusade.
It was even worse at the AFL-CIO, where they thought that by being more
anti-commie that the US power elite, they could win something.

(This analysis is admittedly very partial, ignoring the objective forces
that shaped and selected the SDs and the AFL-CIO and allowed the reforms
they won.)

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx & http://clawww.lmu.edu/~JDevine