From: Mneillft-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:20:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: reply to Les & Anne


Reply to Les and Anne's comments on Monty, George & John's strategy piece --
>from Monty.

I think I commented on much of what Les raised in my reply/comment to
Massimo's comments.  Yes, further work is needed on understanding the commons
of the day, resistance to its enclosures, and ways in which the class
perpetuates or recreates (or creates anew) divisions within itself and ways
in which such are/can be overcome. And, indeed, where is the new society
growing in the womb of the old?  Yes, understanding the basis of unity within
the class (and helping to create it), and I think Les is right that it is not
a matter of simply raising "correct demands." These general questions are
part of what I think should help guide us in looking at particulars. So, I
agree; where I can sharpen discussion in that last section, I will... but
obviously much of what Les says is work "we all" need to be doing for some
time to come. And he (among others) is correct re: popular front, not united
front -- I'll correct it.

To both Les and Anne, the section I pulled out of a piece George is
finalizing for next Midnight Notes, re: how we in Notes are using "new
enclosures" and the distinctions we are drawing, (which I did in reply to
Massimo) I hope moves the points Anne and Les are raising.  The issue is less
"substitution" of one term for another -- both are limited and problematic: I
don't think we are simply re-running either "original" period. But, Anne, I
think it is correct to understand the Fordist/Keynesian deal as having
created a form of "commons" which capital is attempting to remove by, among
_many_ other things, casualization. At the Encuentro, the definition of
neoliberalism in just the economics mesa was quite extensive; hopefully that
document will be available in English soon so people can comment on it and
think about it and improve it and the thinking it puts to text -- certainly
well before the next encuentro, I hope. That text (and I have not seen those
>from the other 4 mesas) gave an expansive but, as a quick 'coalition'
document, not rigorous, understanding of neoliberalism -- far beyond the
immediate references to 19th century British liberalism. Thus, while your
list includes things that are indeed in neoliberalism, I think it is too
limited. 

At the encuentro economcs submesa charged with defining neoliberalism, one
sharp argument was our effort to establish a class struggle definition of
neoliberalism, rather than an economics one: that is, rather than listing
them as political consequences of neoliberalism, as I think you are doing,
class attacks are the heart of neoliberalism. Thus, I understand the economic
as serving class (in this sense political) ends. In the final document, these
debates got sort of glossed over -- but they continue, of course. 

In Midnight Oil we in Midnight Notes attempted to discuss some of the
implications for the US working class, but only briefly and sketchily, and
much more needs to be done.

You then raise a serious question that I think we should give a lot of
thought: is neoliberalism an imperialist project in the sense that it may
create a geographic/national labor aristocracy (v.s. a globalized one, the
"20%")? I am ready to begin to suggest a tentative answer: "only with a lot
of difficulty and under some very particular conditions." For one, I think
that reducing the wages and security of the Euro working class that has been
to now rather secure is quite imperative for capital -- but I suspect that
the planners of capital do not want to do this in a way that will provoke
disaster on themselves. In the US, the process has not been merely steady, it
has proceeded in leaps and pauses, even with an occasional counter-trend
(seen somewhat in education, for example, though only as a minor theme in
practice). Accepting a labor aristocracy in general in Europe thus strikes me
as impossible; in "Strategy" we argue that capital cannot accept 'social
democracy' because it becomes too powerful a tool used by workers against
capital. So at a minimum, conditions in Europe would have to be modified to
prevent that danger, which I think is the key point of causalization, etc.,
i.e, of neoliberalism, new enclosures, etc. -- we do need, I continue to
think, a new word entirely, not neo/new anything... (I also responded to
Massimo's issue re: deal in my reply to him). All that said, for some time to
come, presuming capital unfortunately continues, I would expect in much of
Europe that there will continue a relatively well-waged sector beyond the
"20%", and in the US also -- I do not forsee, for the coming decade or so, a
capitalist plan to make the 80% in those nations all a mass of
impoverishment, though that 80% can I think expect reduced material well
being, which is one thing that is going on. This provides the old 'material
basis' for unity, or one such base. Still, this also implies differences
between the old 'first world' and most other nations/most of rest of world
working class re: extent of physical immiseration and extent of unemployment
with no security. Since the 70s, parts of the first world have been
underdeveloped and parts of the rest of the world capitalistically developed
(e.g., higher concentrations of dead labor) -- this is part of the
restructuring of new enclosures/neolib. It will continue, but not in one big
leap. So, tentatively, I would not want to labor it imperialism in the 'same
old' sense. 

Do note that the International Forum on Globalization, or at least some of
its key figures, seems to conceptualize a new Keynesianism, but an
environmentally friendly, localist version. I have not seen how they plan
this out, but it suggests thinking toward a variant of Keynesianism. As we
say in the paper (or it may be in the other article for Notes), they are
seeking a new 'new deal,' and think it is feasible. I don't think it is, at
least for another generation, because first they'll have to try to produce
workers fit for such an as-yet- undefined social structure. Of course, the
IFG folks think some sort of capitalist disaster will force them, as in the
30's, toward a new new deal. 

Thanks for the comments and I hope other folks will be jumping in on these
discussions.  Monty, Feb. 9, 1997.


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---