Date: 19 Dec 96 03:34:29 EST
From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: M-I: Re: International solidarity (was "secular trends ..."


Jon F came back on Monday 16th (see below) arguing that despite the great 
differences of material wealth between workers in the metropolitan 
capitalist/imperialist countries and those of the developing/oppressed
countries solidarity is possible in practical grass roots work.

I accept this and I accept the politics of his approach rather than that
of MIM on this. It is one of the most important questions for marxists
how to apply  "workers of the world unite" when there are 
30 fold differences in the wages of workers in different countries.

On the one hand there are the "facts" of the matter, the need accurately 
to understand the current situation. On the other is the political approach
to be taken to it. Although I think MIM are right factually to draw attention
to the great disparity of wealth and to draw on Lenin's arguments in 
"Imperialism ..." they are politically wrong to come up with a solution that
divides the possibilities of working class unity, and concentrates on a small 
section of the metropolitan working class only. When Lenin urged going
lower and deeper to the real masses, he meant the masses, not a small section
of the masses.

Theoretically though, I do not think Lenin's article is now sufficient
to explain the differences in the material standard of living. I think in 
addition to neo-colonialist oppression and exploitation we have to grasp the 
uneven working of capitalist accumulation on a world scale.

Jon has emphasised from his own experience the possibilities of internationalist
feeling among metropolitan workers with workers from third world countries.
This mirrors what I saw (and of course everyone else saw) in the 
anti-apartheid struggle. The crunch issue came for me in the post apartheid
days when formulas were being discussed in the trade union circles of the 
anti-apartheid movement in this country. They said almost all the right things.
With one exception IMHO, and that exception left the workers of the world in 
a situation where they knew ultimately they were competing with each other for
the sale of their labour power - thus more investment in South Africa, say to 
set up a car factory, could be at the expense of jobs in England. A zero sum 
game.

The gap and the gap in Jon's piece IMO is that there must now also be political
demands at a *world* level. The post apartheid reconstruction of Southern Africa
required for effective solidarity of workers and working people, a campaign for 
a massive reconstruction fund backed by the IMF and the World Bank to 
compensate for the destructive wars of the apartheid regime, and regenerate the
economy on the basis of a mass market, insulating the new regime from the 
dictates of the international bond traders. 

I fully sympathise with Jon's point that a true international must be 
bottom up in terms of the gut feelings of solidarity of the working people of 
the world, and yes there is room for a lot of hope there. But we must put more
effort into shaping a global *political* agenda now, without which we will 
be left struggling with the zero sum game of the capitalist global economy.

Chris Burford
London.



___________________________________

Sender: 72763.2240-AT-CompuServe.COM
Received: by arl-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
	id JAA11591; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:10:40 -0500
Date: 16 Dec 96 09:08:51 EST
From: Jon Flanders <72763.2240-AT-CompuServe.COM>
To: <100423.2040-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: secular trends in western capitalism
Message-ID: <961216140851_72763.2240_EHL40-1-AT-CompuServe.COM>

 >> The overwhelming majority of contributors to this list reject the sort of
sectarian political conclusion that MIM draws of failing to work with the
metropolitan working class, but IMO cannot reasonably empirically or
scientifically reject the notion that this working class is privileged on a
world scale. <<Chris Burford

 Jon Flanders:

  Privileged yes, but is that the end of the matter? Does absolute crushing
poverty necessarily mean that the working class of Juarez, Mexico is ready to
rise up in revolt?

  I would argue that the "privileges" of the working class of the advanced
capitalist countries are precisely what will drive a radicalization once they
are seriously threatened, just as we are seeing in France. And when the
working class of Juarez sees something like that happening in the US, it will
be an opening for them to move forward.

  The experience of working on the Salvadoran unionist's tour, has convinced
me that internationalist work is possible now, even with us "labor
aristocrats."

  Arguing sucessfully and raising money on the shop floor for something like
that is a clincher for me. It also leads me to the thought that the next
"International" may be one organized by labor from the bottom, rather than by
marxist parties from the top. The role that marxists may play in this is in
providing leadership for a grass roots sense that worker's gains in the
advanced countries can not be sustained without bring up those at the bottom
in places like El Salvador, Mexico and Indonesia.

  In this process, we may see a new, and reactionary role for Third world
nationalism. The evidence is already there in the Salvdoran government's
condemnation of their labor leaders, and at the ILO conference, where TW
nationalism was used demagogically to justify child labor.

  First world nationalism in labor gets confronted in this process as well.
When you start to aid a Salvodoran unionist, and see how the Salvdoran
government uses the slanderous accusation that the unionist's were advocating
a boycott, then the Buy America line gets cast in a whole new light.





  E-mail from: Jonathan E. Flanders, 16-Dec-1996





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---