Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:18:52 +0200
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: M-I: Globalization -- a further contribution


Here's another contribution to the debate on globalization on LabourNet
that I posted here the other day.

Cheers,

Hugh

____________________________________________________________


I'd like to make a comment on a shared weakness in the apparently opposed
views of Hugo Radice and Michael Lavalette.

Hugo Radice makes a case for the complete inadequacy of trying to "overturn
capitalism on a national basis". His perspective is indicated in the
following quotes:

"To simply deny these changes [ie the globalization of capital], and try to
defend reforms on a national basis, is a recipe for continued failure."

and

"However, others who still openly espouse a class politics of the left are
easily attracted to a nation-statist position because it seems so much more
'realistic' to seek to overturn (or even reform) capitalism at the national
level [...] and there is direct access to a given political terrain of
electoral politics."

He's making an unnecessary distinction between national and international
policies and action here. The two are inseparably linked. What's missing in
his analysis is an account of the huge sectors of capital that are still
fundamentally national in their scope (the whole of the anti-EU Tory
faction) and their antagonistic relationship with the more powerful
international sectors. Workers are constrained to fight within the
framework of their immediate employer -- at least initially -- and
employers have very different dimensions.

Also missing is the absolute dependence of international capital on
actually existing bodies of armed men -- the repressive apparatus of the
nation-state -- to enforce its will in its various locations. No overthrow
of capital will occur without these bodies being defeated, and this will
happen *nationally". And it won't happen at the same time everywhere. The
overthrow of capital will be a piecemeal business as it develops, even if
it's obvious that the goal won't be reached or consolidated until
capitalism is defeated internationally in the world market as a whole.

The actual process of mobilization against the destructive interests of
capital with its dual character, both national and international, is also
missing, and it's the biggest shortcoming of all -- and one he shares with
Michael Lavalette.

Bill Hunter, Greg Dropkin and Mike Carden have demolished the factual basis
of many of Michael Lavalette's assertions. An important reason underlying
his errors and omissions is his failure to grasp the character of what Bill
H calls "a living movement".

Basically, no political force can legislate for or bring *mobilization* by
proclamation. Mobilization is what happens when people can't put up with
their situation any longer and organize to fight for a change. Policies
develop in relation to a given mobilization, great or small, local or
worldwide. Also, they can weaken or boost mobilization. But they can't
create it. Michael L's perspective leads him to try to *will* mobilization
into existence rather than develop what's there already. Bill H pointedly
asks why the SWP hasn't thrown the weight of its membership behind the
actually existing mobilization of the Liverpool dockers. In the same way
Hugo R's perspective leads him to write off national mobilization as
basically hopeless instead of assessing the potential of what's there
already for weakening international capital.

Looking for support in the real world means going through organizations,
and this discussion has given examples of the confrontations this has led
to nationally with the T&G and TUC, and internationally with the ITF. But
the rank and file *has* been reached, both in Britain and abroad, and the
effects of this have already been seen. There are signs of fresh
mobilization around the world, and the example of Liverpool is giving hope
and inspiration in these struggles.

The current Santos docks dispute (April 97) provides a perfectly clear
example of this process. In the fortnight or so of the dispute, we have
seen both the international dimension and national mobilization. At the
same time, neither aspect excludes the other, in fact they reinforce each
other. The conflict was quickly publicized on the Net, on the Santos
dockers' own website and LabourNet and elsewhere. Before many days had
passed, messages of solidarity from the Liverpool dockers were being read
to a crowd of fighting workers in Santos to prolonged cheers, in the same
way as Brazilian dockers had earlier expressed their solidarity with the
Liverpool struggle. One of the main slogans of the Santos dispute is
"Santos, Liverpool,Amsterdam, Seoul -- the same world, the same struggle".

The strength of the mobilization on the ground locally and nationally is
impressive. Already we have seen the refusal of the local militia to
intervene, making any strike-breaking military action a direct federal
affair lifting the dispute into a nation-wide political issue. The military
intervention by the Federal Police of two days ago *failed"! The
occupations of the blacked vessels weren't broken, and the employers, the
Sao Paulo Steel Company, were forced back into negotiations. Not only that
but the strike has spread to the rest of Santos, and 18 other ports in
Brazil are to be closed down. The mobilization is there. When it comes, it
comes with a vengeance. What Michael L's perspective lacks is patience to
cope with downs in the class struggle and confidence in the re-emergence of
mobilization and the immense social power of the working class once it gets
moving.

The task of political leadership is not to create mobilization, but to meet
it where it is, encourage it to develop, and channel it to hit the enemy as
hard as possible.

Hugh Rodwell
Sweden
----------------------------------------------------------------


>From LabourNet:


(http://www.labournet.org.uk)





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