Louis --
you wrote this:
Unfortunately, designating oneself as "anticapitalist" lacks
the precision
of something like "immediate withdrawal from Vietnam" (or
"legalize
abortion now" for that matter.) The "anticapitalism" of this new
movement
is not only unfocused, it is open to criticisms that the slogan
means
different things to different participants. For many of the NGO's, it
is a
term that suggests displeasure with the way capitalism is being
operated,
not to capitalism itself. Keep in mind, for example, that the guy
who runs
Jubilee 2000 out of Great Britain is a member of the WEF. Of course,
he is
"anticapitalist" in the sense that many people are
"anti-corruption"--but
so what? Unless a movement can develop SHARPLY FOCUSED
DEMANDS, it will
fall apart. This was the
lesson of the New Left of the 1960s and early
1970s which sneered at the
antiwar movement for not building an
"anti-imperialist" movement that would
end all war. In the final analysis,
imperialism went its merry way while the
New Left imploded trying to build
a movement that it lacked the objective
capability to bring to a culmination. (emphasis
added)
--------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I certainly strongly agree
with nearly all of the above statement -- that armchair (and also the
egotistical bomb throwing) ultra-radicals who said that the movement wasn't
radical enough unless it opposed everything -- did not contribute to the
struggle much and may have undermined it in many ways. In fact, some of that may
even be a bridge to the kind of pseudo-radical "postmodernist" thought which
says that the most radical thing of all is to "oppose ALL
'prioritizing' " -- which then, actually, can become a kind of extreme
conservatism which asserts that it is wrong to "prioritize" change over
conservatism, or egalitarianism over exploitation, as if one is an oppressor for
favoring anti-oppression over oppression! (Another branch of the "most
radical of all" trend was the "gotta change myself before I can change the
world" trend, which meant "end MY unhappiness first" which somewhat deteriorated
into drugs, disco, and helped corporate America develop more hip
commercials....)
But it is the last two sentences that I'm not sure I
understand (or agree with.) Certainly it was appropriate for Marxists
within that movement to build/shape the movement so that was more focused
on anti-imperialism -- an end to (from within the US in particular) US
domination and intervention in the Dominican Republic, in Indonesia, in Iran, in
Chile, as well as providing analysis that tied it to capitalism's
processes? Certainly many people did that while still supporting, and
going to jail fighting for, "SHARPLY FOCUSED DEMANDS" such as withdrawal of
troops from Vietnam.
Did those two goals come into conflict? Yes, on occasion.
Sometimes major agents of the capitalist class join a reformist movement. They
have to be exposed and criticized. Sharply. I'm not talking about a
well-intentioned preacher or a low ranking union official or someone else who
does not fully embrace a Marxist analysis! I'm talking about major leaders of
the AFL-CIO who were participating, on behalf of major US corporations and
the US government, in the destruction of labor movements and other
grassroots movements throughout the world at the same time as they were being
invited to speak at "single issue protest rallies with sharply focused demands."
One could argue that those who withdrew from the movement
while proclaiming an end to all oppression may have helped undermine the
movement. But I would argue that being "soft" on the explicitly
pro-capitalist aspects of the anti-war movement helped win many of the millions
into Democratic Party politics and other kinds of reformism, and that the
failure to build a deeper analysis within the movement was even more of a factor
which ultimately undermined the building of a lasting movement from the
struggles of the 1960's.
respectfully,
Alan Spector
=====================================================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:54 AM
Subject: Comments on a Leo Panitch article in the latest
MR
> full: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0602panitch.htm
>
> Panitch:
> The effectiveness of the mass
antiglobalization demonstrations today is
> patently clear from the way
meetings of the global elites have been put on
> the defensive, and now
proclaim their abiding concern with addressing world
> poverty every time
they get together. But there can be no effective change
> unless and until
well-organized new political forces emerge in each country
> that have the
capacity, not just to protest vociferously, but to effect
> (although the
anarchists may not like this way of putting it) a democratic
>
reconstitution of state power, turn it against today's state-constituted
>
global American empire, and initiate cooperative international
strategies
> among states that will allow for inward-oriented development.
>
> Comment:
> A "democratic reconstitution of state power"?
What in the world is this
> supposed to mean? Marx and Engels, who
supposedly Leo writes in the name
> of, would never use such an amorphous
formulation.
>
> Panitch:
> One of the promising aspects of
the antiglobalization movement, compared
> with the antiwar movement of
the 1960s, has been that this movement has
> increasingly designated
itself as anticapitalist. This is an important
> advance over its
self-designation as an "anti-free trade" or
> "anticorporate" movement
through much of the 1990s. But, despite its
> decentralized and
participatory visions of another order, the primary
> objective of that
movement has still all too often been to protest the
> international
economic and financial institutions of globalization-behind
> which stands
the imperial state itself and the multitude of large and
> small, rich and
poor states through which and with which it rules, or seeks
> to, the
globe.
>
> Comment:
> Unfortunately, designating oneself as
"anticapitalist" lacks the precision
> of something like "immediate
withdrawal from Vietnam" (or "legalize
> abortion now" for that matter.)
The "anticapitalism" of this new movement
> is not only unfocused, it is
open to criticisms that the slogan means
> different things to different
participants. For many of the NGO's, it is a
> term that suggests
displeasure with the way capitalism is being operated,
> not to capitalism
itself. Keep in mind, for example, that the guy who runs
> Jubilee 2000
out of Great Britain is a member of the WEF. Of course, he is
>
"anticapitalist" in the sense that many people are
"anti-corruption"--but
> so what? Unless a movement can develop SHARPLY
FOCUSED DEMANDS, it will
> fall apart. This was the lesson of the New Left
of the 1960s and early
> 1970s which sneered at the antiwar movement for
not building an
> "anti-imperialist" movement that would end all war. In
the final analysis,
> imperialism went its merry way while the New Left
imploded trying to build
> a movement that it lacked the objective
capability to bring to a culmination.
>
> Panitch:
> There is
considerable suspicion among antiglobalization direct-action
> militants
of those who would seek a seat at the table. But there is also a
> growing
sense that protest is not enough either. If the Internet has been
> an
asset in unleashing the capacity to organize dissent and resistance on
>
the global stage, it has proved no substitute for the hard work of class
>
formation and political organization that the Landless Movement in
Brazil
> and the Zapatistas in Chiapas had to engage in on their own
ground. The
> Internet may also be indispensable as a way of bringing
together 50,000
> activists and researchers in Porto Alegre to attend
hundreds of panels that
> discuss the various meanings of "another world
is possible," but it is no
> substitute for building in each country new
parties like the Brazilian
> Workers Party, post-Communist and post-social
democratic, capable of
> developing new structures of popular democracy as
a prelude to and an
> effect of competing for state power.
>
> Comment:
> Financial Times (London), May 24, 2002
>
> Lula learns to love a free market: Brazil's workers' champion and
veteran
> presidential contender has softened his rhetoric, writes Raymond
Colitt
>
> In his navy-blue designer suit, sky-blue shirt and
bright red tie, the
> presidential candidate for Brazil's Workers' party
is meticulously groomed.
> Hardly a hair out of place and Luis Inacio Lula
da Silva's broad smile
> reveals immaculate cosmetic dental surgery.
>
> It is all in sharp contrast to the rough and ready appearance
of the past.
> When the former metalworker first hit the campaign trail
more than a decade
> ago he was wearing jeans and T-shirt, the uniform of
a union activist.
> Investment bankers and business leaders now compete
for time with landless
> peasants and unions for a slot on the busy agenda
of the Workers party
> champion. Lula, as he is widely known, has not only
moderated his
> appearance but also many of his economic proposals, toning
down much of his
> fiery anti-capitalist rhetoric of yesteryear.
>
> (clip)
>
> Lula has stepped back from the radical
proposals of his early days such as
> a moratorium on foreign debt or the
nationalisation of parts of Brazilian
> industry. He has embraced some of
the basic policies that have ensured
> economic stability in Brazil,
including fiscal discipline, inflation
> targets, and a floating exchange
rate.
>
> Roughly a quarter of Brazilians already live in cities
and states run by PT
> governments. Many have proven competent
administrators and some have
> introduced innovative social programmes.
>
> "They won't commit any stupidities - a debt moratorium or a
sudden, drastic
> interest rate cut," says Walter Appel, director at Banco
Fator, an
> investment bank in Sao Paulo. He says a PT government, with
the support of
> labour unions and the necessary alliance it would have to
form in congress,
> could even undertake long-stalled reforms such as that
of the social
> security system.
>
>
> Louis
Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
>
>