Re: an international strategy

Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:40:03 +0100 (BST)
Richard K. Moore (rkmoore@iol.ie)

4/29/96, Christoph Chase-Dunn wrote:
>What would richard moore think about adding an international strategy to
>his national mobilization? it may be the case that global state formation
>is going to move ahead. if that is so it might make sense to push toward
>a really democratic global government. national mobilizations have not
>really changed the system in the past. the international level may be not
>only desireable but necessary.

The question of scale is critical. I wrote earlier, regarding
smaller-than-nation granularity:

>Context is all important. For example, a progressive might be for
>devolution, as a means to enhance the responsiveness of an already
>democratic system. But in the face of corporate hegemony, devolution only
>weakens representative government vis a vis corporate power, and is hence
>to be generally eschewed by enlightened progressives.

Hence, I would oppose an independent Scotland or California at this
time. I also wrote, regarding larger-than-nation granularity:

>What Globalization is about is the destruction of the nation-state
>system, and its replacement by one which no longer includes the People as
>one of the partners-in-power (albeit a junior partner). Instead of relying
>on their masterful ability to corrupt the democratic process, the elites
>prefer now to scrap the process itself, and rule outright. GATT, NAFTA,
>IMF, NATO et al are the embryonic sproutings of a new world government of,
>by, and for the corporate elite -- with no pretense or mechanism of popular
>participation or representation.

---

My view is that we are now engaged in full-scale warfare between Corporatism and Democracy -- although one side in the war doesn't seem to be aware of what's going on, since Corporatism already controls the media.

IF "The People" can be woken up to the existence of the war, then the question becomes: Where is the strategically most advantageous ground for "us" to "circle our wagons"? Or put another way: Where are the fortresses that "we" can most advantageously occupy and defend?

I believe the answer to these questions is incontrovertably: The Nation State. It is preferable to smaller units, because it carries more weight; it is preferable to larger units, because larger units (the EU for example) are being (and would be) set up under the aegis of corporate hegemony, and would WITHOUT DOUBT be structured to increase that hegemony. "We" have very little say in how the EU, the IMF, or the UN are structured or how they operate.

The only hope I see for a "credibly winning strategy" for The People is to dig their heels in re/national sovereignty, and to exercise the democratic mechanisms that still exist at that level of granularity.

IF (miracle of miracles) national governments were forced to be democratically responsive, and corporations were brought under responsible control, then it might become sensible to devolve autonomy to smaller, more responsive units, and to build a stronger regime of international law and some kind of global Bill of Rights, that is actually observed.

The corporate elite is well aware that nation states pose a threat to them, especially as rampant neo-liberalism erodes welfare universally and anti-corporate populist feeling gains strength world-wide. That is why the elites are pushing aggressively for globalization while their hegemony reigns unchallenged, and they hold temporary sway in the U.S., the UK, Germany, France, and Italy.

International solidarity among nation-based popular-democracy movements would be a very good thing, however. An international green-labor-peace alliance would be excellent.

-rkm