Re: Liberal WP and WS

One way to look at non-violent/non-revolutionary change is in terms not
only of pressures from below but of changes in the behavior of capital
itself. The problem is how long it may take capital to enter into the
reforms and innovations that, at a previous moment, it had resisted. This
involves recognition of real changes in conditions (e.g. declining
returns to oil companies for new explorations; benefits to capital from
political regulation, world peace, Fordist policies towards labor, etc.)
as well as cosmetic changes/PR. Also the countervailing resistence
created by existing modes of investment. 
However, it seems that capitalist self-reform is much more likely at the
(core) national level than globally (where benefits from unrestrained
exploitation of labor and environment is so great). Unfortunately,
prospects for revolution are inversely distributed, radical change (from
below) being much LESS likely at the core (where it could the most good).
This asymmetry may suggest why liberalism will remain an effective
formula for some time (despite reports of its imminent demise), and why
revolutions in the periphery seem increasingly beside the point.
(In this regard, the Starlife people have a point: the more reform
occurs, they write, " the more successful we are, the less people will be
motivated to join ideological protest movements, worker's revolutions and
the kind of World Party
pursued by you.")
Whether a WP could begin to tie up these loose ends...not clear. But at
least it might begin to help us present and conceive of problems on a
more global plane  (Kohler's notion of  a "new avant garde" fits in
here).     kpm


On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 18:40:54 -0500 John_R_Groves@ferris.edu writes:
>Dear WSNers: just a note of clarification on the proposals for a 
>liberal wp. It
>does not follow that a more moderate approach to a WP is a rejection 
>of the view
>that the world system must be taken into account. What is rejected is 
>the view
>that a worker's revolution with a Marxist ideology is the solution. 
>The call for
>more creative proposals is a call for proposals that address the role 
>of big
>money and power. Aren't there ways of restricting the behavior of 
>global
>capitalism short of violent revolution? An effective world party would 
>try to
>establish power centers in various countries that could help to 
>enforce policies
>enacted by global institutions like the UN. The problem with the UN is 
>that it
>has no teeth. If member countries wish to ignore, they often can. 
>However, if UN
>actions/policies had the backing of a wp in the various member 
>counties, then
>they might be effective. THink of how much more successful the Rio 
>environmental
>summit would have been if Bush had had to deal with a powerful 
>environmental
>constituency back home. So the liberal wp acknowledges the existence 
>of a world
>system; it is just that a different approach is called for.
>
>The argument that this is simply not enough is utopian in my view if 
>it implies
>that a world government is the only solution. Again, it isn't going to 
>happen,
>and it wouldn't be a good thing anyway.
>
>I am also struck by the fact that some on this list seemed to have 
>missed a
>great deal of recent history. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the 
>discrediting
>of non-market approaches to the economy seem not to have registered 
>with some
>people. Yes, we need to work on restricting the market, but the idea 
>that there
>are non-totalitarian and effective non-market economic arrangements 
>just doesn't
>seen plausible.
>
>Randy Groves
>