Re: WP principles

See below for critique:

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Elson wrote:

> >I fail to see how "nationalisms in single countries" will coalesce into 
>an effective
> >global system change. Even "socialism in one bloc" failed to do that.
> >Jozsef (Borocz)
> 
> I fail to see it also.  A global strategy is "what is to be done."  
>However, within
> that strategy and framework, this would or could include the coming to 
>power of the
> movement in states which support, and have as their goal, global 
>democracy and
> equality.   The difficulty is overcoming provincialism and nationalism, 
>that is,
> creating trans-national solidarity.  A World Party could serve, as one 
>among others,
> the basis for such solidarity.
> 
> Don't most people on this list agree to this in principle?  I have the 
>sense that
> they do.  In fact, in light of all the energy stirred up by the Seattle 
>conference, I
> think we could probably agree on a number of principles that a WP would 
>stand for.


I still fail to see that anyone has offered "a global strategy" as
mentioned above.  The only specific mentioned here is the "coming to power
of the movement in states" etc, etc, which is not a global strategy.

If the discussion of a world party is to productively continue there
really needs to be clarification of possible strategies.

Possibilities include:

a) working through international institutions as they are built, such as
        the U.N., E.C., W.T.O., etc, which is what INGOS currently do,

b) networking among NGOS transnationally (rather than internationally),
        either to then act on the international institutions, or on states,
         or on corporations, to pressure them for change,

c) working (as Chris C-D frequently alludes to) to build alternative
        international or transnational institutions, the exact character of
         which remains entirely open,

d) networking among nation/state-based parties which each strive to
        influence and/or seize their own states, and work together at the
        inter/transnational level as a federation,

e) a futuristic possibility, as in the Wagar novel, of such a federation
        of states coming together to form a world socialist government at
        some point.  (If anyone thinks this could be done by strictly
        transnational organizations, I'd like to hear them explain it.)


I'm sure there are other possibilities -- this list is just for purposes
of discussion, to push people to clarify in terms of praxis more precisely
what it is they are proposing.

It seems inescapable to me that for the foreseeable future the progressive
movements of the planet are going to have to become skilled at working on
more than one level at once, and *the most important level is still that
of existing states*.  The rather exotic activities carried out by INGOs
does not involve more than a tiny minority of the world's people.  The
existing state structures, for all their flaws, are still the only
democratic venues that exist.  INGOs, including a nascent world party, if
such a thing comes to pass, will be an infinitesimal avant-garde, and the
only way for it to build influence will be through mass organizations
within nation/states.  All the issues of core worker chauvinism, and
periphery elite bombast, and so forth raised by Seattle will have to
fought out in that context.  We cannot just wave our arms and produce a
"global" context or strategy in which the structure of states becomes
unimportant.

Now how about if somebody other than advocates of the continuing bourgeois
revolution and advocates of the continuing 19th century proletarian
revolution responds to this and helps move the discussion forward?

RH