> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Doug Henwood
>"National sovereignty" may sound progressive in
> >Pretoria, but is the slogan of rightwing nationalist militias in the
> >United States who argue for shooting immigrants at the border as part
of
> >preserving that national sovereignty.
>
> Do you mean this as a critique of the Naderites whom you otherwise
> defend? Because they're very comfortable with rhetoric about national
> sovereignty, very happy to take money (quietly) from right-wing
> union-hating magnates like Roger Milliken, and quite eager to enter
> coalitions with Buchanan and Congressional Republicans. Do you like
> that?
No, I don't like it.
And you know I have a lot of criticism of Nader and company. It's one reason I actually think that labor's line on the whole WTO in some ways is more international than a lot of other forces. They work closely with their comrades in the ICFTU trade unions around the world and have no great faith in pure national legislation to solve the problems of injustice in the world. Many environmentalists, especially those based in the US, have had more success in national legislation, so "national sovereignty" appeals have greater appeal.
While I think "fix it or nix it" is more inclusive of the diversity of the tactics of the movement opposing global corporate power, I've laid out my brief why we need more than either fixing or nixing it. At heart I am a syndicalist who would love to see the global state built from international workers unions on up, but I have enough pragmatism to see the need to struggle around existing global institutions to take on existing corporate power. Marx thought Bismarck was an improvement over the localized principalities he replaced, if only by focusing worker energy on a more unified target. Global institutions work in similar ways, while I fear a pure "national sovereignty" position encourages the balkanization of the international working class along national lines.
As Patrick argues well, it's not a simple argument either way, but abolition just smacks too much of capitulation to the "race to the bottom" of competitive capitalist nationalisms. Abolishing the WTO does not abolish capitalism and in some ways (in the dialectical movement of history, to use that trope), it seems a step backwards towards nationalism away from international struggle.
-- Nathan Newman