> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Chris Burford
>
> At 12:23 11/11/99 -0600, Caroll Cox wrote:
> >Here is Cockburn's reply to Doug. In it, I notice, Cockburn does
> >explicitly express his " hopes of a populist coalition of left and right
> on basic
> >issues of liberty." It seems to me this is as much a pipedream as Chris
> Burford's
> >hopes for an alliance with progressive elements of the big bourgeoisie
The real problem with the populist coalition of "right" and "left" is that it is de facto a class "labor aristocracy" position against third world workers and marginal workers of color in the United States. Pat Buchanan is seeking this exact alliance - bringing on Lenora Fulani as co-chairwoman for this exact gambit - and the basic coalition agreement is exactly based on that anti-third world worker position: anti-immigrant, English-only, and trade protectionist.
The fact is that in a world of global capitalism, there are tensions between many national-based industries versus those with a more global reach. It has generally been the "populist" position to favor the national-based industries, but it is not always clear that the working class alliance with such industries is always progressive in the global scope of things. The global capitalists are actually better allies on issues of immigrant rights and other race issues, precisely because those globalists need access to the skills of a multicultural population to access a multicultural world.
Obviously, the big bourgeoisie globalists have a very different reason for those "progressive" positions than the Left, but tactical alliances on those issues are as valid as other tactical alliances with nationalist industry leaders on select economic issues.
For those who reject reformist tactics, this question of tactical alliances is a non-issue, since they prefer mental purity in preparation for the revolution to come, but in the day-to-day of real organizing, keeping clear on the fact that the Left has to use divisions among the bourgoisie to defend the rights of workers in a whole slew of areas, and that those alliances will not be a simple one of permanent alliance with any element - small capital, national industry or global multinational - but will need a shifting tactical scope based on broad working class interests in specific issue areas.
At the same time, building greater working class solidarity is the key to long-term strategic (as opposed to tactical) gains. But this working class solidarity cannot be focused solely on "right" and "left" within the United States but must extend globally. And if the choice is between leaving a few white militia types pissed off in Idaho versus damaging alliances with immigrant workers from Mexico, I'll take the pissed off militia types any day of the week.
The reality is that multinational growth is dialectically one of the main routes for building global worker solidarity. Having to fight the same employer in multiple countries - whether its Unilever, Nike or Unocol - builds working class alliances. In many ways, the national bourgoisie that emerged out of the decolonization period encouraged nationalist alliances of the working classes with their own local business elites. The breakdown of those nationalist economies is opening a new era where internationalism is far more important and imperative.
What is tricky is negotiating flexible tactical alliances on specific immediate issues, combined with theoretical support for global integration, combined with global organizing against the power of multinational capital within that global system. No one has the golden path to negotiating the contradictions and complexities of this fight but there have been some surprisingly good advances along its way.
Progressives globally have built networks of labor, human rights and environmental activists that are fighting hard against the pro-corporate rules of everything from the MAI to the WTO. Labor in the United States has moved decisively from a passively anti-immigrant stance in the 1980s (supporting employer sanctions) to an explicitly pro-immigrant stance in the 1990s (opposing Prop 187 and now opposing employer sanctions). Unions are beginning to expand global federations and concrete support campaigns. Sweatshop activists are tying struggles in the lower east side and Los Angeles to struggles in the sweatshops of Central America and Indonesia.
In the US as in all countries on their immeiate political issues, this has all had to be combined with tough tactical alliances with different sectors of the business elite on different issues, sometimes with one group on immigration, sometimes another on trade policy, sometimes a third on issues of social spending.
If we lived in a world with a simple uniform global state, the alliances and tactics would be far simpler, since we would need to organize the working class globally against the capitalists. But in a global political system where states are the constituent voters, whether through direct bodies like the United Nations and the WTO or through treaty approvals, class politics globally are inevitably intertwined with a complex set of tactical worker-bourgoeis alliances within each country in order to direct and shape the workings of the emerging global state and the rules of the global economy.
--Nathan Newman