Populism

[Max B. Sawicky]

> > There's going to be more action in Seattle, of a multi-national,
> > multi-issue (i.e., not 'class essentialist') character, than any one
> place has seen in quite a while.  I predict that little of it is going to
be
> > devoted to hand-wringing about the chauvinist component of protectionism
that I
> > hear on LBO and PEN-L.  Although I don't see all facets of it with
> > equal enthusiasm, it seems to me that right now this is the most
> > important development on the left of the past 25 years.  You assorted
> > softies here, in respect of free trade, seem to gloss over that.
>
Angela:
> i've glossed over nothing at all.   in fact, i've held both j18 and the
> anti-wto protests up as instances of new oppositional forms, without
> thereby pretending that they are without problems.   i've no inclination
to
> stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the sierra club.  but i will note that
> economic nationalism did not get such a play in europe as it will in
> seattle -- the transition from the slogan of 'our resistance will be as
> transnational as capital' to the seattle one of 'anti-globalisation' is
not
> a step forward.  i think it's an indication of just how much the US as a
> global power is rather perversely drifting into nationalist resentments.
> a sign of a collapsing empire, and petty empires, and little more.

There is difference re: Europe.  One reason is that the EU already
incorporates anti-globalist policies that are exotically radical in the
U.S. context (i.e. regulations applying to foreign investment).  A
second is they are coming around to their own form of what you
call "nationalism" -- actually a stance against trade liberalism --
a little late.

Even so, your note is a tacit admission that you are out of step
with Seattle.

mbs