> Now, this may be the crux of our differences. I see a world of quite
> "buoyant" grassroots movements worldwide, in many aspects far more vibrant
> than even a decade ago. Fewer "left-aligned" movements control
> nation-states than at points in the past, but in some ways that is an
> advantage, since so many of those (as in the East Bloc and a number of
> allied third world states) repressed their grassroots movements and (as
> you
> noted in your post about the PDS) were an embarassment to the very idea of
> radical social change.
>
> Whether we are talking about the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil, the
> Indonesian labor movement, the South Korean democracy movement, or the
> upsurge of latino power in California, there are incredibly dramatic
> examples of movements that have continued to grow globally. And - given
> the
> topic at hand - there is a network of human rights activists that has
> continued to grow throughout the last decades.
>
> The defeat of "fast track" trade legislation in the US was matched
> globally
> by the worldwide mobilization that forced the shelving of the first round
> of
> the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). There are mobilizations
> against the IMF in countries around the world.
>
> I find the thumb-sucking pessimism of so many left activists really
> bizarre.
> Maybe it is a failure by Marxists to acknowledge movements that are not
> tied
> to party formations. Or maybe it is nostalgia for the Soviet patronage of
> the Cold War that gave an artificial heft (and often funds) to certain
> kinds
> of "left" voices in the world. Or maybe it is the reasonable
> disorientation
> of the wrenching economic changes occuring due to both new forms of
> globalization and technology.
>
> But the reality is that we have an incredible network of activists in the
> world and across the United States with global labor movements far more
> willing to challenge global capital today (as in trade legislation) than
> they were a generation ago when the divisions of the Cold War made them
> sacrifice global class solidarity in the name of "fighting Communism."
>
> So, yes, despite in some ways incredibly hard economic and technological
> conditions to operate within, I think the self-defeating pessimism of many
> leftists is far overblown.
>
> And you may find my optimism on the state of the global left as bizarre as
> my position on Kosovo, but you may have hit the nail on the head in noting
> the link.
Are you implying that NATO bombed Yugoslavia because a network of grassroots activists exerted pressure and NATO then "gave in"? That's truly batty!
The U.S. adopted an agressive stance on Kosovo as soon as fighting broke out in March '98. Albright waged a constant battle with the Europeans throughout 1998 in favor of using force and against diplomacy. The Pentagon drew up contingency plans for bombing in June 1998.
You're comparing these events to the 8-hour workday, the minimum wage, the right to form a union? Those were victories the working class won after years of bloody struggle against capital, complete with strikes, police repression, etc. The Kosovo war was something the State Depertment envisioned as a part of its longstanding policy on NATO. It was not a concession to a grassroots movement.
Activists can win struggles, sometimes even on the international stage. But these take the form of say, the East Timor movement, where years of endless lobbying, protesting, and petition-signing managed to convince some congressmen to cut off some aid, which was then surreptitiously continued by the executive. That's not nothing. It's worth something. But the notion that popular movements can somehow put themselves in the drivers' seat of U.S. foreign policy... I mean come on!
Also, Nathan, I'd appreciate a response to my question about diplomacy. Why don't you think it would have been better for the Kosovars if the U.S. had accepted the Serbs' offer of a U.N.-led pecekeeping force to implement autonomy for Kosovo?
Seth