Second American Revolution, Anyone? (was Re: Faux on Cockburn)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Thu Jan 6 00:44:47 PST 2000


Doug:
>>This is a perfect recapitulation of neo-classical
>>doctrine: there is no alternative to neo-liberalism.
>
>Adolph Reed once characterized some people he knew as convening once
>a year to think about what they should do politically, deciding it
>was all too exquisitely complex, and so doing nothing 'til next
>year's meeting.

You are welcome to irony & sarcasm -- it's free speech in a free country, as they say. Meanwhile, a sensible point of departure has been suggested already (see below).


>Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 21:44:25 -0800 (PST)
>From: Martin Hart-Landsberg <marty at lclark.edu>
>To: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
>Subject: [PEN-L:15244] China again!
<snip>
>I would argue that the main factor oppressing working people in this
>country is capitalism. And that the kind of movement that is most
>important to build is a movement that helps to highlight and deepen that
>understanding. In other words, I think we need to find ways of responding
>to people's concerns that helps them build real solidarity and political
>power as a class. If people are concerned about their working conditions
>then we need to take that seriously and think about how to respond.
>Keeping China out of the WTO on the grounds that if they get in it will
>become harder to reform the WTO is, from that perspective, a non-starter.
>First, we should not be interested in encouraging people to seek to reform
>the WTO. The WTO will never serve working class interests. Second, China
>is not the main factor oppressing U.S. workers. US wages and working
>conditions are not primarily being driven down by low cost Chinese
>exports.
>
>Logically then, we should build on Seattle by demanding that our
>government takes seriously the need to improve working conditions in this
>country, and this means a higher minimum wage, it means restricting
>capital flight, it mean making it easier to unionize, it means taking ILO
>standards seriously, it means fighting for a responsive and adquately
>supported public sector (in solidarity with public workers). These are the
>kinds of struggles that have the possibility of both improving working
>conditions and building a class movement. In other words, OUR primary
>task is t ofind ways of building a movement that targets capitalism and
>geting our own ruling class.
>
>The question of whether China should be in the WTO is not our question.
>The WTO is bad, Chinese workers will suffer if their country joins the
>WTO. All workers in all countries suffer by virtue of the fact that their
>countries operate within the WTO system. But our interest should not be in
>reforming the WTO. It should be in challenging the WTO and capitalist
>logic. The debate over China and its labor standards and environmental
>standards will neither lead people to challenge the WTO or capitalist
>logic. It will lead them to think that the WTO is worth saving and that
>capitalism in the U.S. is desirable.
>
>Moreover, many progressive workers in countries such as South Korea and
>Brazil oppose reforming the WTO with side agreements. By taking up this
>issue, by making it our issue, not only do we distract workers here from
>the main political issue, but we undermine international solidarity with
>workers elsewhere.

Back to your post, killing desire for revolution must be the biggest crime of irony. (I wish you didn't quote Adolph Reed to score a point -- I respect the guy.) Finally, suggesting that those who speak of the need for revolution _here in America_ are doing nothing in the meantime is not fair. While I can't claim any important victory (what do you expect -- it's Columbus, Ohio!), I've been involved in many political efforts (mainly quotidian stuff) locally.

BTW, if you think that desire for the Second American Revolution (remote as its prospect in the near future may be) can only be an object of irony, you have no right to kvetch about the Sandinistas. They got defeated, yes, but they tried, against all odds, despite their own errors and weaknesses. They have an honorable place in the Marxist tradition. Many Central American solidarity activists have found a way to continue the ties, for instance, by changing their focus to cross-border labor solidarity. If anything needs to be re-examined about the Sandinista Revolution, it's less the Sandinistas' treatment of the Miskito Indians than why American activists -- very good, committed people -- couldn't get their government to stop supporting the Contras and how we may conduct solidarity activism better, so that at least we won't help bring down revolution elsewhere.

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list