<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Michael P. writes:
<BR><< One of the cites from Peter Waterman's great website. An ex-Communist who
<BR>did not turn neo-con ouit of disillusionment with Stalinism.
<BR>http://www.antenna.nl/~waterman/hopeful.html Waterman, Peter. 1991a.
<BR>'Understanding Socialist and Proletarian Internationalism: The Impossible
<BR>Past and Possible Future of Emancipation on a World Scale', Working Paper,
<BR>No. 97. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. 66 pp >>
<BR>
<BR>Michael cites what I believe to the best web site one can find on
<BR>internationalism and trade unionism, Peter Waterman's Global Solidarity
<BR>Dialogue. The problem is that while Peter's brand of 'proletarian
<BR>internationalism' has the merit of completely eschewing a thoroughly
<BR>unprincipled, not to mention politically suicidal, return to
<BR>Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist politics, the alternative he poses is at such a
<BR>high level of generality that it is really hard to figure what it would mean
<BR>concretely for a trade union to adopt such a posture. As best as I can figure
<BR>it, all that it involves is the current and historical discrete acts of
<BR>solidarity with particular struggles in another nation and memberships in
<BR>international union bodies, along with the newer tack of encouraging
<BR>networking -- international union communication and information sharing --
<BR>via the Internet. This is unobjectionable, but where does it take us? Not
<BR>very fair, I am afraid.
<BR>
<BR>Consider the opening and closing paragraphs of the article, entitled
<BR>"rootless, cosmopolitan, petty-bourgeois -- and internationalist" to which
<BR>Michael refers us.
<BR>
<BR><< Like Alain Lipietz (1992), I feel that the 21st century has begun,
<BR>presaged by Berlin, Baghdad and Rio. As a lifelong socialist I cannot but
<BR>feel a responsibility for what collapsed in Berlin, even if I left the
<BR>Communist Party in 1970. And as a lifelong anti-imperialist I feel the same
<BR>responsibility for not having been at least prepared for Gulf War. I rejoice
<BR>at the rise of the green 'global solidarity' expressed by the ecological
<BR>movement. And I see a possible and necessary role for a new kind of labour
<BR>movement amongst this and other new internationalisms (Waterman 1991a, b).
<BR>But the earthquakes of 1989-92 have certainly given me cause to reflect on my
<BR>own itinerary as an internationalist. >>
<BR>
<BR><< It has occured to me that the active agents of even 'proletarian'
<BR>internationalism have customarily been people like myself, 'rootless
<BR>petty-bourgeois cosmopolitans': Flora Tristan, Marx and Engels, Rosa
<BR>Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin, Emma Goldman, Pablo Neruda. The quoted phrase is,
<BR>of course, from the vocabulary of Hitler and Stalin, and it customarily
<BR>referred to Jews, whether the word was spelled JEW (Hitler) or ZIONIST
<BR>(Stalin). Many of the major and minor agents of socialist internationalism
<BR>have also, like myself, been Jews. Yet even if those who played these roles
<BR>over the last one to two hundred years were customarily 'petty-bourgeois
<BR>cosmopolitans', they have not necessarily always been rootless or Jewish.
<BR>Today they are more likely to be nationally-rooted Liberation Christians than
<BR>stateless Jewish socialists. Nor, it seems to me, would the relationship of
<BR>these with the movements of their days be similar. I would, indeed,
<BR>tentatively suggest a tripartite historical typology, corresponding to
<BR>succeeding periods of capitalist and statist development: the c19th Agitator,
<BR>the c20th Agent and the c21st Networker. Having played all these roles
<BR>(though neither in the 19th nor the 21st century), I feel that some
<BR>self-reflection may throw light on at least the red internationalists, or
<BR>provide a trial sketch for a more general study. >>
<BR>
<BR><< From now on I would have to create my own international solidarity,
<BR>community, movement. Although I continued to travel widely -- and hopefully
<BR>-- for my work after 1972, my internationalist itinerary would represent
<BR>something less of a search for the crucial geographical place and a
<BR>privileged political base, something more of the creation of a new
<BR>international social space. In the coming period what would be required,
<BR>firstly, was an `international of the imagination', secondly an understanding
<BR>that communication was more crucial to a new internationalism than
<BR>organisation, thirdly the discovery that the new crucial role of the
<BR>internationalist was less that of the Agitator or the Agent than that of the
<BR>Networker. >>
<BR>
<BR>Now there are things to recommend about this posture, not the least of which
<BR>is the simple political honesty of telling the truth about the ill-conceived
<BR>romance of the left with "proletarian internationalism" a la Lenin, Trotsky
<BR>and Stalin, and the lack of pretense that waving the banner of "proletarian
<BR>internationalism" can be a substitute for programmatic politics of
<BR>international working class solidarity. But it will remain nothing more of a
<BR>utopian vision than a politics if it is not translated, in a meaningful way,
<BR>into a coherent set of policies and programs that can be enacted on the
<BR>ground in a daily way. I suspect that Waterman would agree entirely with me
<BR>on that question.
<BR>
<BR>It would be interesting to hear Doug's reactions to the substance of the
<BR>various papers at Zizek's Leninist shindig -- for my part, if only to see how
<BR>much they conformed to my hermeneutic prejudice about Zizekian politics in
<BR>general. That is, my suspicion is that "Lenin" is for Zizek not so much the
<BR>leading representative of a certain tradition of politic practice, that one
<BR>can analyze, critique and then either adopt or reject, on part or in toto,
<BR>but a 'floating signifier' of a left politics 'radically' outside of the
<BR>mainstream, "bourgeois democratic" consensus. Like the paintings I saw being
<BR>sold in the streets of Moscow when I visited last September, with the visage
<BR>of Lenin and the Coca-Cola logo "arm-in-arm," this is a vision of Lenin as
<BR>icon, as -- in Zizek's Hegelian twists -- the iconclastic icon. We are not
<BR>about to see doctrines of "democratic de-centerism" to update "democratic
<BR>decentralism," and that sort, because it is really Lacan which remains in
<BR>command in Zizek's Lacanian-Leninism, and what Zizek offers is an entirely
<BR>Lacanian reading of Lenin as a contemporary political signifier, not an
<BR>attempt to somehow combine the political or philosophical and political
<BR>insights of Lenin and Lacan. But it tells us something about the depth of
<BR>Zizek's democratic sensibilities [much too shallow, I fear] that it would be
<BR>Lenin that he seizes upon as this signifier, and that what he finds
<BR>interesting in Lenin -- at least in his conference call -- is Lenin's refusal
<BR>to be circumscribed by "bourgeois legality and respectability." He might just
<BR>as well have joined Telos and other fallen away leftists in seizing upon Carl
<BR>Schmitt, who had a much more philosophically nuanced critique of "bourgeois"
<BR>politics than Lenin. If politics is to be reduced to some form of visceral
<BR>antagonism with bourgeois sensibilities [the old shock the bourgeois
<BR>routine], of a decisionism which delights in violating constitutional norms
<BR>and disregarding the rule of law, why stick with relatively crude
<BR>philosophical and political legacy of Leninism, and its Trotskyist and
<BR>Stalinist progeny? Sorelian myths work just as well on the authoritarian
<BR>right as the authoritarian left.
<BR>
<BR>And that finally is what bothers me about the way in which "proletarian
<BR>internationalism" is bandied about in these debates. Where it is not just a
<BR>way of returning to the completely and deservedly discredited politics of the
<BR>Leninist, Trotskyist and Stalinist traditions, it operates as a free floating
<BR>signifier, free of all practical programmatic concerns of how one actually
<BR>builds bonds of international solidarity, for a politics "radically" outside
<BR>the global corporate power system. But that is, in the final analysis, simply
<BR>a politics of "gestural defiance."
<BR>
<BR>Leo Casey
<BR>United Federation of Teachers
<BR>260 Park Avenue South
<BR>New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
<BR>
<BR>Power concedes nothing without a demand.
<BR>It never has, and it never will.
<BR>If there is no struggle, there is no progress.
<BR>Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who
<BR>want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and
<BR>lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
<BR><P ALIGN=CENTER>-- Frederick Douglass --
<BR>
<BR></P></FONT></HTML>