Inspired by Harry Cleaver's excellent piece on the Chiapas uprising, I
think it is appropriate to remind of a discussion we had here on pen-l in
September 1993.
Tom Weisskopf defined the two main sides in that "Global Economic
Integration discussion" as the "progressive internationalist position"
(PIP) and the "progressive nationalist position" (PNP).
Myself, I belong to the PNP faction. During the discussion, it was
made clear that f.inst. Jim Devine's and Nathan Newman's strategy for
socialism was to first let capitalism globalize into the end result, a
"World Capitalist Gvt.", then on a world scale somehow overthrow this
gvt. and establish world socialism. Jim and Nathan belong to the PIP
faction, as I understood them.
So what has this to do with Chiapas? Well, reading Harry's piece, what
strikes me is the fierce will to self-determination in this movement.
But I cannot understand how the PIP people can look at such struggles
as other than well-meant but futile attempts to stop the merciless
wheel relentlessly grinding towards a completely capitalist-globalized
world.
>From my viewpoint (PNP) the Chiapas struggle is not only something that
I symphatize with, I also see their goals as perfectly realistic and
achievable, and to say the least, infinitely more down-to-earth, than the
pie-in-the-sky "let-capitalism-globalize-and-then-we-will-make
socialism"-strategy.
IMHO, of course..... :-)
-------------------------------------
Trond Andresen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Department of Engineering Cybernetics
The Norwegian Institute of Technology
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY
phone +47 73 59 43 58
fax +47 73 59 43 99
