I agree I see no disagreement, but the historical pattern that evolved in the twentieth century gives room for more pessimism than optimism. particularly the role of social democracy in the west, living examples are schroder and blurr not to forget mitterand. it is true that now with direct competition there is more room for unity but the opposite is also true. in the present balance of forces, reversion to nationalism is more likely. the idea that at rock bottom they are victims of the same process is true but that also was always the case. so now comes the question why. it seems that any compromise or unprincipled action on the part of the working class allows it to fall into the trap of bourgeois ideology. the working class should bring the bourgeois to its playing field in an uncompromising manner. talk of reform when the stakes are high represent a sort casuistry of bourgeois thought. the raw unreformed uncompromising position are where the working class can reveal the objective process of exploitation at its best. example: cancer, an environmentally triggered disaster, and other disasters in the making should for questions of bare existence unite all, but it did not. workers kill themselves with own pollution everywhere yet do not unite. things are perceived in such a way that it is a matter of survival to pollute because profits depend on pollution and jobs depend on profits. social democratic reform was at the root of this conception. it compromised once and again and mastered the art of working class differentiation. it is probably time to discredit the social democrats else if the same pattern evolves there will be more than just cancers killing workers. i maybe wrong like any good academic would say, although here i am pretending to be one, but probably reform (whatever is meant by it the word itself is inappropriate) in the present circles is another fall into the same trap. instead of reform i think i would call it the workers should grab what they can without compromising an iota, leave room for struggle always.
--- Greg Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Ali for this reply. > > --- Message Received --- > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 07:16:44 -0800 (PST) > Subject: [PEN-L:19574] Re: Re: Victory to Empire > > "there is a possiblity of reform but it will be that > that deepens the international division of labour- > poor nations poorer and rich bought off working > classes in the rich countries, all under the banner > of > nationalism. what will it take in between 2001 and > 2010 to bring the rate of profit to levels higher > than > that of the nineties. the demand component in the > third world is irrelevant so commodity relaization > is > out and war is in. " > > This is a real possiblity, in fact the only party in > my country which is actually putting up a platform > for actual reforms - is a right-wing one (One > Nation) and their whole purpose is to strengthen > Australia in isolation and over those of our > niegbours. > > The process of buying off- working class struggle in > the "west" has been a complex one and has now > dissapated (the process of buying-off not the > relative privilege) which is my major point. Workers > in the "West" are now directly competing against > poorer workers elsewhere - this is a new thing and I > believe the eventual foundations for real > solidarity. > > The comparison is striking between any group of > workers that come into competition. One element > fears them because they see it directly eroding > their position (which in a sense it is designed to > do), the elemental force to tap is the other > response, that of mutual solidarity which at least > supports the hope that all workers can and should > enjoy a reasonable existence. > > But this is sci-fi under the conditions of > world-wide worker defeat. The critical question is > what is needed to regroup the working class on a > world-wide basis. Now no-one pretends that the > position of a worker in the Australia is similar to > that of an Indonesian worker, yet in many regards > the interests are similar and both share an interest > in further democratising their own states and using > those states to further satisfy their interests by > somewhat similar means - better wages in socially > useful production. > > In the broad sweep, the political platform for one > group of workers is exactly the same for the other, > though obviously differing in the details and nature > of the struggle. But no such broad plaform has been > articulated and until it is there is no way of > knowing if the details will end up deepening the > international division of labour or not. For my > money it is a safe bet that a coherant international > political platform, translated into specific > national reforms would create room for real > solidarity rather than diminish it, and real > progress, politically, socially and economically. > > What you say about the crisis of realisation and why > this has turned to war, is on the whole absolutely > correct, in fact I agree with your dates - at least > a decade of turmoil is ahead of us. > > The sticking point is probably my use of the word > reform (meaning realisable goals). Of course the > alternative is to keep on doing what we are doing - > which is harmless. Ali I do not know if we have a > real disagreement, and I cannot talk for workers in > developing economies, I can however say that the > problems here with the state and production are not > disconnected with the problems elsewhere. There is > commanlity in the direction that things are taking > which we collectively are not properly responding > to, just getting to the position where by geniune > proletarian reform movements do come into conflict > over the division of international labour would be > to my mind a step forward from the passive situation > which exists today. > > Greg Schofield > Perth Australia > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
