I would point out that this is another issue where we are seeing a fast
developing agenda of global governance. The bourgeoisie is itself having to
take note of these matters. Instead of arguing that it is a hallmark of
Marxism to have nothing to do with reforms, we need to get into this
debate, analyse the class forces involved, and put forward a stronger,
clearer position that is in conformity with the wishes and the objective
interests of the working people of the world.
I don't know about other Marxists, but I don't see "hav[ing] nothing to do
with reforms" as being in any way "a hallmark of Marxism." I, for one, am
all in favor of reforms if they're the right kind. (If I may quote
scripture, Marx was all in favor of limiting the working day.) Rather than
the issue being pro- or anti-reform, the issue is "do the proposed reforms
help the working class and other oppressed groups?" If not, fight the
"reform." If they help the working class and other oppressed groups, fight
for the reforms. Obviously what this means in practice can be ambiguous,
but the principle is clear. (US-style welfare reform or neoliberal global
reforms are not the right kind.)
I for one think that capitalist reforms in the direction of creating a
world state (to go along with the world economy) are pretty damn likely.
The point is to increase the power of the world working class and oppressed
groups (which unfortunately is often only possible on a national plane) in
order to force the emerging world state to benefit us.
We of course should be interested in what the emerging world bourgeoisie is
up to (since they'll try to make _us_ pay for it). We should avoid all
faith that they'll decide to do the right thing.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html
