2. Old and New Forms of Internationalism
To understand the new, we must have an idea of the old. This is, of course, not the place to review extensively the nuances of different internationalisms that the history of the labour and other movements have created. I thus propose here the comparison between old and new internationalism in terms of two criteria: the relation between national and international dimensions of struggle; the relation between labour and other movements. Table 1 summarizes the discussion below.
Relation between national Relation between labour and international struggles movement and other movements. Old International dimension Distinct movements. Internationalism instrumental to national Subordination or dimension marginalization of other movements to labour movement New National and international Building of Internationalism distinction loses alliances/bridges. sharpened
In most of the practice of old internationalism, the international dimension of struggle was subordinated to the strategic objectives of the national dimension. Whether we refer to the "political" struggles of socialist movements or the "economic" struggles of trade unions (to use an inappropriate but useful classification, because it reflects a belief rooted in the practice of old internationalism), the immediate objective of the struggle was primarily national, and the related internationalism was instrumental to it. For example, socialists aimed at the national seizure of power. Trade unions to win wage increases vis-à-vis their national bosses.
This internationalism reflected the conditions of the time, in which the global character of capital was limited to trade and, in most cases, did not include production. Working classes relied on this form of internationalism in order to protect themselves on the home front and advance their causes domestically. British workers for example "learned internationalism to resist British employers' practice of importing strike-breakers." (Milner 1990: 18-19) At the time of the First International, cross-country workers' solidarity could serve even as a threat:
Geneva building workers who had been locked out appealed to the International for help. The employers were alarmed enough to concede the strikers' demands for a wage rise plus a reduction in working hours to ten. As employers became worried by the prospect of their plants to substitute foreign labour being thwarted, the prestige of the International among workers soared and its legend grew (Milner 1990: 26).In this context, Marx and Engels' First International attempted to give a reference point and organization to a process that was already occurring. The First International did not drive "the workers into strikes; strikes drove the workers into the International." Thus, the International was helping to build up national organization at the same time as it was developing international solidarity, as part of the same process." (ibid.).
We can dub the internationalism here proposed as instrumental internationalism, in the sense it was primarily aimed at allowing workers in each country to wage war against their own bosses for better wages and working conditions (trade unionist version of this internationalism) or for the acquisition of political power in various countries (socialist version). Without this internationalism, the workers in one country would be pit against the workers in other countries. Solidarity, understood pure and simply as external help as a result of a common sympathy or feeling, is the necessary by-product of this form of internationalism.
Another characteristic of old internationalism was the relative separation between different issues and movements, separation that was reflected in the centrality of the labour movement and the subordination of other movements to it (this was true nationally and internationally). For example, Lorwin (cit. in Milner 1990: 15) points out five different kinds of internationalism (humanitarian, pacifist, commercial, social-reformist, and social-revolutionary). This is, of course, a quite old and inadequate classification. How does one classify environmental internationalism, among others, for example? The point, however, for us is that, according to the author, the first three kinds of internationalism "gave rise to campaigns involving a variety of social classes and intellectual currents", while the former are "associated primarily with the labour and socialist movements". In this classification there is implicitly a hierarchy of importance.
Solidarity seems therefore to be the main characteristic of old internationalism. Solidarity here understood as cross-border, cross-issue unity. Unity has generally been formulated as instrumental to a goal. The nature of the goal, however, wasgenerally defined outside the process of unification (recomposition). The goal may have been defined by a section of a national movement and whoever related to that section would have had their voice silenced: their support, help, funding, can only be accompanied by "self-sacrifice" for a cause, and it restrained criticism in order to pursue that goal. This is, of course, a mystical practice, because its goal has a reality which is not self-evident to the senses, since it is defined by an intelligentsia which posits itself outside the real movement. This mystical practice that subordinates the process of constituting a unity of what is different to an external "goal" is still widespread today, and it is identifiable any time an activist attempts to challenge the mystical armour of a campaign group by challenging their strategic demands. For example, a UK-based anti-Maastricht campaign group may regard the demand for "full employment" a demand broad enough to bring unity of different constituencies, a demand furthermore, in "line" with a traditional idea of "socialism" based on a strong work ethic. Anybody challenging this demand not only on the general ground that it is a demand compatible with capitalist accumulation, but on the more specific/strategic ground that it is a demand which cannot and will not bring unity among the many disillusioned by capitalist work, capitalist market etc., will be silenced and accused of wasting precious organizing time which instead must be used to reach unity.
Fortunately, the tide is changing, and we are all forced to think about the process of unification, its forms, its objectives, its mechanisms, rather than only its results measured against the yardstick of an idea. Ideas themselves are born and nurtured in real processes. The recent globalizing processes have led to the breakdown of the traditional labour strategies, while at the same time many more voices have started to appear on the scenes of international movements, most of these using international connections. A new internationalism seems is in the process of making itself. But although many see this internationalism again as instrumental to the re-proposal of national strategies, I believe the character of this internationalism is moving in another, much more radical direction. First, although in many cases it holds on to old ideas and conceptions, it is clearly evident that on the terrain of organization this new internationalism is definitively losing the "national" dimension as referent, as site for an alternative. As capital's strategy of globalization is increasing the interdependence of different peoples around the world, and therefore their vulnerability vis-à-vis capital, it is increasingly expressed at international level, so these same people are transforming through their practice the distinction between national and international, making this distinction less definite, less important.[4] Also, as more and more state functions are transferred to supranational state bodies, so too the struggle against these bodies (IMF, World Bank, WTO etc.) is blurring the distinction between national and international.
The other characteristic of the new internationalism is the large diffusion of acceleration/promotion of a dialogue between grassroots labour activists and militant environmentalists, human-rights groups, women, etc. Just as the Liverpool dockers received the support of the Reclaim the Streets activists (a direct action British environmentalist group)[5], the cuts in welfare state can be resisted on grounds such as human rights, thus enabling a wider coalition.[6] The Anti-NAFTA campaign represented the coming together of these different souls, forcing the official US labour bureaucracies to distance themselves from supporting U.S. foreign policy for the first time in history. The traditional AFL-CIO failure to back progressive movements and unions in Latin America and other Third World countries traditionally served US bosses to pit the workers of these countries against those in the US.[7]
On other fronts, many other struggles have started to have an international resonance. Struggles of militants on the environmental front, gender, indigenous issues, anti-multinationals, anti-Third World debt/IMF/World Bank, etc. The rise of so many voices at the local and world level should enable us more than to compensate for the difficulty that the globalization processes of production, finance and trade seems to have put in establishing "national alternatives".
The practice of this new internationalism -- which, I repeat, is in the process of making itself and by all means is not an established result -- seems to indicate that the notion of unity and solidarity has been significantly transformed. The old call for unity, a call often demanded at the expense of autonomy, is being replaced by a continuous practice that is defining the characteristics and parameters of united action in respect to all autonomies. Also, internationalism becomes less and less an ideal for which to fight, and increasingly a strategic and organizational need springing from the grassroots. [8] Thus, rather than the old solidarity paradigm, a better description of the way different groups and movements tend to enter in relation with one another is the one provided by what an Aboriginal woman said to those coming to her people to offer solidarity:
If you have come here to help meYou are wasting your time....
But if you have come because
Your liberation is bound up with mine
Then let us work together.
In this assertion there is at the same time the rejection of instrumental support, the assertion of autonomy, and the openness to relate to others. At the same time, it implies that subjects apparently so distant such as an Aboriginal woman and a Western activist meet and find their way to constitute new social relations. To date, perhaps the more elaborate voice expressing this new internationalism is the one of the indigenous communities in Chiapas, A voice that we have heard through the stories, tales, speeches and communiqués of the EZLN, the Zapatistas.
