Contradictions of Labor Solidarity Dan Clawson, University of1\1assachusetts, Amherst The articles above bring welcome attention to a key issue - possibly the key issue facing us today: left political responses to "globalization." Bonacich, Armbruster, and Na-;h each advance our understanding and indicate directions for future work. What strikes me, however, is how far we have to go, both a-; a movement and a-; theorists. In mat erial terms capital is cons ahead oflabor in establishing international tics. A-; a Marxist I believe that theory develops in symbiosis with practice; predictably, therefore, our limited material practice is a-;sociated with underdeveloped theory . As these pieces demonstrate, we have specific sharp insights, ca-;c studies, and examples of id ea -; that need to be part of a general theory, but such a theory doesn't exist even for us, academic members of a section that provides the most promising theoretical ba-;c for developing a theory of international labor solidarity. It certainly docs not exist in the consciousness of rank and file workers. The internationalization of capital gives it huge advantages in struggles with labor. Two ba-;ic labor responses arc possible, each embracing one side of a contradiction: protectionism or international labor solidarity on a scale and at a depth that can match capital. The dominant left respons e unequivocally endorses a strategy of building international labor solidarity; most workers and many unions are more inclin e d to protectionism, often a-;sociated with xenophobia. The readers of PEWS News undoubt edly want me to say 'we 're right, the workers arc politically retrograd e and n eed to switch to embrace the left-academic position.' Let me make an intentionall y provocative case: it's not that simple. Workers also have hold of an important truth, and we need to take it seriously. [Page 7] Journa I of World-Systems Research Each of th ese approaches faces enormous problems. The natur e of a real contradiction is that it cannot b e wish ed away simply by embracing one side or the other; each pole captures something important and simultaneously involves hu ge problems. The left position stands with internationalism, ever and always. That stanc e comes in part from the shaping events of many o f our political lives: struggles against racism and U.S . imperialism (above all in Vietnam). The contradiction is that the left often finds it-;clf arguing for the international free mark et, essen tially saying that it is ill eg itimat e and inappropriat e to interfere with the sanctity of markets. Carried to an extreme that position requires the total dominance of capitalist values and organizational practices, and makes it impossible to develop or carry through any alternative. The other sid e of th e contradiction, pro tect ionism, involves a ma-; sive danger for le ft politics: racism, nationalism, and xenopho bia. A-; an attempt to limit the impact of capital's internationalism, protectionism ha~ almost invariably involved racist (e.g. anti- Japancsc) and anti-immigrant stances ("they" arc taking "our" jobs; we need to keep "them" out). But it is also an a~scrtion that the economy should not be driven by an unfettered market, that limits need to be imposed on the drive for profits, and that some means must be found to protect workers and the cnvironmcn t in order to put human needs above cost-benefit analyses. We need to develop a general theory of international labor solidarity, a theory that recognizes the need for local community built on planning and some degree of protection from an unfettered market, and that simultaneously embraces international labor solidarity, rejecting all racism, nationalism, and xenophobia. Such a theory can develop only in relation to praxis. Each of the above pieces helps move us in that direction. Armbruster docs so through a careful examination of successful ca~cs of labor internationalism, ca~cs where praxis contradicts ( and is in advance of) theory. Na~h proceeds by insisting on the importance of the (top-down) actions of central bodies (and I note that Barbara Shaler, the AFL-CIO's new international director, openly refers to the old regime a~ the AFL-CIA). Finally, Bonacich progresses with a series of stimulating observations detailing some of the key problems that must be addressed by any attempt to develop a general theory (or practice).