www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, March-April 2005Lead
Article
Crossroads for movement against global capital
by Peter Hudis Porto Alegre, Brazil--There is no better measure of the
accomplishments and contradictions of the movement against global capital that
first appeared with the Seattle protests of 1999 than the World Social Forum (WSF),
held on Jan. 26-31 in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Organized into 11 “thematic
spaces," this year’s WSF was the largest since the gatherings began in
2001 as a counterpart to the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland. Some
150,000 people from 135 countries attended this year’s WSF, which included
6,800 speakers and over 2,500 panels. FREE FLOW OF IDEAS The WSF has long been important because of its ability
to create a forum at which grassroots activists and theoreticians can come
together to discuss alternatives to the globalization of capital without being
hemmed in by any single line of authority. Thousands of Dalits and lower-caste Indians turned out
for last year’s WSF in Mumbai, India, helping to generate a level of political
discussion and debate that led not long afterwards to the eviction of the ruling
Hindu fundamentalist BJP from power. This year’s WSF was no less successful in maintaining
an open, liberatory space, outside the control of traditional parties or
political tendencies. One reflection of this was that the organizers decided
not to pay the travel and accommodation expenses of celebrity speakers, choosing
instead to create a “solidarity fund" to finance the transportation costs
of representatives from poor communities. As a result, there was a visible
presence of grassroots activists from a large number of countries who rarely get
the chance to meet together, ranging from India to Cambodia, and from Bolivia to
Haiti. Also instead of having plenaries where internationally
recognized speakers address tens of thousands at a time, all events at this
year’s WSF were self-organized workshops, involving at the most 2,000 at a
time. This allowed for more face-to-face dialogue and less demagogic
speech-making by self-appointed left-wing “spokespersons." The one exception was the speech given by Luiz Ignacio
da Silva (Lula), leader of the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT) and president
since 2003. His speech capped a rally of 200,000 that opened the event. The PT
had long been a moving force behind the WSF, but after two years in power--in
which Lula’s PT has adopted much of the neo-liberal economic policies that the
WSF was created to oppose--there is growing disillusionment in Brazil over his
rule. This was reflected in the boos he received from parts of the crowd, though
many also cheered Lula--especially when he attacked Bush. WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE? The fact that dissatisfaction with the PT’s policies
did not dampen the turnout--85% of those present were from Brazil--indicates
that the movement against global capital has not yet run its course. If
anything, the criticism of Lula’s policies helped raise the level of
discussion. Many said recent events in Brazil and elsewhere make it more
important than ever not just to critique globalized capitalism but to determine
what kind of new society we are for. One reflection of this is the widespread view among many
that the notion of seizing power and then only afterwards figuring out how to
reorganize society is no longer valid. This perspective was especially
predominant in sessions sponsored by indigenous rights groups and at the
international youth encampment, where 35,000 camped out (at least 80% of the
crowd at the WSF was under 30 years of age). As the Movimiento Raiz, based in the Andean region, put
it: “We refuse to be articulated around the paradoxical and frustrating
strategy of ‘resisting power by becoming power yourself’ and ‘to take
power with the goal of afterwards changing society’ which ended in the massive
retreat of the extinct ‘socialist’ camp facing capitalism, which facilitated
the counter-revolution of global capitalism, euphemistically named
‘globalization.’ Our democracy should be a total, social, direct,
alternative and planetary democracy. A new network of new theories is needed
with new movements which reinvents and redefines socialism and democracy." This perspective also characterized the many sessions
devoted to feminism, some of which had as many as 1,500 women from 30 different
countries in them at a time. Some were devoted to the upcoming Women’s Global
March for Humanity, which will begin on March 8 in Sao Paulo and end in Burkino
Faso in October. The march plans to visit 50 countries, visiting rural areas as
well as cities. The diverse group of women who spoke, ranging from Canada to
South Africa to Dalits from India, made it clear that they wanted the
discussions at the WSF to lead to greater coordinated action by women around the
world instead of relying on state powers. The hunger for new ideas to address alternatives was
palpable throughout the WSF, though few sessions addressed specific theories
that can help illuminate the content of a non-capitalist society. The difference
between Marx’s concepts and those of many post-Marx Marxists was raised only
rarely. One exception was a panel on “Rosa Luxemburg in the
21st Century." It included a vibrant discussion on what the founder of
Marxist-Humanism, Raya Dunayevskaya, called "THE problematic of our
day--the question of socialist democracy AFTER the revolutionary conquest of
power." A question posed by a 19-year-old woman--which followed
a discussion in which Brazilian youth asked questions about Marx’s Humanism,
its difference from Marxist-Leninism, and the relation between social revolution
and Marx’s critique of alienation--summed up the challenge being posed by many
young activists today: "I don’t know much about Luxemburg. I haven’t
read much theory. But I have many questions. Two years ago we were all so
excited about Lula’s election. We thought things would change. But now we see
he won’t fight for the workers. Everyone now feels so alienated. How do we
know this won’t happen again and again? I want to keep fighting but I’m not
sure what’s the point if we’re going to keep going through this. How can
these ideas you are discussing help us stay in the fight for a different
society?" INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS The strength of the WSF also reflects weaknesses, both
politically and philosophically. The desire to have open dialog and to avoid the
factionalism of the old vanguardist Left sometimes led to a reluctance to raise
contentious issues. One expression of this is the tendency to focus on
"neo-liberalism" and criticism of the U.S. while saying little or
nothing about Islamic fundamentalism and other tendencies that adopt a narrow
anti-imperialist position. Many speakers virtually equated
"neo-liberalism" and even capitalist globalization with the U.S.--as
if the world isn’t full of oppressive regimes and sub-imperialisms outside of
direct U.S. control. Likewise, in several panels the "Iraqi
resistance" was uncritically heralded--even though much of this
"resistance" has been busy murdering Iraqi trade unionists and
feminists who don’t accept a fundamentalist or neo-Ba’athist agenda. Many
seemed reluctant to criticize such regressive tendencies on the grounds that
opposing the U.S. as THE enemy of humanity trumps all other concerns. The failure to recognize that we face not one but two
enemies--established society AND tendencies that oppose it in the name of
anti-human agendas--can hardly enable the movement against global capital to
overcome the lack of clarity it exhibited in response to the attacks of
September 11, 2001. Another problem was the lack of concrete, rigorous
discussion about the content of a new society. It is one thing to say
"another world is possible"; it is quite another to engage in the
theoretical work of addressing how to create a new society freed from the
dominance of capital. Some at the WSF went no further than calling for a
redistribution of global resources while refraining from any socialist or
revolutionary perspective. Others who consider themselves revolutionary and who
realize the futility of reducing everything to seizing power concluded that what
is needed is to carve out autonomous zones freed from the impact of capital
wherein we can "try to live differently." However such a notion cannot long hold the attention of
humanity so long as global capitalism is bent on destroying any haven that tries
to remain freed from the capital-relation. Much of the movement has absorbed a key lesson of the aborted revolutions of our time--namely, that having a centralized leadership or a vanguard party is the road to disaster. This creates an openness to decentralized forms of organization and calls for genuine democracy, but it does not by itself lead to filling the philosophic void in articulating an alternative to capitalism. And when there is a void the old can rush back in to supply easy answers. A RETURN TO STATISM? One expression of the tendency to hem in a new reality
into an old duality was the "blueprint document" signed by 19
intellectuals as the WSF was ending that outlined specific "programmatic
goals" that the movement should focus on. This 12-point document, hammered
out in the privacy of a hotel room, called for debt cancellation, a Tobin tax on
international financial transactions, "equitable terms of trade," and
moving the UN from New York to a "southern" location. The signers of
this rather unradical document included Candido Grybiwski, Jose Saramago, Tariq
Ali, and Immanuel Wallerstein. It is doubtful that this document will have much
impact, since it was viewed by many as contradicting the horizontal, democratic
character of the WSF. More serious is the attraction of Hugo Chavez’s
"Bolivarian Revolution" in Venezuela. Chavez spoke as the WSF was
ending in Gigantinho Stadium in Porto Alegre. Tens of thousands at the WSF
turned out for his speech, hoping that he would present himself as a radical
alternative to Lula. Chavez chose not to criticize Lula in his speech, though he
did energize the crowd by proclaiming for the first time that he is in favor of
"socialism." Chavez declared: "We must transcend capitalism. But
we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the
USSR. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project, and a path, but a new
type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the
state ahead of everything. That’s the debate we must promote around the world.
The WSF is a good place to do it." The question is what Chavez really means by such lofty
words, since much of the movement against global capital had been wary of his
populism out of fear that he favors a top-down "revolution" that acts
"in the interests" of the masses instead of allowing them to transform
society on their own. Yet such criticisms of Chavez are increasingly taking
the back seat--partly out of a sense of desperation over other alternatives and
partly because many harbor illusions that "nationalized industry" is
an alternative to "neo-liberalism." Chavez is surely playing the nationalization card. In
January he nationalized Venepol, Venezuela’s largest paper products plant. It
was closed by its private owners several years ago as part of an effort to
unseat Chavez; in response, workers occupied the plant and ran it on their own
through workers’ self-management until last September, when it again closed.
Chavez now plans for the state to run the plant, with a promise that it can be
"converted" into a co-management structure between the state and
workers at some unspecified future date. Many leftists are hailing this as a
"revolutionary" act--even though it was announced that the plant will
be organized by the Labor Ministry. Chavez also plans to create several
state-run food-processing plants to "break the monopoly" of the
private sector and to nationalize plants in the key industrial region of Guayana.
It should be noted that several plants in the region that are already state-run,
like Alcar, an aluminum processing plant, have experienced conflicts between
workers and management. Given Chavez’s increasing penchant for nationalized
property, it is no wonder that he recently warmly praised Russia’s President
Putin, who has sought to move Russia away from the wholesale privatization of
the 1990s. While the ultimate trajectory of Chavez’s
"Bolivarian Revolution" is far from clear, the fact that many in the
movement against global capital are jumping to embrace him is a disturbing sign.
In the absence of a comprehensive concept of a new society that transcends both
free market privatization and statist nationalization, many are reverting to the
old notion that the nationalization of property represents the negation of
capitalism--despite almost 100 years of evidence to the contrary. The promise of the WSF, and of the movement against global capital as a whole, will be thwarted by accepting half-way houses or shortcuts to liberation. The fact that the WSF continues to grow, as seen in plans to hold several regional forums around the world in 2006 and a unified WSF in Africa in 2007, is a welcome sign. For the movement not to become compromised by existing society, however, the development of a comprehensive concept of a GENUINE alternative is imperative. That is not just for "others" to engage in. It is THE task facing us all. |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
