Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:34:18 +0100
From: Jan Straathof <janstr-AT-chan.nl>
Subject: Re: Genoa Revisited


Paul,

you wrote:

>I think the use of provocateurs and other means of discrediting political
>opposition has been used for a very long time.  Father Gapon, for instance,
>who led the 1905 Revolution in Russia, was a police spy.  There are many
>other examples. I think what's important to analyse, is why people are
>taking to the street, rather than using the other, perhaps limited,
>democratic
>channels that are open to them.

Yeh, why are people taking to the street (again) ? Obviously, i guess,
because they want to be heard and seen, because they think "it" matters and
because they feel their "voices" make a difference. Imho modern (western)
democracy is still a relatively young (20thC) and weak phenomenon, and
it may well be the case that in the 21thC our (local and global) political
systems will take turn in various non-democratic directions. I think that
democracy still has a long learningprocess ahead and the street (ranging
from Agora to Cyberspace) is a good place to start and come together
and learn what it is to 'move forward as unity in diversity'.

>If there is immense apathy with 'democracy', what else does the anti-
>globalisation movement propose to put in its place, and to what extent
>is this movement another, fledgling Capitalism?

Indeed Paul, this is a serious question and there's much to philosophize
about this issue. Let me quote some lines from the historian and political
philosopher Immanuel Wallerstein. In a recent article "New Revolts
Against The System" [New Left Review, nov-dec 2002], contemplating
on the history of modern anti-systemic movements, he writes:

----
     "The fourth and most recent variant has been the so-called anti-
     globalization movements - a designation applied not so much by
     these movements themselves as by their opponents. The use of the
     term by the media scarcely predates its reporting of the protests at
     the Seattle WTO meetings in 1999. 'Globalization', as the rhetoric
     of neoliberal advocates of free trade in goods and capital, had of
     course become a strong force during the 1990s. Its media focus was
     the Davos World Economic Forum, and its institutional implementation
     was brought about via the Washington Consensus, the policies of the
     IMF and the strengthening of the WTO. Seattle was intended as a key
     moment in expanding the role of the WTO and the significant protests,
     which actually disrupted its proceedings, took many by surprise. The
     demonstrators included a large North American contingent, drawn
     from the Old Left, trade unions, new movements and anarchist groups.
     Indeed, the very fact that the AFL - CIO was ready to be on the same
     side as environmentalist groups in so militant an action was something
     new, especially for the US.

     Following Seattle, the continuing series of demonstrations around
     the world against intergovernmental meetings inspired by the neo-
     liberal agenda led, in turn, to the construction of the World Social
     Forum, whose initial meetings have been held in Porto Alegre; the
     second, in 2002, drew over 50,000 delegates from over a thousand
     organizations. Since then, there have been a number of regional
     meetings, preparing for the 2003 WSF.

     The characteristics of this new claimant for the role of antisystemic
     movement are rather different from those of earlier attempts. First
     of all, the WSF seeks to bring together all the previous types - Old
     Left, new movements, human-rights bodies, and others not easily
     falling into these categories - and includes groups organized in a
     strictly local, regional, national and transnational fashion. The basis
     of participation is a common objective - struggle against the social
     ills consequent on neoliberalism - and a common respect for each
     other's immediate priorities. Importanty, the WSF seeks to bring
     together movements from the North and the South within a single
     framework. The only slogan, as yet, is 'Another World is Possible'.
     Even more strangely, the WSF seeks to do this without creating an
     overall superstructure. At the moment, it has only an international
     coordinating committee, some fifty-strong, representing a variety
     of movements and geographic locations." [36-37]

     "Strategic considerations

     A strategy for the period of transition ought therefore to include
     four components - all of them easier said than done. The first is a
     process of constant, open debate about the transition and the outcome
     we hope for. This has never been easy, and the historic anti-systemic
     movements were never very good at it. But the atmosphere is more
     favourable to day than it has ever been, and the task remains urgent
     and indispensable - under-lining the role of intellectuals in this
     conjuncture. The structure of the WSF has lent itself to encouraging
     this debate; we shall see if it is able to maintain this openness.

     The second component should be self-evident: an antisystemic move-
     ment cannot neglect short-term defensive action, including electoral
     action. The world's populations live in the present, and their immediate
     needs have to be addressed. Any movement that neglects them is
     bound to lose the widespread passive support that is essential for its
     long-term success. But the motive and justification for defensive action
     should not be that of remedying a failing system but rather of preventing
     its negative effects from getting worse in the short run. This is quite
     different psychologically and politically.

     The third component has to be the establishment of interim, middle-
     range goals that seem to move in the right direction. I would suggest
     that one of the most useful - substantively, politically,
psychologically -
     is the attempt to move towards selective, but ever-widening, decommod-
     ification. We are subject today to a barrage of neoliberal attempts to
     commodify what was previously seldom or never appropriated for
     private sale - the human body, water, hospitals. We must not only
     oppose this but move in the other direction. Industries, especially
     failing industries, should be decommodified. This does not mean they
     should be 'nationalized' - for the most part, simply another version
     of commodification. It means we should create structures, operating
     in the market, whose objective is performance and survival rather
     than profit. This can be done, as we know, from the history of
     universities or hospitals - not all, but the best. Why is such a logic
     impossible for steel factories threatened with delocalization ?

     Finally, we need to develop the substantive meaning of our long-
     term emphases, which I take to be a world that is relatively
     democratic and relatively egalitarian. I say 'relatively' because
     that is realistic. There will always be gaps - but there is no reason
     why they should be wide, encrusted or hereditary. Is this what used
     to be called socialism, or even communism ? Perhaps, but perhaps
     not. That brings us back to the issue of debate. We need to stop
     assuming what the better (not the perfect) society will be like. We
     need to discuss it, outline it, experiment with alternative structures
     to realize it; and we need to do this at the same time as we carry out
     the first three parts of our programme for a chaotic world in systemic
     transition. And if this programme is insufficient, and it probably is,
     then this very insufficiency ought to be part of the debate which is
     Point One of the programme." [38-39]
----

>Eric Hobsbaum mentions, in Age of Extremes, that radical
>students in LAm always joined the most radical Left groups, because this
>guaranteed them the best jobs in government after their radicalism had
>faded!

I've heard of this 'theory' before, but is there any real empirical evidence
for this, or it is just another of those west-coast urban legends ? I mean,
does it hold for all of LA's social strata: man/woman, latino's, blacks,
asians ? And how is the picture for the rest of the US ? Here in Holland
the majority of the governmental elite is recruted from big business and
banks (and some academia) - and further i really doubt if and where China,
Brazil or Egypt would fit in Hobsbaum's observation ? (yet, of course,
the Germans have One, viz. the notorious Joska Fisher ;-)

yours,
Jan






     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---