Report of symposium 18/03 globalisation movement

he
event was organised by Dissent-nl , the Transnational Institute and the solidarity fund XminusY . Several 'activist
intellectuals' shared their reflections and ideas in two interrelated panels.

Part
One: What have we learned from the past?

The
first panel focused on the 'historical trajectories of global resistance'. The
speakers were Peter Waterman, a specialist on labour movements and the social
forum process and Gemma Galdón from the Transnational Institute and the
research project "New Politics".

The
labour movements and the global justice movements

Kees
Hudig introduced the panel with an outline of the last decade, highlighting
several important historical developments and trajectories of the resistance
against neo-liberal globalisation and suggestions as to what we can learn from
them. Peter Waterman starts his presentation by critically proposing that the
‘new movement’ is often not aware of its own history. The start of new social
movements is often related either to the Zapatistas who stood up against free
trade agreements in 1994 or to the protests against the World Trade
Organisation in Seattle in 1999. The history of the labour movement long before
the 19th century and its political importance and achievements are frequently
forgotten.

 

He asks
why it is that representatives of the third world, women and peasants are
present at the World Social Forums and the labour movement is not? The majority
of humans are workers, but the topic of ‘labour’ has marginalised itself and
has been marginalised, the low representation of labour at the World Social
Forum (WSF) is only one example of this development. Why did the labour
movement vanish as an archetype of the privileged actor? Waterman points out
that working class organisations suffered from deregulation and the
individualisation of the production process, but that they were also seduced by
capitalist ideologies through the incorporation of the working class in mass
consumerism. Further, many of the trade unions allied themselves to governing
neo-liberal forces. Waterman argues that the link between labour unions and the
new global movement is therefore not a simple one but comparable to ‘how
porcupines make love: very carefully’. There is a tension between both
movements and an asymmetrical relation between their institutions. The
tensions, however, could be surmounted if the labour movement adapts itself to
new political realities, becomes less hierarchical and learns from the new
social movements in spaces such as the WSF. Hopefully, the future will give us
new insights about how this process will evolve.

Reflecting
on summit protests

Gemma
Galdón starts by raising the question of how we should look at the past decade
of protests, how we could reflect on them and represent them. An interesting
insight is given when we look at the historical chronology of protests or at,
for example, a geographical map of anti-globalisation actions. It shows us that
the world around us is changing and not only the movement itself changes, which
we often fail to notice. There have been major changes in the international
world order, considering for instance the impact of 9/11 and new technological
developments, specifically in media and communications technologies. According
to Galdón, the global justice movement has mutated especially in the last three
years. There is a higher pressure on neoliberalism, dissent has established
itself and climate change, for instance, has been put high up on the political
agenda. She points out that there are new challenges around us. One example is
that the ‘we and them’ distinction is blurred, referring to the Make Poverty
History and the ‘Live8’ campaign during the G8 summit in Scotland where Bono,
Geldof and even Blair presented themselves as allies of the movement. These
actors adopt the movement’s concepts and ideas and co-opt its confrontational
tactics. Galdón argues that the ‘we’ that we use is a traditional concept which
has become unstable because of changes in the constitution of political
movements, the evolution of technology and the individual ‘blog’ explosion.

Different
protests in our collective memory function as a metaphorical glue. We should
ask ourselves what we achieve with these protests. Are summit protests more of
a ritual than a strategy? According to Galdón '"we all should go to the G8
protests, but we should debate why we are going". She proposes that we are
focusing too much on protest events; we should not forget that history will not
change through summit protests but by everyday practice. The question now is
how we translate new forms of politics into our daily atmosphere and how we
claim back our streets and institutions. Galdón ends her talk with the question
of “how can we make the G8-protest more than a ritual?”

Part
Two: The future. Where do we go from here?

Christian
Scholl introduced this panel by reminding us that already in June 1999, before
Seattle, important global protests took place, such as in Cologne against the
G8 and simultaneously in the financial district in London. After London’s
‘J18’, a debate evolved around the article “Give up activism”, which offered a strong
critique of the reified identity of activists as ‘specialists of social
change’. It argued that this specialist identity prevented connections with
local communities, while activists focused on their next big protest events.
Without wanting to repeat this debate, the second panel is an attempt to
reflect on the consequences of such a critique. How do we have to organise in
order to create participatory communities? How can we connect radical and broad
demands to the realities of the people of our communities? Both speakers, Amory
Starr and Ben Trott, are actively involved in social movements. Ben Trott was
active in the mobilisation against the G8 in Gleneagles in 2005 and now in
Germany and co-editor of the book ‘Shut them down ' – The G8, Gleneagles 2005
and the movement of movements’ of the Dissent network. Ben now works with the Interventionist Left
alliance in Germany. Amory Starr is based in the U.S., as a professor in
sociology and author of ‘Naming the
enemy: Anti-corporate movements confront globalisation’ (2000) and ‘Global
Revolt’ (2007).

 

Building
participatory democratic communities

Amory
Starr introduces her talk with Zapatista statement well-known in activist
circles: ‘Be a Zapatista wherever you are’, which was the answer the Zapatistas
gave whenever people abroad wanted to know how they could support their
struggle. The question arises how one might be a Zapatistas outside Chiapas.
Starr recently worked on a project collecting data on the practices of
participative democracy of the Zapatistas in Mexico and of the MST (Landless
Workers’ Movement) in Brazil. Amory argues that these practices might be
inspiring when thinking about ‘our’ future ways of organising and living
together, this presentation outlines some of their main principles of
organisation.

Within
the civil structures of the Zapatistas, there is an emphasis on sharing the
experience of government, that is the actual practice of governing. There are
municipal councils and five regional councils, in which an equal number of men
and women are elected and the functions rotate. The civilian committees take
all the decisions. The major decisions take place in ‘consultas’ that are open
for everybody and in which one can bring in all the daily life experiences one
wants to talk about. Due to the high level of participation, major decisions
can take up to six months.

The MST
in Brazil mainly works on reclaiming land for the rural community. The whole
organisation had to be organised from scratch. Reclaiming land necessitates
that a community is formed first, afterwards land is occupied. This is why here
also, many meetings are needed, however, the MST also believes that meetings
are necessary in themselves for ‘ideological formation’. Every meeting starts
with a ritual, which can be said to have catholic, Marxist and other cultural
and political elements. The MST views these rituals as central to their
functioning as they form part of the ideological underpinnings of the
community, necessary for social cohesion. Similar to the Zapatista structures,
community members participate in 'government' which implies that every MST
member has to be involved in one or more decision-making bodies. One man and
one woman are elected from the communities to the next higher meeting. MST has
activists who receive intensive training to help new groups to occupy land.
When a settlement is established, which takes around four years, the activists
leave to help set up another community.

Participative
democracy for both, the Zapatistas and the MST is learning and doing. Autonomy
is fundamental to them. Both movements start with the own behaviour of the
participants and emphasise self-government. Both have strict rules forbidding
alcohol, drugs and domestic violence. But there are differences as well:
participatory democracy for the Zapatistas is based on rotation, for the MST on
continuity; resources are important for both movements, but the Zapatistas are
against state resources, whereas the MST believes that they can use these
resources strategically on their own conditions and in combination with
challenging the state; both emphasise their autonomy and that means for the
Zapatistas a clear ‘no’ to political parties, whereas MST allows cooperation
with political parties. Their meeting cultures also show differences: in the
Zapatista communities everyone can speak at meetings as and long as they like.
When someone does not agree they talk further until the whole community agrees.
In the MST meetings, talking time is restricted to 5 minutes for everyone. In
both movements, people have to continue their education, including older
people; having obligations to the movement is important. Amory concluded her
presentation by arguing that the decision-making and other organisational
experimentations of both these movements can and should be an inspiration for
other social movements in the North.

Unity
in diversity, how to move beyond?

Ben
Trott’s presentation ‘Walking in the right direction?’ posed the question of
the role of political militants and political interventions and how these
could be generalised. He argues the global situation after Seattle has changed
and a break has occurred with the ideology that people can do nothing to change
their lives and a social and political system. A first challenge to the
neo-liberalism dogma has taken place. But the neo-liberal crisis also confronts
social movements with their own limitations. We have many different single
issue movements dealing with workers, queers, eco-ideologists, etc., but also
in this regard there is a major difference between before and after Seattle.
Nowadays, there is a break with old anarchist and Marxist/Leninist slogans and
ideas. We can, as the slogan goes, "Go Walking and Asking Questions"
at the same time. But the question then is: Walking where? And which other
world (is possible?).

Fundamental
to ‘our’ movement is the question: how to create a world that makes many worlds
possible. For this creation we need some directions. Ben Trott pledges for the
use of ‘directional demands’ which the movement should formulate and which aim
to break with capitalism. However, it is not only important to know the
direction these demands show us, but also where they came from. Trott sees two
important directional demands: First, a guaranteed global basic income. The
demand for basic income, he argues, is not naïve, but can realistically be
implemented. Ben mentions different economists who defend basic income and who
see it as realistic politics. Secondly, the right to migrate. This includes the
rights for legalisation, for open border, etc.

In the
late 1890s, social democratic movements with minimum programmes for mass
parties hoped to create the condition for socialism. Trotsky criticised social
democracy and asked for transitional demands and international struggles. But
both, social democrats and Trotskyites used the same (hierarchical) strategy.
Directional demands may appear reformist, however, Ben argues, they are not if
they are unconditional: there is no limit with regard to the articulation of
the demand. A difference to Trotsky’s transitional demands is that now we are
in the historical period of post-Fordism: transitional demands have to be
changed into directional demands. Ben argues that such demands are a political
necessity and important strategy to achieve the reality of ‘a different world’.

(report
by Jerry de Mars and Saskia Poldervaart)

Discussion

Some
points arose our of a discussion with the public:

Discussion
points on the first panel revolved around the role of NGOs in the movement and
the question if trade unions and new social movements were compatible, as trade
unions tend to be hierarchical and untransparent. Gemma Galdon was asked why
she did not mention capital and other economic factors as influences in the
changes that have taken place these last decades. In relation to the second
panel, Amory Starr was asked if there is no longer any alienation in the
Zapatista and MST-movements and if their claim to participative democracy and
autonomy holds true. Further, the question arose if we should not be suspicious
of rituals and ideological formations such as promoted by the MST, given the
historical lesson we learned from real socialism and its anti-individual
tendencies that often violate fundamental civil liberties. Amory replies that
she is an anti-anti-romantic and values the participatory personalism in both
movements. She also concedes that there is a problem with predominantly male
leadership in the MST (and perhaps in the Zapatista’s as well). Also, consensus
is a faulty system as any other and often problematic.

Peter
Waterman expressed enthusiasm about the demand for global basic income, but
expressed doubts about the directional
demands which sounded like slogans to him. Ben replied that directional demands
were not his personal concept but taken from the feminist movement and
utopians, etc. He concedes they contains element of uncertainty but they also
contain the possibility to move beyond the current limits, so that the spirit
of the demands is its strength. Gemma Galdon brings in the issue of leadership:
What happens when consensus is not supported by everyone? Amory emphasises the
role of trust within these decision-making processes and points out that the
MST to her was one of the most pleasant groups to work with that she ever
experienced.

Other
discussion point with the audience:

– The
danger of demanding basic income is its remaining within the capitalist
economy. Ben counters that basic income can be practiced on different levels;
it could be a social democratic demand, but demanding global basic income
points out the responsibility of the state in providing basic provisions particularly
within a world system.

– The
role of the new governments in Latin America: how do movements position
themselves to governments such as Chavez in Venezuela? This remains a difficult
one to answer, the MST is against collaborating with state advisors but not
against using their money (on their conditions), while the Zapatistas reject
any collaboration with the state at all, arguing that it will ultimately
corrupt the political movement.

– The
danger or importance/innocence of utopias: utopian means not unrealisable but
applying your imagination. A comment from the audience with regard to the
positive evaluation of utopia was that the extreme right also had utopian
elements and that it would be preferable to organise movements on practical demands
instead.

During
an evaluation of the conference it was agreed to continue organising these kind
of meetings. A follow-up event will be organised at the end of June, a few
weeks after the G8-protests, also acting as a debriefing for activists who joined
the protests. More details will be announced later.

Background:

Dissent-nl:
http://www.dissent.nl/

X-Y:
http://www.x-y.org/

TNI:
http://www.tni.org/

Interventionistische
Linke: http://www.g8-2007.de/

Peter
Waterman: http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/4620.html

Amory
Starr: http://www.trabal.org/