< < <
Date Index > > > |
Comments on a Leo Panitch article in the latest MR by Louis Proyect 04 June 2002 15:56 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
full: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0602panitch.htm Panitch: The effectiveness of the mass antiglobalization demonstrations today is patently clear from the way meetings of the global elites have been put on the defensive, and now proclaim their abiding concern with addressing world poverty every time they get together. But there can be no effective change unless and until well-organized new political forces emerge in each country that have the capacity, not just to protest vociferously, but to effect (although the anarchists may not like this way of putting it) a democratic reconstitution of state power, turn it against today’s state-constituted global American empire, and initiate cooperative international strategies among states that will allow for inward-oriented development. Comment: A "democratic reconstitution of state power"? What in the world is this supposed to mean? Marx and Engels, who supposedly Leo writes in the name of, would never use such an amorphous formulation. Panitch: One of the promising aspects of the antiglobalization movement, compared with the antiwar movement of the 1960s, has been that this movement has increasingly designated itself as anticapitalist. This is an important advance over its self-designation as an “anti-free trade” or “anticorporate” movement through much of the 1990s. But, despite its decentralized and participatory visions of another order, the primary objective of that movement has still all too often been to protest the international economic and financial institutions of globalization—behind which stands the imperial state itself and the multitude of large and small, rich and poor states through which and with which it rules, or seeks to, the globe. Comment: Unfortunately, designating oneself as "anticapitalist" lacks the precision of something like "immediate withdrawal from Vietnam" (or "legalize abortion now" for that matter.) The "anticapitalism" of this new movement is not only unfocused, it is open to criticisms that the slogan means different things to different participants. For many of the NGO's, it is a term that suggests displeasure with the way capitalism is being operated, not to capitalism itself. Keep in mind, for example, that the guy who runs Jubilee 2000 out of Great Britain is a member of the WEF. Of course, he is "anticapitalist" in the sense that many people are "anti-corruption"--but so what? Unless a movement can develop SHARPLY FOCUSED DEMANDS, it will fall apart. This was the lesson of the New Left of the 1960s and early 1970s which sneered at the antiwar movement for not building an "anti-imperialist" movement that would end all war. In the final analysis, imperialism went its merry way while the New Left imploded trying to build a movement that it lacked the objective capability to bring to a culmination. Panitch: There is considerable suspicion among antiglobalization direct-action militants of those who would seek a seat at the table. But there is also a growing sense that protest is not enough either. If the Internet has been an asset in unleashing the capacity to organize dissent and resistance on the global stage, it has proved no substitute for the hard work of class formation and political organization that the Landless Movement in Brazil and the Zapatistas in Chiapas had to engage in on their own ground. The Internet may also be indispensable as a way of bringing together 50,000 activists and researchers in Porto Alegre to attend hundreds of panels that discuss the various meanings of “another world is possible,” but it is no substitute for building in each country new parties like the Brazilian Workers Party, post-Communist and post-social democratic, capable of developing new structures of popular democracy as a prelude to and an effect of competing for state power. Comment: Financial Times (London), May 24, 2002 Lula learns to love a free market: Brazil's workers' champion and veteran presidential contender has softened his rhetoric, writes Raymond Colitt In his navy-blue designer suit, sky-blue shirt and bright red tie, the presidential candidate for Brazil's Workers' party is meticulously groomed. Hardly a hair out of place and Luis Inacio Lula da Silva's broad smile reveals immaculate cosmetic dental surgery. It is all in sharp contrast to the rough and ready appearance of the past. When the former metalworker first hit the campaign trail more than a decade ago he was wearing jeans and T-shirt, the uniform of a union activist. Investment bankers and business leaders now compete for time with landless peasants and unions for a slot on the busy agenda of the Workers party champion. Lula, as he is widely known, has not only moderated his appearance but also many of his economic proposals, toning down much of his fiery anti-capitalist rhetoric of yesteryear. (clip) Lula has stepped back from the radical proposals of his early days such as a moratorium on foreign debt or the nationalisation of parts of Brazilian industry. He has embraced some of the basic policies that have ensured economic stability in Brazil, including fiscal discipline, inflation targets, and a floating exchange rate. Roughly a quarter of Brazilians already live in cities and states run by PT governments. Many have proven competent administrators and some have introduced innovative social programmes. "They won't commit any stupidities - a debt moratorium or a sudden, drastic interest rate cut," says Walter Appel, director at Banco Fator, an investment bank in Sao Paulo. He says a PT government, with the support of labour unions and the necessary alliance it would have to form in congress, could even undertake long-stalled reforms such as that of the social security system. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |