a) failure to recognise the durability of the nation-state form (and its potential merits for poor and working people who make concrete demands for social change, and for their protection from the ravages of int'l capital);
b) underestimating the revolution in power relations at the international scale that would be required to allow the Hardt/Negri dream of a global social wage in our lifetimes (hence the need for a) above);
c) propagating the view that the Zapatista-era Peoples Global Action was the basis for the contemporary struggle against neoliberalism (hence ignoring the previous 15 years of heightening class struggle across the South--and not merely the nod to the tactics as below, but more importantly, ignoring the *programmatic content* of those engaged in mass proto-socialist struggles in Korea, South Africa, Brazil and lots of places inbetween from the 1980s onwards); and
d) the mistaken view that apparently post-fordist organisational models of organising (nearly entirely tactical in character) are any kind of replacement for what is ultimately needed, namely a left political party to take state power.
But I hope you bring all your comrades down here next September, to convince us we're wrong, while joining in protest at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. There's a tiny black bloc emerging (the http://southafrica.indymedia.org site is probably where it'll raise its head). And there are some formal anarchist groups that put out Africa-oriented material (I'm sure you're in touch with them already). Most importantly, as the debate over whether to fix or nix the WSSD begins in earnest, we are also at the stage of learning whether there's anything in the embryos of global good-governance blahblah (e.g. Kyoto) that can be justified... or whether all the WSSD processes point inexorably to the commodification of everything (e.g. all the corporate/WB-dominated water debates). So if there's anything concrete that you comrades can find to undergird your faith in global-democratic solutions, let us know. Otherwise I think our comrades are back to the kinds of nation-state scale demands that--if you saw the Washington Post on Tuesday, where free basic electricity in Soweto can only be had by national cross-subsidisation--allow for some pretty good progress on the township streets.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Munson" <chuck at tao.ca> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>; <infoshop-news at infoshop.org> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 6:12 AM Subject: The Globalization Movement: Points of Clarification By David Graeber
>
http://slash.autonomedia.org/article.pl?sid=01/11/09/2216253&mode=nocomment&
threshold=
>
> THE GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT: SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION -- By David
> Graeber
>
>
> A great deal of nonsense has been written about the so-called
> antiglobalization movement-particularly the more radical, direct action
> end of it-and very little has been written by anyone who has spent any
> time inside it. As Pierre Bourdieu recently noted, the neglect of the
> movement by North American academics is nothing short of scandalous.
> Academics who for years have published essays that sound like position
> papers for large social movements that do not in fact exist seem seized
> with confusion or worse, highminded contempt, now that real ones are
> everywhere emerging. As an active participant in the movement as well as
> an anthropologist, I want to provide some broad background for those
> intellectuals who might be interested in taking up some of their
> historical responsibilities. This essay is meant to clear away a few
> misconceptions.
>
> The phrase "antiglobalization" movement was coined by the corporate
> media, and people inside the movement, especially in the non-NGO, direct
> action camp, have never felt comfortable with it. Essentially, this is a
> movement against neoliberalism, and for creating new forms of global
> democracy. Unfortunately, that statement is almost meaningless in the
> US, since the media insist on framing such issues only in propagandistic
> terms ("free trade," "free market") and the term neoliberalism is not in
> general use. As a result, in meetings one often hears people using the
> expressions "globalization movement" and "antiglobalization movement"
> interchangeably.
>
>
> In fact, if one takes globalization to mean the effacement of borders
> and the free movement of people, possessions and ideas, then it's pretty
> clear that not only is the movement a product of globalization, but that
> most of the groups involved in it- particularly the most radical
> ones-are in fact far more supportive of globalization in general than
> supporters of the International Monetary Fund or World Trade
> Organization. The real origins of the movement, for example, lie in an
> international network called People's Global Action (PGA). PGA emerged
> from a 1998 Zapatista encuentro in Barcelona, and its founding members
> include not only anarchist groups in Spain, Britain and Germany, but a
> Gandhian socialist peasant league in India, the Argentinian teachers'
> union, indigenous groups such as the Maori of New Zealand and Kuna of
> Ecuador, the Brazilian landless peasants' movement and a network made up
> of communities founded by escaped slaves in South and Central America.
> North America was for a long time one of the few areas that was hardly
> represented (except for the Canadian Postal Workers Union, which acted
> as PGA's main communications hub until it was largely replaced by the
> internet). It was PGA that put out the first calls for days of action
> such as J18 and N30-the latter, the original call for direct action
> against the 1999 WTO meetings in Seattle.
>
> Internationalism is also reflected in the movement's demands. Here one
> need look only at the three great planks of the platform of the Italian
> group Ya Basta! (appropriated, without acknowledgment, by Michael Hardt
> and Tony Negri in their book Empire): a universally guaranteed "basic
> income," a principle of global citizenship that would guarantee free
> movement of people across borders, and a principle of free access to new
> technology-which in practice would mean extreme limits on patent rights
> (themselves a very insidious form of protectionism). More and more,
> protesters have been trying to draw attention to the fact that the
> neoliberal vision of "globalization" is pretty much limited to the free
> flow of commodities, and actually increases barriers against the flow of
> people, information and ideas. As we [?] often point out, the size of
> the US border guard has in fact almost tripled since signing of NAFTA.
> This is not really surprising, since if it were not possible to
> effectively imprison the majority of people in the world in impoverished
> enclaves where even existing social guarantees could be gradually
> removed, there would be no incentive for companies like Nike or The Gap
> to move production there to begin with. The protests in Genoa, for
> example, were kicked off by a 50,000-strong march calling for free
> immigration in and out of Europe-a fact that went completely unreported
> by the international press, which the next day headlined claims by
> George Bush and Tony Blair that protesters were calling for a "fortress
> Europe."
>
> In striking contrast with past forms of internationalism, however, this
> movement has not simply advocated exporting Western organizational
> models to the rest of the world; if anything, the flow has been the
> other way around. Most of the movement's techniques (consensus process,
> spokescouncils, even mass nonviolent civil disobedience itself) were
> first developed in the global South. In the long run, this may well
> prove the most radical thing about it.
>
> Ever since Seattle, the international media have endlessly decried the
> supposed violence of direct action. The US media invoke this term most
> insistently, despite the fact that after two years of increasingly
> militant protests in the US, it is still impossible to come up with a
> single example of someone physically injured by a protester. I would say
> that what really disturbs the powers-that-be is that they do not know
> how to deal with an overtly revolutionary movement that refuses to fall
> into familiar patterns of armed resistance.
>
> Here there is often a very conscious effort to destroy existing
> paradigms. Where once it seemed that the only alternatives to marching
> along with signs were either Gandhian non-violent civil disobedience or
> outright insurrection, groups like the Direct Action Network, Reclaim
> the Streets, Black Blocs or Ya Basta! have all, in their own ways, been
> trying to map out a completely new territory in between. They're
> attempting to invent what many call a "new language" of protest
> combining elements of what might otherwise be considered street theater,
> festival and what can only be called nonviolent warfare (nonviolent in
> the sense adopted by, say, Black Bloc anarchists, of eschewing any
> direct physical harm to human beings). Ya Basta! for example is famous
> for its tuti bianci or white overalls: elaborate forms of padding,
> ranging from foam armor to inner tubes to rubber-ducky flotation
> devices, helmets and their signature chemical-proof white jumpsuits. As
> this nonviolent army pushes its way through police barricades while
> protecting each other against injury or arrest, the ridiculous gear
> seems to reduce human beings to cartoon characters-misshapen, ungainly
> but almost impossible to damage. (The effect is only increased when
> lines of costumed figures attack police with balloons and water pistols
> or feather dusters.) Even the most militant-say, eco-saboteurs like the
> Earth Liberation Front-scrupulously avoid anything that would cause harm
> to human beings (or for that matter, animals). It's this scrambling of
> conventional categories that so throws off the forces of order and makes
> them desperate to bring things back to familiar territory (simple
> violence): even to the point, as in Genoa, of encouraging fascist
> hooligans to run riot as an excuse to use overwhelming force.
>
> Actually, the Zapatistas, who inspired so much of the movement, could
> themselves be considered a precedent here as well. They are about the
> least violent "army" one can imagine (it is something of an open secret
> that, for the last five years at least, they have not even been carrying
> real guns). These new tactics are perfectly in accord with the general
> anarchistic inspiration of the movement, which is less about seizing
> state power than about exposing, delegitimizing and dismantling
> mechanisms of rule while winning ever-larger spaces of autonomy from it.
> The critical thing, though, is that all this is only possible in a
> general atmosphere of peace. In fact, it seems to me that these are the
> ultimate stakes of struggle at the moment: a moment that may well
> determine the overall direction of the 21st century.
>
> It is hard to remember now that (as Eric Hobsbawm reminds us) during the
> late-19th century, anarchism was the core of the revolutionary left
> -this was a time when most Marxist parties were rapidly becoming
> reformist social democrats. This stituation only really changed with
> World War I, and of course the Russian revolution. It was the success of
> the latter, we are usually told, that led to the decline of anarchism
> and catapulted Communism everywhere to the fore. But it seems to me one
> could look at this another way. In the late-19th century people honestly
> believed that war had been made obsolete between industrialized powers;
> colonial adventures were a constant, but a war between France and
> England on French or English soil seemed as unthinkable as it would
> today. By 1900, even the use of passports was considered an antiquated
> barbarism.
>
> The 20th century (which appears to have begun in 1914 and ended sometime
> around 1989 or '91) was by contrast the most violent in human history.
> It was a century almost entirely preoccupied with either waging world
> wars or preparing for them. Hardly surprising, then, as the ultimate
> measure of political effectiveness became the ability to create and
> maintain huge mechanized killing machines, that anarchism quickly came
> to seem irrelevant. This is, after all, the one thing that anarchists
> can never, by definition, be very good at. Neither is it surprising that
> Marxism (whose parties were already organized on a command structure,
> and for whom the organization of huge mechanized killing machines often
> proved the only thing they were particularly good at) seemed eminently
> practical and realistic in comparison. And could it really be a
> coincidence that the moment the cold war ended and war between
> industrialized powers once again seemed unimaginable, anarchism popped
> right back to where it had been at the end of the 19th century, as an
> international movement at the very center of the revolutionary left?
>
> If so, it becomes more clear what the ultimate stakes of the current
> "anti-terrorist" mobilization are. In the short run, things look very
> frightening for a movement that governments were desperately calling
> terrorist even before September 11. There is little doubt that a lot of
> good people are about to suffer terrible repression. But in the long
> run, a return to 20th-century levels of violence is simply impossible.
> The spread of nuclear weapons alone will ensure that larger and larger
> portions of the globe are simply off-limits to conventional warfare. And
> if war is the health of the state, the prospects for anarchist-style
> organizing can only be improving.
>
> I can't remember how many articles I've read in the left press asserting
> that the globalization movement, while tactically brilliant, has no
> central theme or coherent ideology. These complaints seem to be the
> left-wing equivalent of the incessant claims in the corporate media that
> this is a movement made up of dumb kids touting a bundle of completely
> unrelated causes. Even worse are the claims-which one sees surprisingly
> frequently in the work of academic social theorists who should know
> better, like Hardt and Negri, or Slavoj Zizek-that the movement is
> plagued by a generic opposition, rooted in bourgeois individualism, to
> all forms of structure or organization. It's distressing that, two years
> after Seattle, I should even have to write this, but someone obviously
> should: in North America especially, this is a movement about
> reinventing democracy. It is not opposed to organization; it is about
> creating new forms of organization. It is not lacking in ideology; those
> new forms of organization are its ideology. It is a movement about
> creating and enacting horizontal networks instead of top-down
> (especially, state-like, corporate or party) structures, networks based
> on principles of decentralized, nonhierarchical
> consensus democracy.
>
> Over the past 10 years in particular, activists in North America have
> been putting enormous creative energy into reinventing their groups' own
> internal processes to create a viable model of what functioning direct
> democracy could look like, drawing particularly, as I've noted, on
> examples from outside the Western tradition. The result is a rich and
> growing panoply of organizational forms and instruments-affinity groups,
> spokescouncils, facilitation tools, break-outs, fishbowls, blocking
> concerns, vibes-watchers and so on-all aimed at creating forms of
> democratic process that allow initiatives to rise from below and attain
> maximum effective solidarity without stifling dissenting voices,
> creating leadership positions or compelling people to do anything to
> which they have not freely consented. It is very much a work in
> progress, and creating a culture of democracy among people who have
> little experience of such things is necessarily a painful and uneven
> business, but- as almost any police chief who has faced protestors on
> the streets can attest-direct democracy of this sort can be remarkably
> effective.
>
> Here I want to stress the relation of theory and practice this
> organizational model entails. Perhaps the best way to start thinking
> about groups like the Direct Action Network (which I've been working
> with for the past two years) is to see it as the diametrical opposite of
> the kind of sectarian Marxist group that has so long characterized the
> revolutionary left. Where the latter puts its emphasis on achieving a
> complete and correct theoretical analysis, demands ideological
> uniformity and juxtaposes a vision of an egalitarian future with
> extremely authoritarian forms of organization in the present, DAN openly
> seeks diversity: its motto might as well be, "if you are willing to act
> like an anarchist in the present, your long-term vision is pretty much
> your own business." Its ideology, then, is immanent in the
> antiauthoritarian principles that underlie its practice, and one of its
> more explicit principles is that things should stay that way.
>
> There is indeed something very new here, and something potentially
> extremely important. Consensus process-in which one of the basic rules
> is that one always treats others' arguments as fundamentally reasonable
> and principled, whatever one thinks about the person making it-in
> particular creates an extremely different style of debate and argument
> than the sort encouraged by majority voting, one in which the incentives
> are all towards compromise and creative synthesis rather than
> polarization, reduction and treating minor points of difference like
> philosophical ruptures. I need hardly point out how much our accustomed
> modes of academic discourse resemble the latter-or even more, perhaps,
> the kind of sectarian reasoning that leads to endless splits and
> fragmentation, which the "new new left" (as it is sometimes called) has
> so far managed almost completely to avoid. It seems to me that in many
> ways the activists are way ahead of the theorists here, and that the
> most challenging problem for us will be to create forms of intellectual
> practice more in tune with newly emerging forms of democratic practice,
> rather than with the tiresome sectarian logic those groups have finally
> managed to set aside.
>
>