[lbo-talk] "Left Challenges the World Social Forum, " by Peter Waterman (Manichean Marxism )

[Michael Pugliese]

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0401/msg00008.html

--
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-91-1576.jsp
 Left Challenges the World Social Forum
By Peter Waterman
In early November 2003, the coordinating committee of farmers' 
organisations
from across India decided not to associate themselves with the World Social
Forum. Instead, they are creating a separate 'Global Peasant Forum under 
the
banner of Mumbai Resistance-2004 along with other genuine anti-imperialist
forces in India and abroad'.
Mumbai Resistance-2004 (MR2004) describes itself variously as a 'genuine',
'anti-imperialist', 'class', 'activist', 'socialist', 'revolutionary' forum
(see http://www.mumbairesistance.org).
It is a counter-hegemonic movement from the period of
national-industrial-colonial capitalism. This was a machine-age capitalism,
and it gave rise to mechanical interpretations of Marxism. MR belongs, more
specifically, to the 'Marxist-Leninist' (Maoist) tendency and is linked (in
more than a cyberspace sense) with the International League of Peoples
Struggles, (ILPS) and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).
This movement considers discussion and analysis of the rights and wrongs of
globalisation to be a derogation from a 100-year-old Leninist theory of
imperialism. It is therefore suspicious of or hostile to the
anti-globalisation movement. The only concession it will make to the new
movement is that it has managed to capture a widespread and multifarious
discontent internationally. It therefore becomes a suitable object for
penetration and/or competition.
This movement pursues a Marxism of binary opposition, a Manichean Marxism
with oppositions like these:
Capitalism/Socialism
Reform/Revolution
Bourgeoisie/Proletariat
Imperialism/Nationalism
NGO/People's Movement
WSF2004/MR2004
Mass/Vanguard
Civil Society/Class Struggle
Post-Modernism/Marxism
Revisionist Marxists/Revolutionary Marxists
Reflection/Action
Communist Party of India (Marxist)/CPI (Marxist-Leninist)
Workers Party in Brazil/Shining Path in Peru
Lula/Fidel
Ideology/Science
Globalisation/Imperialism
False anti-imperialism/Genuine anti-imperialism
ATTAC/International League of Peoples Struggles
In such a Manichean Marxism, the Proletariat is either 'suffering from 
false
consciousness' (misled by Reformism, Bourgeois Ideology, a Labour
Aristocracy, a Union Bureaucracy, a Wavering Petty-Bourgeoisie,
Imperialism), or led correctly by a Vanguard (representing Science,
Revolution, the long-term general interest of the international
Proletariat).
It has little or nothing to do with a dialectical Marxism, which recognises
internal contradiction (for example, within each of the apparent opposites
above), interpenetration (socialism within capitalism, capitalism within
socialism) and, I would suggest, mutual dependency (that 'reform' and
'revolution' are part of each other's meaning). Nor does it have much to do
with a historical Marxism (specific to a time and place, developing over
time, such as Marxism-Feminism, or Libertarian-Marxism).
Rather it is one that is Essential (fundamental, already present in
Marx-Engels, or Immanent and later revealed by the speaker's favoured
prophet), Universal (applicable worldwide) and Infinite (true for ever).
This tendency was well represented by Lenin when he said that 'Marxism is
All-Powerful Because it is True'. This can, did and does lead to 
unfortunate
corollaries, such as 'I am all-powerful, therefore what I say is true is
Marxism'.
Whilst it is easy to recognise, and satirise, the discourse linking those
associated with MR2004, it is more difficult to decide what attitude one
should take toward them. There is a matter of who they meaningfully
represent (as distinguished from their customarily-inflated claims, and
their problematic notions of 'representation'), and what kind of threat 
they
represent to the healthy development of the process of which the World
Social Forum is a central part.
The best example - the major example - of Manichean Marxism on these sites
is where they engage with the Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). Within
their discourse, the NGO occupies the position of Extreme Evil - even if 
the
speaker's particular party is not named as representing Highest Virtue.
NGOs, in this view, are agents of imperialism, confusing, corrupting and
misleading the masses. Much evidence and argument is mustered to drive home
these points. Statements from the World Bank, MNCs and other agents of
imperial power are quoted to show how shamelessly these promote NGOs.
Figures are provided revealing the extent to which the Ford Foundation in
the US, or the ICCO in the Netherlands, may be funding or otherwise
supporting the WSF. All this evidence may be accurate, if not particularly
new. But the general interpretation of them is somewhat problematic.
Earlier this year, there was created in the USA a body called NGOWatch. The
neo-conservatives behind this project share a Manichean - although not, of
course a Marxist - view of NGOs, seeing them as unrepresentative, agents of
communalism, and even enemies of major US corporations!
One awaits with some interest the Manichean Marxists's response to 
NGOWatch.
To be consistent with the Conspiratorial Manifesto, they would have to say
that NGOWatch has been created in order to mislead the masses into 
believing
that NGOs are not agents of imperialism!
What this confirms, in my view, is that 'NGO', like 'Civil Society' is a
fiercely disputed term (like all the interesting ones), and that what they
are or mean can only be understood according to how they are articulated
with other phenomena and discourses, such as those of class, capitalism,
patriarchy, imperialism and - today particularly - globalisation. This
means, I guess, that we need to consider such concepts relationally,
historically and concretely. And then to discuss different understandings 
so
as to be able to achieve effective emancipatory action internationally.
A dialectical and historical approach to the NGO phenomenon (Marxist or 
not)
must come to terms with its complex and contradictory nature (see, for
example, Mary Kaldor on accountability), and to surpass, rather than simply
accept, a negative definition which only tells us what these are not.
In the meantime I would like to suggest that the rise of NGOs is
simultaneously an indication of an ideological/political crisis of capital
and state (increasingly challenged from civil society) and an attempt to
circumvent or dominate this (through the creation, surveillance and
discrimination of NGOs). To assume that because those with power favour,
fund or legitimise something, it is reduced to their mere instrument is to
underestimate both the social forces working in another direction and the
sophistication of the bourgeoisie.
If, for example, the Ford Foundation is funding the World Social Forum, as
it is, this suggests to me that the Ford Foundation is cleverer than the
Manichean Marxists. Do contradictions hold up when they reach the doors of
the Ford Foundation? I don't think so. Contradiction is everywhere. I
recall, in 1970, asking a US radical, researching workers in Northern
Nigeria, how he could possibly be funded by Ford. He said: 'I am the
internal contradiction in the Ford Foundation!'. I do not recall his
consequent PhD as being notably functional to US imperialism. Lisa Jordan,
who works for Ford, has produced a thought-provoking, if telegraphic,
slideshow on NGO accountability. This could, again, be considered 
functional
to Ford, but it actually raises democratic challenges to NGOs where the
Manichean Marxists simply issue rhetorical condemnation.
The Ford Foundation has to also legitimate itself in the public eye. It is 
a
rich, powerful and quite obviously unaccountable force (except for such
legal requirements as may apply in the US), funding the WSF, or 
participants
therein. But to assume that what it is, or does, or wishes, will express a
unique interest (or function on behalf of a similarly single capitalist
interest) is to engage not in dialectical analysis but in conspiracy 
theory.
Indeed, I would like to suggest that both Kaldor's and Jordan's pieces on
NGO accountability could and should be used in relationship to the
vanguardist political parties, the unions and women's organisations, and 
the
WSF itself! At least until and unless the latter produce more appropriate
criteria and practices on the matter.
The World Social Forum is a field in which many forces are at play. It
combines features of a 'new' politics with those of an 'old' politics (see
Sen, Jai, Anita Anand, Arturo Escobar and Peter Waterman - eds - The World
Social Forum: Challenging Empires. New Delhi: Viveka, forthcoming). So, it
may talk about equality, horizontality, transparency, accessibility,
accountability and plurality, whilst itself practicing hierarchy,
verticality, secrecy - and being heavily influenced by the culture of the
international NGOs of the 1990s.
This is where the pejorative concept of 'NGOisation', or ongización, comes
from. But the critics are themselves involved with the new social 
movements,
the NGOs and global civil society, and seek to remedy the problems.
Nevertheless, many of the criticisms being made by MR supporters hit home.
It is, for example, true that Prakash Karat, then an activist of the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) produced a major tract in the 1980s - of
the 'NGOs = Imperialist Agents' genre. This was called Foreign Funding and
the Philosophy of Voluntary Organisations. It is also true that the CPI(M)
today, a major force within WSF2004 in India, has pragmatically abandoned
this position, and thrown itself energetically into the funding practices 
it
previously demonised. Without, as far as I am aware of any similar major -
or even minor - tract, explaining and justifying its reversal of position.
Karat is now a national Politburo (Soviet language) member of the CPI(M).
Indeed, he recently participated in an event in West Bengal which not only
referred, neutrally, to (state-or party-approved?) NGOs, but implied that
such were to be subject to CPI(M) supervision:
"The NGO office-bearers must remain accountable to the
state/district/zonal/local committees in accordance with their geographical
area of operation; in the task of organising festivals and fairs, Party's
committees concomitant to the location/area of the event must be consulted
with and the event must be organised under the supervision of the concerned
Party committee."
(This report is worth reading in full, in so far as the
bureaucratic-authoritarian style, of ''criticism and self-criticism'
reproduces that of Stalinist parties, whether in power or not). The failure
of the CPI(M), or Karat, to publicly qualify or reverse a major
theoretical/strategic option of the past, is unsurprising. Power (however
petty) has its reasons, which do not require justification or even
explanation, to the Powerless - or even to those with simply Less Power.
It is also true that those with power within the World Social Forum - or
such regional emanations as the European or Asian Social Forums - are both
willing and able to interpret WSF Charter principles (e.g. on the presence
and role of political parties, or their front organisations) at will, and
customarily without explanation or justification. There even seems to be,
within the WSF, a more particular sensitivity toward the 'threat' from the
old militarist left and the new libertarian one, than toward those on the
right. Even leaders of the activist Call of Social Movements within the 
WSF,
are less transparent, less open to challenge, less willing to engage in
dialogue than they might claim to be - or to urge on others (see Waterman
2003).
A final problem is formed by the endorsement of the Mumbai Resistance
boycott/alternative by a whole range of Indian organisations, including at
least one major network of farmers. In so far as this network seems to
similarly raise a question about its relationship with the 'International
Farmers' Movement' - for example Via Campesina - the matter goes beyond the
WSF to affect the global justice and solidarity movement more generally. 
Via
Campesina is a new international network of peasant and small farmer
organisations, independent of the World Social Forum and taken to be an
example of the new social movement internationalisms.
This piece is not intended to provide an adequate response to the Forward
March of the Manichean Marxists. It merely provides some evidence, attempts
some analysis, and raises some problems.
If MR2004 is now reproducing, with respect to the global justice and
solidarity movement in general, a traditional vanguardist politics (which
can include 'entryism' as well as condemnation and external competition),
then the WSF is going to have to draw on all the resources of the new
counter-hegemonic movements in order to surpass the challenge of the old.
--
-- 
Michael Pugliese
American imperialism  has been made plausible and attractive in part by the 
insistence that it is not imperialistic.
Harold Innis, 1948
http://www.monthlyreview.org/sr2004.htm