WORLD FORUM FOR
ALTERNATIVES AND THIRD WORLD FORUM
AT THE WORLD
SOCIAL FORUM
(Tunis, 26 to 30
march 2013)
Radical
responses to the crisis: democratisation of the societies, social progress, a
responsible management of the ecological challenge, reinforcing the sovereignty
of nations and peoples, South South cooperation
Third World Forum and World Forum for Alternatives
have participated in the World Social Forum last edition which was held in
Tunis from 26 to 30 March 2013.
Indeed we consider important that voices from the
South aware of the challenges to which their peoples are confronted and the
manoeuvres of the imperialist forces and their local reactionary allies aiming
at destroying the chances of authentic revolutionary advances be heard.
The programme of our activities in Tunis was conceived as a contribution to a radical
critique of the contemporary global system of so called “neo liberal”
globalization, that very system that has entered into a deep systemic crisis,
and as well to review critically the strengths and the weaknesses of the
movements in struggle and their capability to develop a positive alternative to
the neoliberal regime.
The program included four
blocs of questions for debate:
1. What are the main characteristics of the new
imperialism in the economic, political, ideological and theoretical fields? Under
what conditions emerging countries and other countries of the South can meet
the challenge successfully?
2. Looking at the political, social and cultural
struggles in the South and in the North. How to move from a low to a high
intensity internationalism and solidarity?
3. Ecological sustainability. Why the neoclassical
political economy, which is at the core of the neoliberal discourse, is not
credible? What are the limits of the non-socialist radical discourse?
4. The agrarian question. The lumpen urbanization is a
characteristic not only of the countries that are excluded from
industrialization but also of the emerging markets. It is a product of the general rural crisis rooted
in land tenure systems, low productivity and low income, socio-cultural and
socio-power relations. What are the political,socio-economic and cultural conditions for providing good living
conditions to all city-dwellers, and achievinga rural developmentwhich allows
enough young people to voluntarily
stayin the countryside?
WFA and TWF organised in that frame 5 round tables,
held on 27 and 29 march 2013 under the general title mentionned above.
According to the published programme of the WSF the titles of these round
tables are:
1. Radical Critique of Policies
Based on the Consolidation of Power of Transnational Financially Structured
Oligopolies
2. An Essential Demand for the South: Democratisation of Societies
Associated with Social Progress (including Abolition of the Patriarchy)
3. The Arab Revolutions, Two Years Later
4. Radical critique of the dominant forces responses to the ecological
crisis. Alternative approach based on the concept of the common heritage of
humanity
5. The agrarian question. Critique of dominant theories and policies.
Theoretical reformulations of radical alternatives
WFA and TWF also participated in the debates organised by the network
‘South South Cooperation”
ANNEX ONE
THE IMPLOSION OF CONTEMPORARY CAPITALISM
Abstract
Contemporary capitalism is a capitalism of generalized
monopolies. By this I mean that monopolies are now no longer islands (albeit
important) in a sea of other still relatively autonomous companies, but is an
integrated system. Therefore, these monopolies now tightly control all the
systems of production. Small and medium enterprises and even the large
corporations that are not strictly speaking oligopolies are locked in a network
of control put in place by the monopolies. Their degree of autonomy has shrunk
to the point that they are nothing more than subcontractors of the monopolies.
This system of generalized monopolies is the product
of a new phase of centralization of capital in the countries of the Triad (the
United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan) that took place during
the 1980s and 1990s.
The generalized monopolies now dominate the world
economy. ‘Globalization’ is the name they have given to the set of demands by
which they exert their control over the productive systems of the periphery of
global capitalism (the world beyond the partners of the triad). It is nothing
other than a new stage of imperialism.
The capitalism of generalized and globalized
monopolies is a system that guarantees these monopolies a monopoly rent levied
on the mass of surplus value (transformed into profits) that capital extracts
from the exploitation of labour. To the extent that these monopolies are
operating in the peripheries of the global system, monopoly rent is imperialist
rent. The process of capital accumulation – that defines capitalism in all its
successive historical forms – is therefore driven by the maximisation of
monopoly/imperialist rent seeking.
This shift in the centre of gravity of the accumulation of capital is the source of the continuous concentration of income and wealth to the benefit of the monopolies, largely monopolised by the oligarchies (‘plutocracies’) that govern oligopolistic groups at the expense of the remuneration of labour and even the remuneration of non-monopolistic capital.
This imbalance in continued growth is itself, in turn, the source of the financialisation of the economic system. By this I mean that a growing portion of the surplus cannot be invested in the expansion and deepening of systems of production and therefore the ‘financial investment’ of this excessive surplus becomes the only option for continued accumulation under the control of the monopolies.
This shift in the centre of gravity of the accumulation of capital is the source of the continuous concentration of income and wealth to the benefit of the monopolies, largely monopolised by the oligarchies (‘plutocracies’) that govern oligopolistic groups at the expense of the remuneration of labour and even the remuneration of non-monopolistic capital.
This imbalance in continued growth is itself, in turn, the source of the financialisation of the economic system. By this I mean that a growing portion of the surplus cannot be invested in the expansion and deepening of systems of production and therefore the ‘financial investment’ of this excessive surplus becomes the only option for continued accumulation under the control of the monopolies.
This financialisation, which is responsible for the
growth of inequality in income distribution (and fortunes), generates the growing
surplus on which it feeds. The ‘financial investments’ (or rather the
investments in financial speculation) continue to grow at dizzying speeds, not
commensurate with growth in GDP (which is therefore becoming largely
fictitious) or with investment in real production.
The explosive growth of financial investment requires
– and fuels – among other things debt in all its forms, especially sovereign
debt. When the governments in power claim to be pursuing the goal of ‘debt
reduction’, they are deliberately lying. For the strategy of financialised
monopolies requires the growth in debt (which they seek, rather than combat) as
a way to absorb the surplus profit of monopolies. The austerity policies
imposed ‘to reduce debt’ have indeed resulted (as intended) in increasing its
volume.
It is this system – commonly called ‘neoliberal’, the
system of generalized monopoly capitalism, ‘globalized’ (imperialist) and
financialised (of necessity for its own reproduction) – that is imploding
before our eyes. This system, apparently unable to overcome its growing
internal contradictions, is doomed to continue its wild ride.
The historical circumstances created by the implosion
of contemporary capitalism requires the radical left, in the North as well as
the South, to be bold in formulating its political alternative to the existing
system. This moment demands as the only effective response a bold and audacious
radicalization in the formulation of alternatives capable of moving workers and
peoples to take the offensive to defeat their adversary’s strategy of war.
These formulations, based on the analysis of actually existing contemporary
capitalism, must directly confront the future that is to be built, and turn
their back on the nostalgia for the past and illusions of identity or
consensus.
Audacity, more audacity
The historical circumstances created by the implosion of contemporary
capitalism requires the radical left, in the North as well as the South, to be
bold in formulating its political alternative to the existing system. The
purpose of this paper is to show why audacity is required and what it means.
Why audacity?
1. Contemporary capitalism is a
capitalism of generalized monopolies.
By this I mean that monopolies are now no longer islands (albeit important) in
a sea of other still relatively autonomous companies, but are an integrated
system. Therefore, these monopolies now
tightly control all the systems of production. Small and medium enterprises,
and even the large corporations that are not strictly speaking oligopolies are
locked in a network of control put in place by the monopolies. Their degree of
autonomy has shrunk to the point that they are nothing more than subcontractors
of the monopolies.
This system of generalized monopolies is the product of a new phase of
centralization of capital in the countries of the Triad (the United States,
Western and Central Europe, and Japan) that took place during the 1980s and
1990s.
The generalized monopolies now dominate the world economy.
"Globalization" is the name they have given to the set of demands by
which they exert their control over the productive systems of the periphery of
global capitalism (the world beyond the partners of the triad). It is nothing
other than a new stage of imperialism.
2. The capitalism of generalized and
globalized monopolies is a system that guarantees these monopolies a monopoly
rent levied on the mass of surplus value (transformed into profits) that
capital extracts from the exploitation of labor. To the extent that these
monopolies are operating in the peripheries of the global system, monopoly rent
is imperialist rent. The process of capital accumulation - that defines
capitalism in all its successive historical forms - is therefore driven by the
maximization of monopoly/imperialist rent seeking.
This shift in the center of gravity of the accumulation of capital is
the source of the continuous concentration of income and wealth to the benefit
of the monopolies, largely monopolized by the oligarchies
("plutocracies") that govern oligopolistic groups at the expense of
the remuneration of labor and even the remuneration of non-monopolistic
capital.
3. This imbalance in continued growth is
itself, in turn, the source of the financialization
of the economic system. By this I mean that a growing portion of the surplus
cannot be invested in the expansion and deepening of systems of production and
therefore the "financial investment" of this excessive surplus
becomes the only option for continued accumulation under the control of the
monopolies.
The implementation of specific systems by capital permits the
financialization to operate in different ways:
(i)
The subjugation of the management of firms to the principle of
"shareholder value"
(ii)
The substitution of pension systems funded by capitalization
(Pension Funds) by systems of pension
distribution
(iii)
The adoption of the principle of "flexible exchange
rates"
(iv)
The abandonment of the principle of central banks determining
the interest rate – the price of "liquidity” – and the transfer of this
responsibility to the “market".
Financialization has transferred the major responsibility for control of
the reproduction of the system of accumulation to some thirty giant banks of
the triad. What are euphemistically called "markets" are nothing
other than the places where the strategies of these actors who dominate the
economic scene are deployed.
In turn this financialization, which is responsible for the growth of
inequality in income distribution (and fortunes), generates the growing surplus
on which it feeds. The "financial investments" (or rather the
investments in financial speculation) continue to grow at dizzying speeds, not
commensurate with growth in GDP (which is therefore becoming largely
fictitious) or with investment in real production.
The explosive growth of financial investment requires - and fuels –
among other things debt in all its forms, especially sovereign debt. When the
governments in power claim to be pursuing the goal of "debt
reduction", they are deliberately lying. For the strategy of financialized
monopolies requires the growth in debt (which they seek, rather than combat) as
a way to absorb the surplus profit of monopolies. The austerity policies
imposed "to reduce debt" have indeed resulted (as intended) in
increasing its volume.
4. It is this system – commonly called
"neoliberal", the system of generalized monopoly capitalism,
"globalized" (imperialist) and financialized (of necessity for its
own reproduction) – that is imploding before our eyes. This system, apparently
unable to overcome its growing internal contradictions, is doomed to continue
its wild ride.
The "crisis" of the system is due to its own
"success." Indeed so far the strategy deployed by monopolies has
always produced the desired results: “austerity” plans and the so-called social
(in fact antisocial) downsizing plans that are still being imposed, in spite of
resistance and struggles. To this day the initiative remains in the hands of
the monopolies ("the markets") and their political servants (the
governments that submit to the demands of the so-called "market").
5. Under these conditions monopoly capital
has openly declared war on workers and peoples. This declaration is formulated
in the sentence "liberalism is not negotiable." Monopoly capital will
definitely continue its wild ride and not slow down. The criticism of
“regulation” that I make below is grounded in this fact.
We are not living in a historical moment in which the search for a
"social compromise" is a possible option. There have been such
moments in the past, such as the post-war social compromise between capital and
labor specific to the social democratic state in the West, the actually
existing socialism in the East, and the popular national projects of the South.
But our present historical moment is not the same. So the conflict is between
monopoly capital and workers and people who are invited to an unconditional
surrender. Defensive strategies of resistance under these conditions are
ineffective and bound to be eventually defeated. In the face of war declared by
monopoly capital, workers and peoples must develop strategies that allow them
to take the offensive.
The period of social war is necessarily accompanied by the proliferation
of international political conflicts and military interventions of the
imperialist powers of the triad. The strategy of "military control of the
planet" by the armed forces of the United States and its subordinate NATO
allies is ultimately the only means by which the imperialist monopolies of the
triad can expect to continue their domination over the peoples, nations and the
states of the South.
Faced with this challenge of the war declared by the monopolies, what
alternatives are being proposed?
First response: "market
regulation" (financial and otherwise).
These are initiatives that monopolies and governments claim they are
pursuing. In fact it is only empty rhetoric, designed to mislead public
opinion. These initiatives cannot stop the mad rush for financial return that
is the result of the logic of accumulation controlled by monopolies. They are
therefore a false alternative.
Second response: a return to the
post-war models.
These responses feed a triple nostalgia: (i) the rebuilding of a true
"social democracy" in the West, (ii) the resurrection of
"socialisms" founded on the principles that governed those of the
twentieth century, (iii) the return to formulas of popular nationalism in the
peripheries of the South. These
nostalgias imagine it is possible to "roll back" monopoly capitalism,
forcing it to regress to what it was in 1945. But history never allows such
returns to the past. Capitalism must be confronted as it is today, not as what
we would have wished it to be by imagining the blocking of its evolution.
However, these longings continue to haunt large segments of the left throughout
the world.
Third response: the search for a
"humanist" consensus.
I define this pious wish in the following way: the illusion that a
consensus among fundamentally conflicting interests would be possible. Naïve
ecology movements, among others, share this illusion.
Fourth response: the illusions of the
past.
These illusions invoke "specificity" and "right to
difference" without bothering to understand their scope and meaning. The
past has already answered the questions for the future. These
"culturalisms" can take many para-religious or ethnic forms.
Theocracies and ethnocracies become convenient substitutes for the democratic
social struggles that have been evacuated from their agenda.
Fifth response: priority of
"personal freedom".
The range of responses based on this priority, considered the exclusive
"supreme value", includes in its ranks the diehards of
"representative electoral democracy," which they equate with
democracy itself. The formula separates the democratization of societies from
social progress, and even tolerates a de facto association with social
regression in order not to risk to discrediting democracy, now reduced to the
status of a tragic farce.
But there are even more dangerous forms of this position. I am referring
here to some common "post modernist" currents (such as Toni Negri in
particular) who imagine that the individual has already become the subject of
history, as if communism, which will allow the individual to be emancipated
from alienation and actually become the subject of history, were already here!
It is clear that all of the responses above, including those of the
right (such as the "regulations" that do not affect private property
monopolies) still find powerful echoes among a majority of the people on the
left.
6. The war declared by the generalized
monopoly capitalism of contemporary imperialism has nothing to fear from the
false alternatives that I have just outlined.
So what is to be done?
This moment offers us the historic opportunity to go much further; it
demands as the only effective response a bold and audacious radicalization in
the formulation of alternatives capable of moving workers and peoples to take
the offensive to defeat their adversary’s strategy of war. These formulations,
based on the analysis of actually existing contemporary capitalism, must
directly confront the future that is to be built, and turn their back on the
nostalgia for the past and illusions of identity or consensus.
Audacious programs for the radical left
I will organize the following general proposals under three headings:
(i) socialize the ownership of monopolies, (ii) de-financialize the management
of the economy, (iii) de-globalize international relations.
Socialize the ownership of monopolies
The effectiveness of the alternative response necessarily requires the
questioning of the very principle of private property of monopoly capital.
Proposing to "regulate" financial operations, to return markets to
'transparency' to allow “agents' expectations” to be " rational" and
to define the terms of a consensus on these reforms without abolishing the
private property of monopolies, is nothing other than throwing dust in the eyes
of the naive public. Monopolies are asked to "manage" reforms against
their own interests, ignoring the fact that they retain a thousand and one ways
to circumvent the objectives of such reforms.
The alternative social project should be to reverse the direction of the
current social order (social disorder) produced by the strategies of
monopolies, in order to ensure maximum and stabilized employment, and to ensure
decent wages growing in parallel with the productivity of social labour. This
objective is simply impossible without the expropriation of the power of
monopolies.
The "software of economic theorists" must be reconstructed (in
the words of François Morin). The absurd and impossible economic theory of
"expectations" expels democracy from the management of economic
decision-making. Audacity in this instance requires radical reform of education
for the training not only of economists, but also of all those called to occupy
management positions.
Monopolies are institutional bodies that must be managed according to
the principles of democracy, in direct conflict with those who sanctify private
property. Although the term "commons", imported from the Anglo-Saxon
world, is itself ambiguous because always disconnected from the debate on the
meaning of social conflicts (Anglo-Saxon language deliberately ignores the
reality of social classes), the term could be invoked here specifically to call
monopolies part of the "commons".
The abolition of the private ownership of monopolies takes place through
their nationalization. This first legal action is unavoidable. But audacity
here means going beyond that step to propose plans for the socialization of the
management of nationalized monopolies and the promotion of the democratic
social struggles that are engaged on this long road.
I will give here a concrete example of what could be involved in plans
of socialization.
'Capitalist' farmers (those of developed countries) like 'peasant'
farmers (mostly in the South) are all prisoners of both the upstream monopolies
that provide inputs and credit, and the downstream ones on which they depend
for processing, transportation and marketing of their products. Therefore they
have no real autonomy in their "decisions". In addition the
productivity gains they make are siphoned off by the monopolies that have
reduced producers to the status of "subcontractors". What possible
alternative?
Public institutions working within a legal framework that would set the
mode of governance must replace the monopolies. These would be constituted of
representatives of: (i) farmers (the principle interests), (ii) upstream units
(manufacturers of inputs, banks) and downstream (food industry, retail chains)
and (iii) consumers, (iv) local authorities (interested in natural and social
environment - schools, hospitals, urban planning and housing, transportation),
(v) the State (citizens). Representatives of the components listed above would
be self-selected according to procedures consistent with their own mode of
socialized management, such as units of production of inputs that are
themselves managed by directorates of workers directly employed by the units
concerned as well as those who are employed by sub-contracting units and so on.
These structures should be designed by formulas that associate management
personnel with each of these levels, such as research centers for scientific
independent and appropriate technology. We could even conceive of a
representation of capital providers (the "small shareholders")
inherited from the nationalization, if deemed useful.
We are therefore talking about institutional approaches that are more
complex than the forms of "self-directed" or "cooperative"
that we have known. Ways of working need
to be invented that that allows the exercise of genuine democracy in the
management of the economy, based on open negotiation among all interested
parties. A formula is required that systematically links the democratization of
society with social progress, in contrast with the reality of capitalism which
dissociates democracy, which is reduced to the formal management of politics,
from social conditions abandoned to the "market" dominated by what
monopoly capital produces. Then and only then can we talk about true
transparency of markets, regulated in institutionalized forms of socialized
management.
The example may seem marginal in the developed capitalist countries
because farmers there are a very small proportion of workers (3-7%), however,
this issue is central to the South where the rural population will remain
significant for some time. Here access to land, which must be guaranteed for
all (with the least possible inequality of access), is fundamental to
principles advancing peasant agriculture (I refer here to my previous work on
this question). “Peasant agriculture” should not be understood as synonymous
with "stagnant agriculture" (or "traditional and
folklorique"). The necessary progress of peasant agriculture does require
some "modernization" (although this term is a misnomer because it
immediately suggests to many modernization through capitalism). More effective
inputs, credits, and production and supply chains are necessary to improve the
productivity of peasant labor. The formulas proposed here pursue the objective
of enabling this modernization in ways and in a spirit that is
"non-capitalist", that is to say grounded in a socialist perspective.
Obviously the specific example chosen here is one that needs to be
institutionalized. The nationalization / socialization of the management of
monopolies in the sectors of industry and transport, banks and other financial
institutions should be imagined in the same spirit, while taking into account
the specificities of their economic and social functions in the constitution of
their directorates. Again these directorates should involve the workers in the
company as well as those of subcontractors, representatives of upstream
industries, banks, research institutions, consumers, and citizens.
The nationalization / socialization of monopolies address a fundamental
need at the central axis of the challenge confronting workers and peoples under
contemporary capitalism of generalized monopolies. It is the only way to stop
the accumulation by dispossession that is driving the management of the economy
by the monopolies.
The accumulation dominated by monopolies can indeed only reproduce
itself if the area subject to "market management" is constantly expanding.
This is achieved by excessive privatization of public services (dispossession
of citizens), and access to natural resources (dispossession of peoples). The
extraction of profit of “independent” economic units by the monopolies is even
a dispossession (of capitalists!) by the financial oligarchy.
De-financialization: a world without Wall Street
Nationalization / socialization of monopolies would in and of itself
abolish the principle of "shareholder value" imposed by the strategy
of accumulation in the service of monopoly rents. This objective is essential
for any bold agenda to escape the ruts in which the management of today's
economy is mired. Its implementation pulls the rug out from under the feet of
the financialization of management of the economy. Are we returning to the
famous "euthanasia of the rentier" advocated by Keynes in his time?
Not necessarily, and certainly not completely. Savings can be encouraged by
financial reward, but on condition that their origin (household savings of
workers, businesses, communities) and their conditions of earnings are
precisely defined. The discourse on macroeconomic savings in conventional
economic theory hides the organization of exclusive access to the capital
market of the monopolies. The so-called "market driven remuneration"
is then nothing other than the means to guarantee the growth of monopoly rents.
Of course the nationalization / socialization of monopolies also applies
to banks, at least the major ones. But the socialization of their intervention
("credit policies") has specific characteristics that require an
appropriate design in the constitution of their directorates. Nationalization
in the classical sense of the term implies only the substitution of the State
for the boards of directors formed by private shareholders. This would permit, in principle,
implementation of bank credit policies formulated by the State – which is no
small thing. But it is certainly not
sufficient when we consider that socialization requires the direct
participation in the management of the bank by the relevant social partners.
Here the "self-management" of banks by their staff would not be
appropriate. The staff concerned should certainly be involved in decisions
about their working conditions, but little else, because it is not their place
to determine the credit policies to be implemented.
If the directorates must deal with the conflicts of interest of those
that provide loans (the banks) and those who receive them (the
"enterprises"), the formula for the composition of directorates must
be designed taking into account what the enterprises are and what they require.
A restructuring of the banking system which has become overly centralized since
the regulatory frameworks of the past two centuries were abandoned over the
past four decades. There is a strong argument to justify the reconstruction of
banking specialization according to the requirements of the recipients of their
credit as well as their economic function (provision of short-term liquidity,
contributing to the financing of investments in the medium and long term). We
could then, for example, create an "agriculture bank" (or a
coordinated ensemble of agriculture banks) whose clientele is comprised not
only of farmers and peasants but also those involved in the “upstream and
downstream” of agriculture described above. The bank’s directorate would
involve on the one hand the "bankers" (staff officers of the bank –
who would have been recruited by the directorate) and other clients (farmers or
peasants, and other upstream and downstream entities).
We can imagine other sets of articulated banking systems, appropriate to
various industrial sectors, in which the directorates would involve the
industrial clients, centers of research and technology and services to ensure
control of the ecological impact of the industry, thus ensuring minimal risk
(while recognizing that no human action is completely without risk), and
subject to transparent democratic debate.
The de-financialization of economic management would also require two
sets of legislation. The first concerns the authority of a sovereign state to
ban speculative fund (hedge funds) operations in its territory. The second
concerns pension funds, which are now major operators in the financialization
of the economic system. These funds were designed - first in the US of course -
to transfer to employees the risks normally incurred by capital, and which are
the reasons invoked to justify capital’s remuneration! So this is a scandalous
arrangement, in clear contradiction even with the ideological defense of
capitalism! But this "invention" is an ideal instrument for the
strategies of accumulation dominated by monopolies.
The abolition of pension funds is necessary for the benefit of
distributive pension systems, which, by their very nature, require and allow
democratic debate to determine the amounts and periods of assessment and the
relationship between the amounts of pensions and remuneration paid. In a
democracy that respects social rights, these pension systems are universally
available to all workers. However, at a pinch, and so as not to prohibit what a
group of individuals might desire to put in place, supplementary pensions funds
could be allowed.
All measures of de-financialization suggested here lead to an obvious
conclusion: A world without Wall Street,
to borrow the title of the book by François Morin, is possible and desirable.
In a world without Wall Street, the economy is still largely controlled
by the "market". But these markets are for the first time truly
transparent, regulated by democratic negotiation among genuine social partners
(for the first time also they are no longer adversaries as they are necessarily
under capitalism). It is the financial “market” – opaque by nature and
subjected to the requirements of management for the benefit of the monopolies –
that is abolished. We could even explore whether it would be useful or not to
shut down the stock exchanges, given that the rights to property, both in its
their private as well as social form, would be conducted “differently”. We could even consider whether the stock
exchange could be re-established to this new end. The symbol in any case – "a world
without Wall Street" – nevertheless
retains its power.
De-financialization certainly does not mean the abolition of
macroeconomic policy and in particular the macro management of credit. On the
contrary it restores its efficiency by freeing it from its subjugation to the
strategies of rent-seeking monopolies. The restoration of the powers of
national central banks, no longer "independent" but dependent on both
the state and markets regulated by the democratic negotiation of social
partners, gives the formulation of macro credit policy its effectiveness in the
service of socialized management of the economy.
At the international level: delinking
I use here the term “delinking” that I proposed half a century ago, a
term that contemporary discourse appears to have substituted with the synonym
"de-globalisation". I have
never conceptualised delinking as an
autarkic retreat, but rather as a strategic reversal in the face of both
internal and external forces in response to the unavoidable requirements of
self-determined development. Delinking promotes the reconstruction of a
globalization based on negotiation, rather than submission to the exclusive
interests of the imperialist monopolies. It also makes possible the reduction
of international inequalities.
Delinking is necessary because the measures advocated in the two
previous sections can never really be implemented at the global scale, or even
at a regional level (e.g. Europe). They can only be initiated in the context of
states / nations with advanced radical social and political struggles,
committed to a process of socialization of the management of their economy.
Imperialism, in the form that it took until just after the Second World
War, had created the contrast between industrialized imperialist centers and
dominated peripheries where industry was prohibited. The victories of national
liberation movements began the process of the industrialization of the
peripheries, through the implementation of delinking policies required for the
option of self-reliant development. Associated with social reforms that were at
times radical, these delinkings created the conditions for the eventual
"emergence" of those countries that had gone furthest in this
direction – China leading the pack, of
course.
But the imperialism of the current era, the imperialism of the Triad,
forced to retreat and "adjust" itself to the conditions of this new
era, rebuilt itself on new foundations, based on "advantage" by which
it sought to hold on to the privilege of exclusivity that I have classified in
five categories.The control of:
·
technology;
·
access to natural resources of the planet
·
global integration of the monetary and financial system
·
systems of communication and information
·
weapons of mass destruction.
The main form of delinking today is thus defined precisely by the
challenge to these five privileges of contemporary imperialism. Emerging
countries are engaged in delinking from these five priveleges, with varying
degrees of control and self-determination, of course. While earlier success
over the past two decades in delinking enabled them to accelerate their
development, in particular through industrial development within the
globalized "liberal" system
using "capitalist" means, this success has fueled delusions about the
possibility of continuing on this path, that is to say, emerging as new
"equal capitalist partners”. The attempt to "co-opt" the most
prestigious of these countries with the creation of the G20 has encouraged
these illusions.
But with the current ongoing implosion of the imperialist system (called
"globalization"), these illusions are likely to dissipate. The conflict
between the imperialist powers of the triad and emerging countries is already
visible, and is expected to worsen. If they want to move forward, the societies
of emerging countries will be forced to turn more towards self-reliant modes of
development through national plans and by strengthening South-South
cooperation.
Audacity, under such circumstances, involves engaging vigorously and
coherently towards this end, bringing together the required measures of
delinking with the desired advances in social progress.
The goal of this radicalization is threefold: the democratization of
society; the consequent social progress achieved; and the taking of
anti-imperialist positions. A commitment to this direction is possible, not
only for societies in emerging countries, but also in the "abandoned"
or the “written-off” of the global South. These countries had been effectively
recolonized through the structural adjustment programs of the 1980s. Their
peoples are now in open revolt, whether they have already scored victories
(South America) or not (in the Arab world).
Audacity here means that the radical left in these societies must have
the courage to take measure of the challenges they face and to support the
continuation and radicalization of the necessary struggles that are in
progress.
The delinking of the South prepares the way for the deconstruction of
the imperialist system itself. This is particularly apparent in areas affected
by the management of the global monetary and financial system, since it is the
result of the hegemony of the dollar.
But beware: it is an illusion to expect to substitute for this system
"another world monetary and financial system" that is better balanced
and favorable to the development of the peripheries. As always, the search of a
"consensus" over international reconstruction from above is mere
wishful thinking akin to waiting for a miracle. What is on the agenda now is
the deconstruction of the existing system - its implosion - and reconstruction
of national alternative systems (for countries or continents or regions), as
some projects in South America have already begun. Audacity here is to have the
courage to move forward with the strongest determination possible, without too
much worry about the reaction of imperialism.
This same problematique of delinking / dismantling is also of relevance
to Europe, which is a subset of globalization dominated by monopolies. The
European project was designed from the outset and built systematically to
dispossess its peoples of their ability to exercise their democratic power. The
European Union was established as a protectorate of the monopolies. With the
implosion of the euro zone, its submission to the will of the monopolies has
resulted in the abolishment of democracy which has been reduced to the status
of farce and takes on extreme forms, namely focused only on the question: how
are the "market" (that is to say monopolies) and the "Rating
Agencies" (that is to say, again, the monopolies) reacting? That's the
only question now posed. How the people might react is no longer given the
slightest consideration.
It is thus obvious that here too there is no alternative to audacity:
"disobeying" the rules imposed by the "European
Constitution" and the imaginary central bank of the euro. In other words,
there is no alternative to deconstruct the institutions of Europe and the euro
zone. This is the unavoidable prerequisite for the eventual reconstruction of
"another Europe" of peoples and nations.
In conclusion: Audacity, more audacity, always audacity.
What I mean by audacity is therefore:
(i)
For the radical left in the societies of the imperialist triad,
the need for an engagement in the building an alternative anti-monopoly social
bloc.
(ii)
For the radical left in the societies of the peripheries to
engage in the building an alternative anti-comprador social bloc.
It will take time to make progress in building these blocs, but it could
well accelerate if the radical left takes on movement with determination and
engages in making progress on the long road of socialism. It is therefore
necessary to propose strategies not “out of the crisis of capitalism", but
"out of capitalism in crisis" to borrow from the title of one of my
recent works.
We are in a crucial period in history. The only legitimacy of capitalism
is to have created the conditions for passing on to socialism, understood as a
higher stage of civilization. Capitalism is now an obsolete system, its
continuation leading only to barbarism. No other capitalism is possible. The
outcome of a clash of civilizations is, as always, uncertain. Either the
radical left will succeed through the audacity of its initiatives to make
revolutionary advances, or the counter-revolution will win. There is no
effective compromise between these two responses to the challenge.
All the strategies of the non-radical left are in fact non-strategies,
they are merely day-to-day adjustments to the vicissitudes of the imploding
system. And if the powers that be want, like le Guépard, to "change
everything so that nothing changes", the candidates of the left believe it
is possible to "change life without touching the power of
monopolies"! The non-radical left will not stop the triumph of capitalist
barbarism. They have already lost the battle for lack of wanting to take it on.
Audacity is what is necessary to bring about the autumn of capitalism
that will be announced by the implosion of its system and by the birth of an
authentic spring of the people, a spring that is possible.
ANNEX TWO
EMERGING MARKETS, EMERGING COUNTRIES AND LUMPEN
DEVELOPMENT
This term has been used by some to mean one thing and
by others something entirely different in different contexts, often without any
caution regarding precision around the meaning of the term. I will therefore
here define the sense that I will give to the set of economic, social,
political, and cultural transformations which permit one to speak of the
‘emergence’ of a state, a nation, and a people who have been placed in a
peripheral place in the capitalist world system. (The term peripheral having
the meaning that I have defined in my own work.)
Emergence is not measured by a rising rate of GDP growth (or exports) over a long period of time (more than a decade), nor the fact that the society in question has obtained a higher level of GDP per capita, as defined by the World Bank, aid institutions controlled by Western powers, and conventional economists.
Emergence is not measured by a rising rate of GDP growth (or exports) over a long period of time (more than a decade), nor the fact that the society in question has obtained a higher level of GDP per capita, as defined by the World Bank, aid institutions controlled by Western powers, and conventional economists.
Emergence involves much more: a sustained growth in
industrial production in the state in question and a strengthening of the
capacity of these industries to be competitive on a global scale. Again one
must define which specific industries are important and what is meant by
competitiveness.
Extractive industries (minerals and fossil fuels) must be excluded from this definition. In states endowed by nature with these resources, accelerated growth can occur in these countries without necessarily leaving in its wake productive activities. The extreme example of this situation of ‘non-emergence’ would be the Gulf States, Venezuela, Gabon, and others.
One must also understand that the competitiveness of productive activities in the economy should be considered as a productive system in its entirety and not a certain unit of production alone. Due to the preference for outsourcing and subcontracting, multinationals operating in the South can be the impetus for the creation of local units of production tied to transnationals, or autonomous and capable of exporting to the world market, which earns them the status of competitive in the language of conventional economists. This truncated concept of competitiveness, which proceeds from an empiricist method, is not ours. Competitiveness is that of a productive system. For this to exist, the economy must be made up of productive elements with branches of this production sufficiently interdependent that one can speak of it as a system.
Extractive industries (minerals and fossil fuels) must be excluded from this definition. In states endowed by nature with these resources, accelerated growth can occur in these countries without necessarily leaving in its wake productive activities. The extreme example of this situation of ‘non-emergence’ would be the Gulf States, Venezuela, Gabon, and others.
One must also understand that the competitiveness of productive activities in the economy should be considered as a productive system in its entirety and not a certain unit of production alone. Due to the preference for outsourcing and subcontracting, multinationals operating in the South can be the impetus for the creation of local units of production tied to transnationals, or autonomous and capable of exporting to the world market, which earns them the status of competitive in the language of conventional economists. This truncated concept of competitiveness, which proceeds from an empiricist method, is not ours. Competitiveness is that of a productive system. For this to exist, the economy must be made up of productive elements with branches of this production sufficiently interdependent that one can speak of it as a system.
This competitiveness depends upon diverse economic and
social factors, among others the general level of education and training of
workers of all levels and the efficiency of the group of institutions which
manage the national political economy – fiscal policy, business law, labour
law, credit, social services, etc. The productive system in question cannot
reduce productive transformation to only activities involved in manufacturing
and consumption – although the absence of these annuls the existence of a
productive system worthy of the name – but rather must integrate food and
agriculture as services required for the normal functioning of the system.
A real productive system can be more or less
‘advanced’. By this I mean that the group of activities must be qualified: is
it involved in ‘banal’ productions or high technologies? It is important to
situate an emerging state using this point of view: in what measure is it on
the path of generating value added products? It is important to see emergent
states from this point of view: at what stage are they in mounting the ladder
towards producing value-added products?
The question of emergence therefore requires both a
political and holistic examination. A state cannot be emerging if it is not
inward (rather than outward) looking with the goal of creating a domestic
market and thus reasserting national economic sovereignty. This complex
objective requires sovereignty over all aspects of economic life. In particular
it demands policies which protect food security and sovereignty, and equally
sovereignty over one’s natural resources and access to others outside of one’s
territory. These multiple and complementary objectives are contrasted with
those of the comprador class who are content to adopt growth models which meet
the requirements of the dominant global system (liberal-internationalism) and
the possibilities which these offer.
This proposed definition of emergence does not address
the political strategy of the state and society: capitalism or socialism?
However this question cannot be left out of the debate as the choice made by
the leading classes will have major effects, both positive and negative, for a
successful emergence. I would not say that the only option is to follow a
capitalist perspective, which implements a system of a capitalist nature –
control and exploitation of the workforce and a free market. Nor would I
suggest that only a radical socialist option which challenges these forms of
capitalism – property, organized labour, market controls- is able to last over
long periods of time and move the society forwards in the world system.
The links between the politics of emergence on one hand and the accompanying social transformation, on the other hand, do not depend solely on the internal coherence of the former, but equally its degree of complementarity, or conflict, with the latter. Social struggles, whether class based or political, do not adjust themselves to fit the logic of a state’s implementation of an emergence. Rather they are a determinant of this program. Current experience shows the diversity and dynamism of these links. Emergence is often accompanied by inequalities. One must examine the nature of these: inequalities where the beneficiaries are a tiny minority or a large minority (the middle class) and are realised in a framework which promotes the pauperisation of the majority of workers, or, on the contrary, one where the same people see a betterment in their quality of life, even if the growth rates of compensation for workers will be less than those who benefit from the system. Said in another manner, politics can associate emergence with pauperisation or not. Emergence does not follow a definitive set of rules. Rather it is a series of successive steps; the first can prepare the way for following successes, or bring about deadlock.
The links between the politics of emergence on one hand and the accompanying social transformation, on the other hand, do not depend solely on the internal coherence of the former, but equally its degree of complementarity, or conflict, with the latter. Social struggles, whether class based or political, do not adjust themselves to fit the logic of a state’s implementation of an emergence. Rather they are a determinant of this program. Current experience shows the diversity and dynamism of these links. Emergence is often accompanied by inequalities. One must examine the nature of these: inequalities where the beneficiaries are a tiny minority or a large minority (the middle class) and are realised in a framework which promotes the pauperisation of the majority of workers, or, on the contrary, one where the same people see a betterment in their quality of life, even if the growth rates of compensation for workers will be less than those who benefit from the system. Said in another manner, politics can associate emergence with pauperisation or not. Emergence does not follow a definitive set of rules. Rather it is a series of successive steps; the first can prepare the way for following successes, or bring about deadlock.
In the same manner the relation between the emerging
economy and the global economy is constantly transforming as well. From these two
different perspectives come policies which can promote sovereignty or weaken
it, and at the same time promote social solidarity in the nation or weaken it.
Emergence is therefore not synonymous with growth in exports and an increase in
power measured in such a manner. Growth in exports can strengthen or weaken the
autonomy of an emerging state relative to the world market.
We cannot speak of emergence in general, nor can we
speak of models – Chinese, Indian, Brazilian and Korean – in general. One must
concretely examine, in each case, the successive steps in the evolution of
their emergence, identify the strong and weak points, and analyse the dynamic
of their implementation and the associated contradictions.
Emergence is a political and not only economic
project. The measure of success is therefore determined by reducing the means
by which the dominant capitalist centre perpetuates their domination, in spite
of the fact that economic success of emergent states is measured in the
conventional economic terms. I define the means as control of the dominant
powers over the areas of technological development, access to natural
resources, the global financial system, dissemination of information, and
weapons of mass destruction. The imperialist collective triad – United States,
Europe and Japan – intends to conserve, using all of these means, their
privileged positions in dominating the planet and prohibiting emergent states
from bringing this domination into question. I conclude that the ambitions of
emergent states enter into conflict with the strategic objectives of the triad
and the measure of the violence emanating from this conflict will be determined
by the degree of radicalism with which the emergent state challenges the
aforementioned privileges of the centre.
Economic emergence is not separable from the foreign
policies of the states. Do they align themselves with the military and
political coalition of the triad? Do they accept strategies put in place by
NATO? Conversely, will they oppose them?
Emergence and Lumpen Development
There can be no emergence
without state politics, resting on a comfortable social bloc, which gives it
legitimacy, capable of constructing a coherent project an inward looking
national productive system. They must at the same time ensure the participation
of the great majority of social classes and that these groups receive the
benefits of growth.
Opposing the favourable
evolution of an authentic emergence is the unilateral submission to the
requirements of the implementation of global capitalism and general monopolies
which produce nothing other than what I would call ‘lumpen development’. I will
now liberally borrow from the late Andre Gunder Frank, who analysed a similar
evolution, albeit at a different time and place. Today lumpen development is
the product of accelerated social disintegration associated with the
‘development’ model (which does not deserve its name) imposed by the monopolies
from the imperialist core on the peripheral societies they dominate. It is
manifested by a dizzying growth of subsistence activities (called the informal
sphere), otherwise called the pauperisation associated with the unilateral
logic of accumulation of capital.
One can remark that I did not
qualify the emergence as ‘capitalist’ or ‘socialist’. This is because emergence
is a process associated with complementarity, while at the same time conflict,
of the logic of capitalist management of the economy and the logics of
‘non-capitalist’ – and potentially socialist - management of society and politics.
Among the experiences of
emergence, some cases merit special mention as they are not associated with the
processes of lumpen development. There is not a pauperisation among the popular
classes, but rather progress in the living standards, modest or otherwise. Two
of these experiences are clearly capitalist – those of South Korea and Taiwan
(I will not discuss here the particular historical conditions which permitted
the success of the implementation in the two countries). Two others inherited
the aspirations conducted in the name of socialism – Vietnam and China. Cuba
could also be included in this group if it can master the contradictions which
it is currently going through.
But we know of other cases of
emergence which have been associated with lumpen development of a massive
nature. India is the best example. There are segments of this project which
correspond to the requirements of emergence. There is a state policy which
favours the building of an industrial productive system. Consequently there is an
associated expansion of the middle classes and progress in technological
capacities and education. They are capable of playing autonomously on the
chessboard of international politics. But for a grand majority, two thirds of
society, there is accelerated pauperisation. We have therefore a hybrid system
which ties together emergence and lumpen development. We can highlight the link
between these two complementary parts of reality. I believe, without suggesting
too gross a generalisation, that all the other cases that are considered
emergent belong to this familiar hybrid, which includes Brazil, South Africa,
and others.
But there exist also, and it is
most of the other Southern countries, situations in which there are no elements
of emergence as the processes of lumpen development occupy much of the society.
ANNEX THREE
THE NEW
AGRARIAN QUESTION : What
alternatives for the Third World peasant societies ?
1.
All societies
before modern (capitalist) time were peasant societies and their production
ruled by various specific systems and logics sharing nevertheless the fact that
these were not those which rule capitalism (i.e. the maximisation of the return
on capital in a market society).
Modern capitalist agriculture, represented by both
rich family farming and/or by agribusiness corporations, is now looking forward
to a massive attack on third world peasant production. The project did get the
green light from WTO in its Doha session. Yet, the peasantry still occupies
half of humankind. But its production is shared between two sectors enormously
unequal in size with a clearly distinct economic and social character and
levels of efficiency.
Capitalist agriculture governed by the principle of
return on capital, which is localised almost exclusively in North America, in
Europe, in the South cone of Latin America and in Australia, employs only a few
tens of millions of farmers who are no longer “peasants”. But their
productivity, which depends on mechanisation (of which they have monopoly
worldwide) and the area of land possessed by each farmer, ranges between 10.000
and 20.000 quintals of equivalent cereals per worker annually.
On the other hand, peasant-farming systems still
constitute the occupation of nearly half of humanity – i.e. three billion human
beings. These farming systems are in turn shared between those who benefited
from the green revolution (fertilisers, pesticides and selected seeds), but are
nevertheless poorly mechanised, with production ranging between 100 and 500
quintals per farmer, and the other group still excluded from this revolution,
whose production is estimated around 10 quintals per farmer.
The ratio of productivity of the most advanced segment
of the world agriculture to the poorest, which was around 10 to 1 before 1940
is now approaching 2000 to 1 ! That means that productivity has progressed much
more unequally in the area of agricultural-food production than in any other
area. Simultaneously this evolution has led to the reducing of relative prices
of food products (in relation to other industrial and service products) to one
fifth of what they were fifty years ago.
2.
The new agrarian
question is the result of that unequal development.
Indeed modernisation had
always combined constructive dimensions (accumulation of capital and progress
of productivities) with destructive aspects (reducing labour to the statute of
a commodity sold on the market, often destroying the natural ecological basis
needed for the reproduction of life and production, polarising wealth on a
global level). Modernisation had always simultaneously “integrated” those for
whom employment was created by the very expansion of markets, and “excluded”
those who, having lost their positions in the previous systems were not
integrated in the new labour force. But, in its ascending phase, capitalist
global expansion did integrate along with its excluding processes. But now,
with respect to the area of Third World peasant societies, it would be
massively excluding, including only insignificant minorities.
The question raised here is precisely whether this
trend continues and will continue to operate with respect to the three billion
human beings still producing and living in the frame of peasant societies, in
Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Indeed, what would happen as of now, should “agriculture
and food production” be treated as any other form of production submitted to
the rules of competition in an open-deregulated market as it has been decided
in principle at the last WTO conference (Doha, November 2001) ?
Would such principles foster the accelerating of production?
Indeed one can imagine some twenty million new
additional modern farmers, producing whatever the three billion present
peasants can offer on the market beyond them ensuring their own (poor)
self-subsistence. The conditions for the success of such an alternative would
necessitate the transfer of important pieces of good land to the new
agriculturalists (and these lands have to be taken out of the hands of present
peasant societies), access to capital markets (to buy equipments) and access to
the consumers markets. Such agriculturalists would indeed “compete”
successfully with the billions of present peasants. But what would happen to
those?
Under the circumstances, admitting the general
principle of competition for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as imposed
by WTO, means accepting that billions of “non-competitive” producers be
eliminated within the short historic time of a few decades. What will become of
these billions of humans beings, the majority of whom are already poor among
the poor, but who feed themselves with great difficulty, and worse still, what
will be the plight of the one third of
this population (since three-quarters of the underfed population of the world
are rural dwellers) ? In fifty years’ time, no relatively competitive
industrial development, even in the fanciful hypothesis of a continued growth
of 7 % annually for three-quarters of humanity, could absorb even one-third of
this reserve.
The major argument presented to legitimate the
WTO-competition doctrine alternative is that such development did happen in
XIXth century Europe and finally produced a modern-wealthy
urban-industrial-post industrial society as well as a modern agriculture able
to feed the nation and even to export. Why should not this pattern be repeated
in the contemporary Third World countries, in particular for the emerging nations?
The argument fails to consider two major factors which
make the reproduction of the pattern almost impossible now in third world
countries.
The first is that the European model developed
throughout a century and a half along with industrial technologies which were
intensive labour using. Modern technologies are far less. And therefore if the
new comers of the third world have to be competitive on global markets for
their industrial exports they have to adopt them.
The second is that Europe benefited during that long
transition from the possibility of massive out migration of their “surplus”
population to the Americas.
That argument – i.e. that capitalism has indeed “
solved” the agrarian question in its developed centers – has always been
admitted by large sections of the left , including within historical Marxism
,as testified by the famous book of Kautsky – “the agrarian question” – written
before world war I . Leninism itsef inherited that view and on its basis
undertook a modersation through the Stalinist collectivisation, with doubtful
results. What was always overlooked was that capitalism while it solved the
question in its centers did it through generating a gigantic agrarian question
in the peripheries, which it cannot solve but through the genocide of half of
humankind. Within historical Marxism only Maoism did understand the size of the
challenge. Therefore those who charge Maoism with its so called “ peasant
deviation “show by this very criticism that they do not have the analytical
capacity for an understanding of what is actually existing imperialist
capitalism ,that they reduce to an abstract discourse on capitalism in general.
3.
Modernisation
through market liberalisation as suggested by WTO and its supporters finally
aligns side by side, without even necessarily combining two components : (i)
the production of food on a global scale by modern competitive agriculturalists
mostly based in the North but also possibly in the future in some pockets of
the South ; (ii) the marginalisation – exclusion – and further impoverishment
of the majority of the three billion peasants of present third world and
finally their seclusion in some kinds of “reserves”. It therefore combines (i)
a pro-modernisation- efficiency dominant discourse and (ii) an ecological
cultural reserve set of policies making possible for the victims to “survive”.
These two components might therefore complement one another rather than “conflict”.
Can we imagine other alternatives and have them widely
debated. In that frame it is implied that peasant agriculture should be
maintained throughout the visible future of the XXIth Century but
simultaneously engaged in a process of continuous technological/social change
and progress. At a rate which would allow a progressive transfer to non rural –
non agricultural employment.
Such a strategic set of targets involves complex
policy mixes at national, regional and global levels:
(i)
At the national
levels it implies macro-policies protecting peasant food production from the
unequal competition of modernised agriculturalists – agro-business local and
international. With a view to guaranteeing acceptable internal food prices
eventually disconnected from the so called international market prices (in fact
also markets biased by subsidies of the wealthy North-USA/Canada/Europe).
Such policy targets also question the patterns of
industrial – urban developments, which should be less based on export oriented priorities,
themselves taking advantage of low wages (implying in their turn low prices for
food), and be more attentive to a socially balanced internal market expansion.
Simultaneously such a choice of principle facilitates
integrating in the overall scheme patterns of policies ensuring national food
security, an indispensable condition for a country to be an active member of
the global community, enjoying the indispensable margin of autonomy and
negotiating capacity.
(ii)
At regional and
global levels it implies international agreements and policies moving away from
the doctrinaire liberal principles ruling WTO, imaginative and specific to
different areas, since it has to take into consideration specific issues and
concrete historical and social conditions.
ANNEX FOUR
LIBERAL CAPITALISM, CONNIVING CAPITALISM AND
LUMPEN DEVELOPMENT
The case of Egypt
A." Liberal "Capitalism or
conniving capitalism ?
Liberal capitalism (or neoliberal) proposed and imposed as without
alternatives is based on seven principles considered as valid for all societies
in the globalized world.
1.
The economy must be managed by private companies because they
only behave normally as actors subject to the requirements of the transparent
competition , moreover beneficial to society, it ensures economic growth based
on the rational allocation of resources and fair remuneration of all factors of
production - capital, labor and natural resources. Accordingly if there are
assets owned by the state, unfortunate legacy of "socialism" (productive
enterprises, financial institutions, urban land or agricultural land), they
should be privatized.
2.
The labor market must be liberalized; fixing compulsory
minimum wage (and a fortiori a sliding scale for the latter) should be removed.
Labor law must be reduced to the minimum standards to ensure the morality of
human relations between employer and employee. Trade union rights limited and
controlled for this purpose. The wage hierarchy result of individual and free
negotiations between employees and employers must be accepted, as well as the
sharing of net national income between labor income and capital income as a
result.
3.
Services called social - education, health, or the
supply of water and electricity, housing, transport and communications - when
they were in the past provided by public agencies (state and local authorities
) should also be privatized as much as possible, their cost must be borne by
the individuals who are the beneficiaries and not covered by the tax.
4. The tax function should be the minimum
necessary to cover only sovereign functions (public order, national defense in
particular), the tax rate must remain relatively moderate, not discourage
private initiative and to guarantee their reward.
5.
Credit management should be undertaken by private interests,
allowing the free encounter between supply and demand of credits to form itself
in a rational monetary and financial market.
6.
Public budgets must be designed to be balanced without
deficit other than circumstantial and conjunctural. If a country suffers from a structural
deficit inherited from a past that we want to deny his inheritance, the
government must commit to reforms that reduce the scale as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile the deficit must be covered by the borrowing on the private capital
market, domestic or foreign.
7. The six principles are considered to be
implemented not only in all the nations of the globalized world, but also in
international relations, regional (for example the EU) or global. Private foreign
capital must be free to move and be treated on an equal footing with local
private capital.
These principles together constitute the "market fundamentalism".
I shall recall here the inconsistency of the assumptions and the lack of
compliance of the scheme with reality. Very briefly the proof by logical
reasoning that the free play of market widespread, even in the extravagant (not
according to reality) assumption that the existence of a competition called
transparent would produce a balance
between supply and demand (in addition socially optimal), has never been made.
Instead logical reasoning leads to the conclusion that the system moves from
imbalance to imbalance never arriving to balance. Successive imbalances in
question are produced because this theory (which defines the conventional
economics) excludes from its scope of investigation the conflicts of
social and national interests .Moreover, these assumptions describe an
imaginary world that has nothing to do with the contemporary system that really
exists, which is that of a capitalism of generalized,financialized, and
globalized monopolies. This system is not viable and its ongoing implosion
shows that. I refer here to my writings on this radical critique of the system
in question and the economic theory which legitimizes it.
Implemented globally the principles of liberalism do not produce anything
in the outskirts of the "south" else than a connivance capitalism (crony capitalism ), hinged on a comprador state, as opposed to
the national state embarked on a path of sustainable economic and social
development. This form of capitalism (and there is no other possible) therefore
produces no development, but a lumpen-development. The example of Egypt,
considered in what follows, provides a good example.
B. Connivance capitalism, comprador
state and lumpen development: The case of Egypt (1970-2012)
Successive Egyptian governments since Sadat 'access to Presidency (1970)
have so far implemented with all diligence all principles proposed by the
liberal fundamentalism. What has resulted has been the subject of serious and
accurate analysis with definite conclusions, as follows:
1.
The Nasserist project to build a national developmentalist
state had produced a model of state capitalism that Sadat pledged to dismantle,
as he told his U.S. interlocutors ("I want to send to the devil Nasserism,
the socialism and all this nonsense and I need your support to achieve that”, a
support which was obviously given without restriction). Assets owned by the state
- industrial, financial and commercial, agricultural land and urban or desert
land - have been "sold". To whom? To businessmen in collusion, close
to the power system : Senior army officers, officials, rich merchants returned
from their exile in the Gulf countries equipped with beautiful fortunes (in
addition to the political and financial support of the Muslim Brotherhood).But
also to "Arabs" of the Gulf countries and foreign US and European
companies. At what price? At ridiculous prices, incommensurate with the real
value of assets.
It is in this way that has been built the new "owning" Egyptian
and foreign class that fully deserves the qualification of capitalist
collusion/crony (rasmalia al mahassib,
Egyptian term to designate it and understood by all).Some notes:
a. Property
granted to the "army" transformed the character of the
responsibilities it already exercised in certain segments of the productive
system ("the army factories") that the army managed as state
institution. These powers of management became those of private owners. In
addition to privatization in the race the most powerful officers also
"acquired" the property of many other state-owned assets: commercial
businesses, suburban and urban land and housing estates in particular.
b. The opinion
describes these Egyptian practices of "corruption" (fasad) located in the field of
morality, making the assumption that justice worthy of the name could fight it
successfully. Much of the left itself makes the distinction between this
condemnable corrupt capitalism and an acceptable and desirable productive
capitalism. Only a small minority
understands that when the principles of "liberalism" are accepted as
the basis for any policy called "realistic" capitalism in the
periphery of the system can't be different. There is no bourgeoisie building
itself on its own initiative as the World Bank wants us to believe. There is a
comprador state active behind the creation of these colossal fortunes.
c. The
fortunes of Egyptian and foreign were formed through the acquisition of
existing assets without adding productive capacities other than negligible. The
"capital inflows" (Arab and other), moreover modest, fall within this
framework. The operation ended with the establishment of private monopoly groups
that now dominate the Egyptian economy. It is far from healthy and transparent competition liberal discourse trumpeted to them.
Moreover, the greater part of these colossal fortunes consists of real estates:
Holiday villages ("Marina")
on the shores of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, new neighborhoods closed,
guarded (at Latin American fashion - previously unknown in Egypt), desert
terrain in principle intended for agricultural development. These properties
are retained by their owners who speculate on resale after the State has
provided staggering costs of infrastructure that give them real value (and
these costs have obviously not been included into the sale price of the land).
2. The
monopoly power of the new capitalism of complicity has been systematically reinforced
by the almost exclusive access of these new billionaires to bank credit
(including for the "purchase" of the assets in question) at the
expense of lending to small and medium producers.
3. These
monopolistic positions have also been reinforced by massive subsidies from the
state, for example, granted for the consumption of oil, natural gas and
electricity by industries that had been privatized (cement, iron metallurgy and
the aluminum, textiles and others). But the "free market" has allowed
these companies to raise their prices to
adjust to those of competing imports. The logic of public subsidy which
compensated for lower prices by the state sector is broken in favor of super
profits of private monopolies.
4. Real wages for the vast majority of unskilled and medium qualifications
deteriorated by the effect of the laws of the free labor market and the fierce
repression of collective action and trade unions. They are now located at rates
much lower than they are in other countries of the South, whose per capita GDP
is comparable. Super profits of private monopolies and poverty go hand in hand
and result in the continued widening of inequality in income distribution.
5. Inequality has been reinforced consistently by
a tax system which denied the principle of progressive taxation. This low tax
for the rich and corporations, praised by the World Bank for its alleged virtue
to support investment resulted simply into super-profits.
6. Throughout these policies implemented by the
state, comprador/crony capitalism does not produce by itself but a low growth
(less than 3%) and hence the continued growth of unemployment. When the rate
was a little better, it was out of the expansion of extractive industries (oil
and gas), associated with a conjuncture of better prices, the growth in fees
from the Suez Canal, tourism and
remittances from migrant workers.
7. These policies have also made it impossible
to reduce the public deficit and the external trade balance. They have led to
the continuing deterioration of the value of the Egyptian pound, and imposed
growing public debt. This gave the opportunity to the IMF to impose ever
greater respect for the principles of liberalism.
C. Immediate responses
These answers have not been imagined by the author of these lines. I merely
collected them from the various components of the movement - left and center
national democratic forces, trade unions, various youth and women organizations
etc. .Considerable work and of quality was conducted for more than a year by
activists responsible for the formulation of a common program to meet the
immediate requirements. Their formulations (repeated here) have already been
published, among others by our colleague Ahmad El Naggar. The salient points
are:
1. Transfer operations of public assets should be subject to
systematic revision. Specific studies - equivalent to good audits - are
available for many of these transactions and prices corresponding to the real
value of these assets calculated. Given that the "buyers" of these
assets have not paid these prices, the property acquired assets must be
transferred by law after an audit ordered by the court to state corporations
whose shareholder is equal to the difference between the actual value of the
assets and that paid by buyers. The principle is applicable to all these buyers
be it Egyptian, Arab and foreign.
2. The law should establish minimum wages, amounting to LE
1200 per month (155 Euro at rate of exchange in effect, the equivalent
purchasing power of 400 Euros). This rate is lower than it is in many countries
whose GDP per capita is similar to that of Egypt. The minimum wage must be
associated with a sliding scale and unions responsible for monitoring its
implementation. It will apply to all activities of public and private sectors.
Given that the beneficiaries of the freedom of prices, private sectors that
dominate the Egyptian economy have already chosen to locate their prices closer
to those of competing imports, the measure can be implemented and will reduce
margins of monopolies profit without destroying the viability of the industries. This adjustment
does not threaten the balance of public accounts, taking into account savings
and new tax legislation as proposed later in the paper.
The proposals made by the movements concerned will be strengthened by the
adoption of the maximum wage: 15 times the minimum wage.
3. Workers' rights - conditions of employment and loss of
employment, working conditions, health insurance / unemployment / retirement -
should be discussed in a major tripartite consultation (unions, employers,
government). Independent unions formed through the struggles of the past decade
should be legally recognized as the right to strike (always "illegal"
in the current legislation).
A "survival benefit" must be established for the unemployed, the
amount and conditions of access and funding of which should be subject to
negotiation between the unions and the state.
4. Subsidies granted by the colossal budget to
private monopolies should be abolished. Again the specific studies conducted in
these areas show that the abolition of these benefits does not affect the
profitability of the activities involved, but only reduce their monopoly rents.
5. New tax legislation should be implemented based on progressive
taxation of individuals. The rate of taxation of profits of enterprises
employing more than 20 workers should be raised to 25%. Tax exemptions granted
with extreme generosity to Arab and foreign monopolies should be abolished.
Taxation of small and medium enterprises, often heavier now (!) should be
revised downward. The proposed rate for the upper brackets of personal income -
35% - also remains low in international comparison.
6. A precise calculation was conducted which shows that all the
measures proposed in paragraphs 4 and 5 can not only remove the current State
budget deficit (2009-2010) but also provide a surplus. This will be used to
increase public spending on education, health, popular housing subsidy.. The
reconstruction of a public social sector in these areas does not impose
discriminatory measures against private activities of a similar nature.
7. The credit must be placed under the control
of the Central Bank. Extravagant facilities granted to monopolies should be
abolished in favor of the expansion of credit to small businesses in action or
that could be created in this perspective. Specific studies have been conducted
in the areas concerned, craft, industrial, transport and service. The
demonstration has been made that the candidates to take initiatives in the
direction of creating business and employments exist (particularly among
unemployed graduates).
8. Programs offered by the components of the
movement remains less clear with regard to the peasant question. The reason is
that the movement of resistance to the expropriation of small farmers
accelerated since the current policies of "modernization" of the
World Bank were adopted remains fragmented and never went out of the village
concerned - especially because of the fierce repression to which it is
submitted and the non-recognition of its legality.
The current claim of the movement - mainly urban, admittedly - is simply
passing laws making it harder for the eviction of tenants unable to pay excess
rents charged on them and the expropriation of indebted smallholders.. In
particular, it advocates a return to a law fixing the maximum rent (they were
later freed by the successive laws revising the agrarian reform).
But it should go further. Progressive organizations of agronomists have
produced concrete projects and argued for ensuring the development of the small
peasantry. Improved irrigation methods (drip etc.), choice of rich and
intensive cultures (vegetables and fruits), remove of the upstream monopoly control of inputs by suppliers, remove of the downstream
monopoly power through the creation of marketing cooperative associated with
consumer cooperatives. But it remains to establish an enhanced communication
between these organizations of agronomists and agricultural smallholders
involved. Legalization of organizations of farmers, their federation at the
provincial and national levels should facilitate progress in this direction.
9. The action program set out in paragraphs
above would certainly initiate a resumption of healthy and sustainable economic
growth. The argument advanced by liberal critics - that would ruin any hope of
new entries of capital from external sources - do not hold. The experience of
Egypt and other countries, particularly in Africa, who have agreed to comply
fully with the requirements of liberalism and renounced to develop by
themselves a project of authentic development shows that these countries do not
“ attract" foreign capital despite their uncontrolled opening (precisely
because of it).Foreign capital will simply then conduct raid operations on the
resources of the countries concerned, supported by the state and collusion of
comprador capitalism .On the other end emerging countries who actively
implement a national development project do
offer real opportunities to
foreign investment that accept to engage in these national projects, and accept the constraints imposed on them by the
state as well as the adjustment of profits at reasonable rates.
10. The government in Cairo, composed exclusively
of Muslim Brotherhood chosen by the President Morsi has immediately declared
its unconditional adherence to all the principles of liberalism, and taken
measures to accelerate their implementation, and deployed to this end all means
of repression inherited from the former regime. The state and comprador
capitalism connivance continue ! Popular consciousness that there is no
change is growing as evidenced of the success of popular demonstrations on 12
and 19 October. The movement continues! The people say in the streets: “the
revolution has not changed the regime, but it has changed the people”.
11. The program of immediate demands which I have
traced the dominant lines here only concerns the economic and social challenge.
Of course, the movement also discusses its political sides: the draft
constitution, the democratic and social rights, the required "citizens
state" (Dawla al muwatana)
contrasting with the proposed theocratic state (Dawla al Gamaa al islamiya).These issues have not been addressed
here.
ANNEX FIVE
PROPOSAL FOR A UNIVERSAL DECLARATION FOR THE COMMON GOOD OF HUMANITY
This project, which has been constantly elaborated for
juridical and pedagogical purposes by an international group of jurists and
social leaders was presented at the Peoples’ Summit in Rio de Janeiro (July
2012) by the World Forum for Alternatives.
It has been revised following the comments in order to be redistributed
at the World Social Forum in Tunisia in March 2013. All contributions by groups and individuals
who support the initiative are welcome; please send them to the following email
address: declarabch@gmail.com
PREAMBLE
We live in a critical time for the survival of natural
and human life. The attacks against the
planet are multiplying, affecting all living species, ecosystems, biodiversity,
even the climate. Peoples’ and
communities’ lives are destroyed by land dispossession. The monopolistic
concentration of capital, the hegemony of the financial sector, the rapacity of
the economy, the alienation of peoples’ minds and consciousness, but also
deforestation, monoculture agriculture, the massive use of toxic agents, wars,
economic, political, military and cultural imperialism, austerity policies and
the destruction of social advances, have become the daily bread of Humanity.
We live in times of a multidimensional crisis; it is
financial, economic, food, energetic, climactic. It is a systemic crisis, a crisis of values
and civilization. Their common origin
lies in the irrationality of an economic system that is concentrated on profit
and not on needs, which brings with it its dynamic of deadly logic. This
historic moment does not allow for partial answers. It demands a search for alternatives.
We live in times marked by a demand for
coherency. The Resolutions of the
General Assembly of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948), the United Nations’ International Covenants on Civil and
Political Rights (1966), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (1974), the World Charter for
Nature (1982), the Declaration on the Right to Development (1986), the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (1992), the Earth Charter (2000), the
UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001), the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), among others, demand
the articulation of a holistic perspective and an integrated ecological,
economic, political and cultural system for decision-making, in the service of
life.
We live in times in which human beings are realizing
they constitute the conscious part of a Nature that can live without them and
that they are progressively destroying the Earth. The vision of development, inherited from
modernity and accelerated by the evolution of the capitalist world system which
ends up in such destruction is seen as linear progress on an inexhaustible
planet. Reality is segmentalized and an overall and holistic vision of the
universe is eliminated. It disregards
nature’s reproduction, particularly of the other living species, in order to
concentrate exclusively on the growth of the human species (anthropomorphism). It
trivializes cultures, destroys utopias and instrumentalizes spiritualities. In
its capitalist version, it leads to exploitation, injustice and growing
inequality between social classes, genders and peoples. In its socialist version of the 20th
century it overlooked the reconstruction of the relationship with nature and
ignored the democratic organization of society.
We also live in times when social and political
movements’ actions are multiplying as they fight at the grassroots for
ecological and social justice and peoples’ collective rights. The perception is growing that the life of
Humanity is a common and shared project, conditioned by the life of the planet and
this is expressed in various documents such as: the Universal
Declaration of the Rights of Peoples (Algiers, 1976), the Declaration of
Indigenous Women (Beijing, 1995) and the Universal Declaration of the Rights of
Mother Earth (Cochabamba, 2010). This
vision needs to be intensified and disseminated, requiring a shared effort that
respects social and cultural differences.
To reestablish the rights of nature and to construct
interpersonal solidarity globally, tasks inseparably linked, a new initiative
parallel to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is today necessary. Its aim is to redefine, from a holistic
perspective, the essential elements of humanity’s collective life on the
planet, in order to propose a new paradigm around which social and political
movements can converge.
The Declaration attempts (1) to shift from exploiting nature as a natural resource
to respecting the earth as the source of all life; (2) to privilege use value
over exchange value in economic activity; (3) to introduce the principle of
spreading democracy in all human relations, including gender relations, and in
all social institutions and (4) to promote
interculturalism to allow all cultures, knowledge, philosophies and
religions to clarify the perception of reality, to participate in the construction
of the ethic necessary for its permanent construction , and contribute to the
anticipations that make it possible to state “Another world is possible.” It is the paradigm of the “Common Good of
Humanity” or the principle of the “Good Life” (BuenVivir) that offers the
possibility, capacity and responsibility to produce and reproduce the planet’s
existence and the physical, cultural and spiritual life of all human beings in
the world. Hence, the proposal of a
Universal Declaration.
It is a question of expressing an objective, a utopia
in the positive meaning of the word: what it is that helps us forward. This has to happen at all levels, from
personal behaviour to international organization and in all sectors, from
relationships to nature and to culture. Utopia must take concrete form in
transitions, conceived not as simple adaptations of the system to new
ecological and social demands, but rather as a step forward, appropriate for
each situation. Of course declarations
do not change the world, social struggle does. However if declarations stem
from the cries of the earth and the clamours of the exploited, they can help to
make objectives more precise and bring together the many combats that are
taking place all over the world. Hence the proposal for a Universal
Declaration. Each article is divided
into three parts: the juridical status
of the question, the action required and sanctions.
Universal Declaration of the
Common Good of Humanity
-
1. Respecting Nature as the source of physical,
cultural and spiritual life
Article 1 (Establishing the symbiosis between the
earth and the human species, which is the conscious part of nature)
Nature is the origin of the
multiple forms of life, including humanity, having the earth as its home. The air, sunlight, atmosphere, water, soil;
the rivers, oceans, forests, flora, fauna, biodiversity; the seeds and living
species’ genomes are all elements that constitute her reality. Nature should be respected for her
fundamental integrity, her equilibria, her processes and the richness of her
ecosystems that produce and reproduce biodiversity; for her beauty and her capacity for
regeneration. It is the responsibility
of the human race, as the conscious part of the planet, to respect ecological
justice and the rights of nature, on which its existence and the Common Good of
Humanity depend.
Nature must also be able to reproduce life, which is
equivalent to a right.
All practices that destroy the regenerative capacities
of “Mother Earth” such as the unbridled and anti-ecological exploitation of
natural resources, the destructive use of chemical products, the massive
emission of greenhouse gases, the depletion of soils and aquatic reserves, the
irrational use of energy, the contamination of the earth, of ground water, of
the rivers and seas, as well as the production of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons are inconsistent with the responsibility of humanity towards
nature, with the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (BuenVivir). For
these reasons these practices are sanctionable.
Article 2 (Building harmony between all elements of
nature)
The harmony of the universe
and its diverse elements Is a precondition of life. All living species form part of a whole and
each vital piece has its own function. Biodiversity is essential in this
process and the material exchanges between species (metabolism) must respect
the equilibria. The peoples of the earth
have the duty to live in harmony with all other elements of nature. Development action must not be undertaken if
it involves serious, irreversible damage to nature, which is also the key to
the reproduction of the physical, cultural and spiritual life of humanity. It is the responsibility of all the peoples
in the world to live in harmony with nature’s elements.
All actions, institutions and environmental systems
that implement development models contrary to the integrity and reproduction of
the ecological system are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and
will therefore be subject to sanctions.
Article 3 (Protecting the Earth, the foundation of all
physical, cultural and spiritual life)
Nature is a unique and
finite reality, the source of life for all species that inhabit her and all
living entities not yet born. The earth
can be administered by human beings with the necessary guarantees for the
continuity of the administration, but it cannot be appropriated, commodified,
or made a source of speculation. It
cannot suffer irreversible systematic aggression for the purpose of any mode of
production. Natural wealth (land,
mineral, oil, oceanic and forestry resources) are a collective heritage and
assets cannot be appropriated either by individuals, corporations or financial
groups. The elements of the earth (soil,
air, water, seas, rivers, forests, flora, fauna, spaces, genomes) should be administered,
extracted and treated with the upmost respect for the reproduction of
ecosystems, biodiversity, the life of species, the equilibrium of the
metabolism between nature and the human species, as well as the welfare of both
the present and future generations.
Respect for ecosystems, for biodiversity and for the
equilibrium of the material exchanges (metabolism) between human beings and
nature must be guaranteed.
The privatization and commodification of land, of
natural wealth and the elements necessary for the reproduction of living
species – particularly water, oxygen, seeds, as well as the patenting of nature
are contrary to the respect for nature and the Common Good of Humanity and they
are consequently subject to sanctions.
Article 4 (Ensuring the regenerating capacity of the
earth)
It is urgent that the
regenerative capacity of the earth be restored.
All peoples and human groups are obliged to contribute to this
objective. Environmental impact
inventories and audits must be implemented, assessments and reparations for
damages administered. All peoples and
individuals and especially industries, corporations and governments, have the
responsibility to reduce, reuse and recycle the materials used in the production,
circulation and consumption of material goods.
Nature’s capacity to regenerate must be ensured
through the joint organization of the human species.
Planned obsolescence, the waste of energy and other
primary materials, the irresponsible disposal of waste, and the omission of
systematic reporting on ecological restoration are inconsistent with the Common
Good of Humanity, and therefore liable to sanctions.
-
2. Economic production
at the service of life and its continuation
Article 5 (Organizing social forms of production and
distribution, without private accumulation)
It is necessary for the
Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (BuenVivir) that people, institutions
and economic systems prioritize social forms of ownership of the principal
means of production and economic distribution through community, family,
communal, cooperative, citizen, and public, thus avoiding the processes of
individual or corporative accumulation that cause social inequality. Workers’ and consumers’ control of the production
and distribution of goods and services, a well as the financial system will be
organized through appropriate social forms, from cooperatives to citizen
participation and, if necessary,
nationalization.
The production and circulation of goods and services
are social activities that should ensure the welfare of everyone and they must
be carried out through appropriate forms of action and common organization.
The appropriation of the means of production and
distribution by individuals, enterprises and financial groups for private
capitalist accumulation is contrary to the Common Good of Humanity and the Good
Life (BuenVivir) and therefore prohibited.
Article 6 (Prioritizing use value over exchange value)
Work (formal and informal)
that is subordinated to the accumulation of capital destroys the autonomy of
workers and their capacity to be actors in economic activities. Such subordination leads to the breakdown of
social peace. The economic system of
production and distribution is destined to satisfy the needs and capacities of
all peoples and all individuals on the planet.
Accessing use values is a fundamental right necessary for the production
and reproduction of life. The exchange
value, product of commercialization, should be subjected to use value rather
than serving private capital accumulation and creating financial bubbles
resulting from speculation and being a source of increased social inequalities.
The function of all economic systems is to satisfy
necessities and to promote the capacities of all human beings on the
planet. The redistribution of the
surplus is a common responsibility.
All individual or corporate actions that commodify use
values as mere exchange values, that instrumentalize them with advertising for
irrational consumption by consumers, and that encourage speculation for the
private accumulation of capital, are inconsistent with the Common Good of
Humanity. Also inconsistent with the
Common Good of Humanity are: tax havens; banking secrecy; speculation on food
commodities, natural resources and energy sources. Public and private “odious debts” and poverty
as the result of socially unjust relations, are declared illegal.
Article 7 (Promoting dignified and non-exploitative
labour)
The processes of production
and distribution should ensure that workers have dignified and participatory
jobs that are adapted to family and cultural life, fostering their skills and
guaranteeing them adequate material means of existence. For work, in all its
forms, fulfills human beings as social actors in the Common Good of Humanity. Workers associations to organize the
production and distribution of goods and services constitute the basis of this
objective.
Work has priority over all the other elements of the
production and distribution of goods and services. Solidarity should be given to those who, for
reasons of age, physical handicaps or adverse economic circumstances, cannot
accede to work.
All organization of the production and distribution of
goods and services under the auspices of capital is contrary to the Common Good
of Humanity. All modern forms of slavery, servitude and labour exploitation,
especially of children, for the purposes of individual profit or private
accumulation of surplus value as well as limitations on labour organizing are
inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life (BuenVivir) and
are therefore prohibited.
Article 8 (Reconstructing territories)
Confronted by globalization,
which has favoured a unipolar economy, the concentration of decision-making
powers, the hegemony of financial capital and the irrational distribution of
goods and services, it is indispensible to reconstruct territories as a base
for resistance to the globalization hegemonized by capital. They should promote the autonomy of peoples,
the decision-making powers of the communities and citizens, and food and energy
sovereignty, as well as for the main trading exchanges. With this in view, the regionalization of
economies should be carried out in accordance with their complementarity and
solidarity and not competitivity, thus enabling the peripheral regions to
‘delink’ from the hegemonic economic centres in order to ensure autonomy of
production, commerce and finance.
Territory as a basis of social life must be recognized
in its different dimensions – local, regional and continental. The principle to be respected is that the
populations affected by mining extraction projects, public works and all
utilization of natural wealth should be informed and consulted in advance.
The constitution of monopolies and oligopolies, whatever
their fields of production, distribution or finance is prohibited, as well as
all political centralization that involves the disappearance of territories and
all abuse of territorial power to the detriment of other, similar bodies. These are incompatible with the Common Good
of Humanity.
Article 9 (Guaranteeing access to common goods and
universal social protection)
There are certain common
goods that are indispensible for the collective life of individuals and peoples
and that constitute inalienable rights.
These are: food, housing, health, education, and material and immaterial
communication, not only quantitative but also qualitative. Various forms of citizen control or social
property exist for the effective organization of access to these goods. “Universal protection” is a right of all
peoples and individuals, a responsibility of public authorities that should be
guaranteed by an appropriate fiscal policy.
Access to common goods must be recognized as a right
of peoples and of individuals
The privatization of public services, particularly in
the fields of health and education, in order to contribute to capital
accumulation is inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and is therefore prohibited. Specifically, speculation on food, housing, health,
education and communication is sanctionable, as is corruption while exercising
these rights.
-
3. Collective
democratic organization based on participation
Article 10 (Generalizing democracy as a basis for
building the subject)
All peoples and human beings
are subjects of their histories and have the right to a social and political
organization that respects this principle.
This organization must ensure harmony with nature and access to the
material needs of life through production and distribution systems built on
social justice principles. To achieve
these goals, collective organization should enable everyone to participate in
the production and reproduction of the life of the planet and of human beings,
i.e., of the Common Good of Humanity.
The organizing principle of this goal is to spread democracy into all
social relationships: family, gender, work, political authority, between
peoples and nations and in all social, political, economic, cultural and
religious institutions. This is valid
for all institutions that represent specific sectors of activity or interests,
such as industrial and agricultural enterprises, financial and trading bodies,
political parties, religious institutions and trade unions, non-governmental
organizations, sports and cultural groups and humanitarian institutions. All this means returning to the subject,
collective or personal, as the actor in social construction.
The generalization of democracy must apply to all
social relations and all institutions.
All non-democratic forms of organizing society’s
political, economic, social and cultural life are inconsistent with the Common
Good of Humanity and the Good Life (BuenVivir) and are therefore
prohibited. Genocides are condemned as irreparable
and criminal acts of discrimination. All segregation based on gender, race,
nation, culture, sexual orientation, physical or mental capacity, religion or
ideological affiliation are liable to sanctions.
Article 11 (Building the equality of relationships
between men and women)
Particular importance will
be given to relations between men and women, unequal from time immemorial in
most societies in the course of human history (patriarchy).
All institutions and all social and cultural systems
must recognize, respect and promote the right of women to a life that is
equivalent in all fields to that of men and guarantee them their participation
on an equal basis.
Social and economic practices, institutions and
cultural or religious systems that defend discrimination or actively
discriminate against women are inconsistent with the Common Good of
Humanity. All forms of masculine
domination, particularly differences in wage income and the non-recognition of
family domestic work linked to the reproduction of life, are subject to
sanctions.
Article 12 (Prohibiting war and collective violence)
Democratic international
relations do not allow the use of war to resolve conflicts. In this day and age, peace is not guaranteed
by an arms race. The availability of
nuclear, biological, chemical weapons directly jeopardizes the life of the
planet and of Humanity. Arms have become
a business. Their production causes an
immense waste of energy, natural resources and human talents; their use brings
about, apart from the loss of lives and infinite physical and moral suffering,
serious environmental destruction.
Peace, which is based on Justice, is built up on
dialogue.
Incompatible with the Common Good of Humanity and
therefore forbidden are: the
manufacture, possession and use of weapons of mass destruction, the
accumulation of conventional weapons to guarantee regional hegemony and control
of natural resources, the destruction of the bases of life (water, food,
micro-climates), the use of rape as a weapon of war, the incitement to war by
social communications, hegemonic regional pacts and military solutions to solve
internal political problems.
Also prohibited are generalized acts of social
violence. Genocides are condemned as
irreparable and criminal acts of discrimination, as are also ethnocides and ecocides. All segregation based on gender, race
(ethnics), nation, cultural, social status, sexual preference, physical and
mental incapacities, religious and ideological convictions.
Article 13 (Building the State in function of the
Common Good)
The role of the State, as
collective administrator, is to guarantee the Common Good, i.e. the public
interest, as compared to individual or private interests. Democratic participation is therefore needed
to define the Common Good (constitutions) and how it will be applied. All peoples and communities of the earth, in
the plurality of their components (members, organizations and social
movements), have the right to political systems of direct or delegated
participation with a revocable mandate.
Regional governments and international organizations, particularly the
United Nations, must be constructed on democratic principles.
Social and political organization must be built from
below upwards, through participation and social representation, in order to
guarantee a fair and equitable functioning of public institutions.
All dictatorial or authoritarian forms of exercising
political or economic power, where non representative minorities, formal or
informal, monopolize decisions without participation, initiative or popular
control, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore
prohibited. Also forbidden are public
subsidies for organizations, social movements, political parties or religious
institutions that do not respect democratic principles or that practise any
kind of discrimination whatsoever (gender, racial or sexual preference).
Article 14 (Guaranteeing the rights of indigenous
peoples)
Indigenous peoples have the
right to be recognized in their differences.
For this they need the material and institutional foundations necessary
for the reproduction of their customs, languages, cosmovisions and communal
institutions, that is, a protected territory, a bilingual education, their own
juridical system, public representation, etc.
They make important contributions to the contemporary world: for the
protection of Mother Earth, resistance to the extractive-export mode of
production and accumulation, and a holistic vision of the natural and social
reality.
Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities have the
right to exist as such.
Actions, institutions and economic, political and
cultural systems that destroy, segregate, discriminate against or hinder the
physical, cultural and spiritual life of indigenous peoples are inconsistent
with the Common Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.
Article 15 (Recognizing the right to resistance)
All peoples and social
groups have the right to develop critical thought, to practise peaceful
resistance and if necessary,
insurrection against destructive actions taken against nature, human life,
collective or individual liberties.
Resistance to injustice is a right and a duty for all
peoples and all human beings.
All censorship of opinion, all criminalization of
resistance and the violent repression of liberation movements, are inconsistent
with the Common Good of Humanity and are prohibited.
-
4. Interculturalism as a basic dynamic for
thinking and social ethics
Article 16 (Building up interculturalism)
The Common Good of Humanity
requires the participation of all cultures, knowledge, arts, philosophies,
religions, and folklore in interpreting reality and in the development of the
ethics necessary to its social construction, the production of its symbolic,
linguistic and aesthetic expressions, as well as the formulation of
utopias. The cultural richness of
humanity, built up throughout history, has become our heritage, and cannot be
destroyed. Science and its technological applications must serve the welfare of
humanity and not the accumulation of capital.
Interculturalism involves the contribution of all cultures, in all their
diversity, to the various dimensions of the Common Good of Humanity: respect
for nature as the source of life, the priority of use value over exchange value
within processes of justice, widespread democratization and diversity and
cultural exchange.
All cultures, knowledge and spiritualities in
accordance with the principles of this Declaration must have the means for
contributing to the pursuit of the Common Good of Humanity – the only
definition of progress.
Cultural ethnocide, the practices, institutions and
economic, political and cultural systems that hide, discriminate against or
turn into folklore the cultural riches of peoples, together with those that
impose a monocultural homogenization, identifying human development with
Western culture, are incompatible with the Common Good of Humanity and the Good
Life and are therefore prohibited. Also
forbidden are the practices, institutions, and political and cultural systems
that demand the return of an illusory past, often endorsing violence or
discrimination against other peoples also within their own societies.
Article 17 (Ensuring the right to education and to the
transmission of communication)
Information has become
central in a production system that employs immaterial means in a globalized
world. According to the logic of
capital, information is monopolized by the economic powers, both in its
production and in its use, thus causing a certain kind of alienation. As regards mass communication, this acts
against the exercise of genuine liberty.
State monopolies without citizen participation are not an appropriate
solution. Only rules that have been
democratically established can ensure the free circulation of information that
is responsible, critical and constructive.
All peoples of the earth have the right to
information, to critical opinions and to knowledge. They also have the right to exchange
knowledge and know-how in the pursuit of information useful for constructing
the Common Good of Humanity. They should democratically establish their norms
of operation.
Monopolies of the media by groups with financial or
industrial power, commodification of the public by advertising agencies,
exclusive and non-participatory control by States over the content of
information, and patents of scientific knowledge that impede the circulation of
knowledge useful for the well-being of peoples are inconsistent with the Common
Good of Humanity and are therefore prohibited.
-
5. Obligations and
sanctions for noncompliance with the Declaration
Article 18 (Applying the paradigm of the Common Good
of Humanity)
All noncompliance with, or violation of the
rights set forth in this Declaration, which aims to construct permanently the
Common Good of Humanity, or the non-execution of the mechanisms set forth
herein, shall be known, prosecuted, punished and redressed according to the
scale and impact of the damage caused, in accordance with the dispositions of
national and international law. Short-term or mid-term transition measures
(reforms and regulations) should open up the way to changing relations with
nature, establishing the priority of use value, generalizing democracy and
creating multiculturalism. However they should not become mere regulations of the
contemporary mode of accumulation in order to enable it to adjust to new
requirements for the protection of nature and the survival of human
beings. Rather they should constitute
stages for adopting the new paradigm of the Common Good of Humanity.
The implementation of this Declaration must be
guaranteed by appropriate measures that have been democratically drawn up.
All forms of impunity, amnesties and any other laws
that deny justice to victims, that is, to nature and her conscious part,
humankind, are inconsistent with the Common Good of Humanity and the Good Life
(BuenVivir) and are consequently.
