For me, the world started to change before Seattle, but after Chiapas. It was in 1997, when the Asian financial crisis catapulted the esoteric machinations of the International Monetary Fund and the financial markets – both untouchable agents of globalization – into the public domain. Until then they were unassailable, but suddenly they became the subject of debate and criticism and the edifice of neo-liberal globalization started to crack. While neo-liberal globalization and the forces that drive it have proved themselves to be resilient, the 'movement of movements' – whose heritage includes the Chiapas uprising of 1995, the 1997 Asian Financial crisis, and the 1999 WTO ministerial in Seattle – continues to grow, challenging the single-thinking of the market and globalized capitalism and creating new political and social movements across the world.
Activism, of one form or another, has been a constant for me and I count myself lucky to have been working at Focus on the Global South in Thailand when the Asian financial crisis struck, not only for the direct experience of seeing an economic collapse, but also because of the wealth of experience of my colleagues – in particular Walden Bello – who 'grabbed' the political ball and ran with it, making the most of the critical opportunities presented by the financial meltdown. The past eight years have been an intense and sometimes confusing political experience, not least because of September 11, which deflected the globalization discourse into new and even more dangerous directions.
In this issue of Development, a brilliant cast of engaged intellectuals and activists reflect on what is the movement of movements: why and how it is different from earlier periods of mobilization in the 1960s and 1970s, how the world and regional social forum processes are evolving, and where is it all heading. For my part, I have taken a different, more personal approach, describing how it feels to be part of this experiment in new politics, and posing some possibilities for future action and thinking.
The movement of movements exists as much in our consciousness as it does in reality. This does not mean that the movement is not real, but rather that our collective awareness of being part of a larger reality and of a common struggle, albeit in different places, cultures and contexts, is a consequence of our common experiences of neo-liberal globalization. The movement of movements is, itself, a product of globalization. Indeed, the slogan 'Globalize the hope, globalize the struggle' is the movement's call to arms.
However, this consciousness does not translate into a unitary vision of where the movement is moving. In fact, the opposite is true: the response to the monotheism of neo-liberalism is the polytheism of pluralism and diversity.
Yet the movement does move. Moreover, it moves in all directions, surpassing geographic and sectoral boundaries, even to the point of ameliorating, even if not obliterating, political and ideological differences.
Although we cannot predict or even determine where the movement is moving, we can get some indications of the future by understanding more about the 'shape' of the movement, 'how' it moves, and what moves it.
What follows is schematic, largely intuitive and, possibly, optimistic. However, in defence of what might be seen as an idealized vision of the 'movement of movements' accentuating the positive and innovative aspects of this new phase of mobilization does not constitute naivety, but rather helps strengthen our unity in the face of neo-liberalism. The movement is rich with (potentially productive) contradictions and a multitude of (potentially conflicting) ways of working, perspectives, priorities, and political and organizational orientations. It is for these reasons that processes such as the World Social Forum are so important because they provide spaces and processes where no vision is valorized at the expense of another. There is, of course, plenty to criticize but these critiques can strengthen the positive aspects of the movement rather than undermine it. Criticism is essential given the new terrain that we are entering but, for the moment, I shall leave that to others.
The shape of the movement
The 'shape' of the movement is nonlinear: it is intuitive and personal, based on commitments, relationships, networks and empathies. It is a plastic, dynamic, intergrative and disintergrative process. It's like a lava lamp: organic forms rise, coalesce (as projects, campaigns, shared analyses and demands), disperse and re-form in new shapes. It is fluid and changing but moving towards cohesion rather than fragmentation.
In the movement, there is a great energy and desire for change – not simply for change's sake but to find new and better ways of working together and understanding the other(s). The movement is a learning space where the process is as important as the project, and where projects themselves overcome political dogma, organizational structures and hierarchies to become the primary engines of movement and the tools of action. Along with the desire for change is a quest for unity. Many have learnt from the political struggles of the past that sectarian politics is deadly and that we reap as we sow; the rejection of uncritical violence, the rejection of hierarchy, the rejection of patriarchy and cultural domination, all point to the acceptance, albeit often implicit, that social transformation is not something in the future: it is in the here and now.
How decisions are made is as important as who makes them and there is no automatic link between decisions and actions. Unlike old organizational forms where action was the predictable and inevitable result of directives delivered through a hierarchy, in the 'movement of movements' action is voluntary. The power of a decision to instigate action is not only a measure of the usefulness of the decision, but also of the 'legitimacy' of those making the decisions. Legitimacy itself is an intangible element; a mysterious and immeasurable combination of representation and resonance. Hence, individuals within the movement, even those without a 'base', can exercise leadership and exert influence because their ideas, their analyses, their way of talking, their vision, resonates widely. However, this position of leadership and legitimacy is tenuous and always subject to a permanent, informal vote.
To say that the movement is democratic would be to overstate: but to say that it seeks democracy is true. There is an intention to avoid ossifying and undemocratic structures, yet networks are neither more or less democratic than other forms. In networks, openness is contradicted by seemingly random processes of information sharing and decision-making and consensus reflects the sentiments of the majority but automatically excludes those outside the consensus. There are circles or nodes of power and for those outside these circles and nodes, it is not clear how this power is attributed or how decisions are made. But these loci of power and information keep changing: they cannot be captured, monopolized or institionalized. Thus, the movement exists between chaos and structure, between transparency and opacity, between exclusiveness and inclusiveness.
There are implicit values that guide the politics and sociology of the movement of movements – in theory if not always in practice: respect for autonomy and diversity, inclusiveness and equality coupled with a rejection of hierarchy, racism, patriarchy, sexism, sectarianism, fundamentalisms, casteism and xenophobia.
Taken together, these characteristics give some clues as to where the movement of movements is moving. 'It' (whatever 'it' is) will radicalize rather than institutionalize. It will continue to expand in many directions to include new realities and resistances. Innovative processes and networks will emerge, using technological tools and political approaches which are bottom-up rather than top-down. Internationalism will counter nationalism, although increasingly struggles will be rooted in the local social sphere. Ideology will be subordinated to collaboration and solidarity, but not exclude identity.
Projects against power
But, without structure and institutions, without political parties and manifestos, how can the movement change the balance of power in the global system? How can the movement change the world, how can it 'do' politics without a political party, without hierarchies of decision-making and without predictable systems?
To steal a phrase from the Empire, the movement of movements organizes itself along the lines of the 'coalition of the willing': those who want to join, do. Common projects, campaigns and demands are developed and articulated through processes such as the World Social Forum, then implemented locally, idiomatically and without coercion. For example, the anti-war mobilizations of 20 February 2003 and 19 March 2004 were organized through these open processes. The campaigns and actions against the World Trade Organization in Cancun in 2003, and again this year in the lead up to and during the Hong Kong WTO ministerial, are coordinated through networks and implemented largely by national coalitions and organizations. It is through these sorts of projects that power will be shifted. Long-term change will come from the examples of the Zapatsistas, the Bolivian 'movement towards socialism' (the MAS) and the MST.
However, this does not mean that the movements do not need some 'hegemonizing' projects around which to gather. To steal another idea from a more popular source, the Quentin Tarantino movie Kill Bill Volume 2 (2004), the movement of movements could develop its own 'Five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique'. In the movie, The Bride learns from The Master how to kill The Enemy by striking sharp blows to the five chakras. After five steps, the heart of the enemy explodes. Death is instant. Could the movement of movements apply five death-inducing blows to neo-liberal capitalism? What are its life sources and what are its weaknesses? Where do we have our greatest strengths and what sort of victories would create transformative, structural changes in power relations?
The Enemy – neo-liberal capitalism – depends on institutionalizing finance and trade liberalization, expanding militarism, and protecting the interests of transnational corporations. As campaign objectives for the movement of movements, striking the source of neo-liberalism's power – its 'chakras' – might translate into debt cancellation, debilitating the WTO, ending the US occupation of Iraq (and shutting down some US military bases) and, amongst other TNC targets, ending transnational control of agriculture.
Debt cancellation, without conditions and from within the resources of the multilateral institutions, would instantly and radically transform relations between the North and the South, making it no longer possible for the former to use its position of creditor to exercise coercive power over the latter, the debtors.
Further weakening the already-weak WTO would take us one step closer to delegitimizing the current international trade regime whose main function is to protect the interests of northern capital and transnational corporations. This is not to say that we do not need international trade rules, but we certainly do not need these ones, written by the powerful for the powerful.
The reasons for forcing the US to end its illegal occupation of Iraq are obvious, not the least being the boost this would give to progressive movements in the US, without whom changing the global balance of power will be even more difficult. In the longer term, shutting down foreign US military bases would limit the US capacity to act with impunity and, in doing so, make visible militarization.
Finally, striking TNCs through agribusiness combines the strength of the peasants' movements and the Via Campesina call for food sovereignty with the broad-based consumer demand for safe food. Furthermore, the vast majority of people in the South depend on agriculture for their livelihoods and the present system of agriculture production, institutionalized under the WTO's agreement on agriculture, threatens their livelihoods.
In all these areas – debt, the war in Iraq, US bases, the WTO and food sovereignty – campaigns and coalitions already exist, and analyses and demands are well-articulated. This is not a proposal to start a series of global campaigns from scratch, but rather to use the strengths of the movements to build on existing campaigns and to 'hegemonize' them throughout the movement of movements as a common (but not exclusive) frame of reference and action. These are short-term campaigns whose main purpose is to change the balance of power between North and South, between private and public, between capital and labour, and between war and peace. What might follow after this 'tectonic shift' is another matter all together.
Emancipatory slogans
While action at the global level is necessary, it is not sufficient. Neo-liberalism pervades our daily life, entering into the private sphere, distorting social relations and turning us all into individualistic, albeit mass, consumers. Expanding the political struggle against neo-liberalism requires us to build some simple emancipatory tools that can help people to understand how neo-liberalism pervades and constructs daily life. For example, just as the simple frame of 'class analysis/solidarity' transformed relations between capital and labour and the rhetoric of the 'free market/freedom' gave impetus to the neo-liberal ideology, the movement against neo-liberalism needs a 'pedagogic slogan'. Popularizing the process of 'commodification' – the idea that everything is for sale or that everything can be transformed into a form of profit, even the sources of life itself – could be a powerful emancipatory tool. Ecology, too, offers possibilities but without an ecological catastrophe, this may not immediately translate into daily life. There are no doubt other possible frames, but the immediate project is to find our own hegemonic slogans and tools to loosen the grip of neo-liberalism. And to say 'another world is possible' is not enough.
The great project of the movement of movements is to expand and open this space to include, engage and mobilize not only the 'usual suspects' but the majority whose daily lives and futures are shaped, predetermined and curtailed by the narrow, reductionist and anti-people ideology of the market. It is not enough to simply resist neo-liberal globalization: we must create and popularize explanations and interpretations of reality that incite people to act. In this, we still have a long way to go.
