Global crises and popular resistance
Global
crises and popular resistance;
by
Mobile:
+234-813-579-5607
Email:
baba_aye@yahoo.com
Introduction
The current
global situation marked by severe crises has lasted thus far for half a decade
and is not abating. Its first salvo was that of sharp increases in the prices
of food, resulting in riots across several countries in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. By August 9, the first inkling of financial crisis reared its head.
This was when the European Central Bank had to release £75bn to bailout
eurozone banks[3]. When it hit the United States its
generalisation became definite. What started as a Global Financial Crisis
became the Great Recession’s opening moment and the beginning of the most inexorable
economic crisis since the Great Depression. While the first wave of recession
receded after two years, the spectre of a global economic crisis still stalks
the world, particularly in its most hallowed chambers i.e. Europe and North
America. There seems to be no succour from the pangs of a long and dire
depression and nothing tried by the elite of policy-makers and captains of
industry/finance seems to make much sense in providing a solution.
As the
economy roils in turmoil what could arguably be considered as natural disasters
also became more frequent. Earthquakes,
tsunamis, droughts & such like have hit several parts of the world in the
earth’s vengeance. This is part of a broader environmental crisis. In Fukushima,
we could very well see how such “natural” disasters and the placing of profit
over human safety could lead to nuclear disasters.
These
variegated crises (economic, social and environmental) have contributed
immensely to eroding the legitimacy of several regimes, a critical element of
political crisis that has both undermined and reinvigorated the ethos of democracy[4].
They have as well been central to an ideological crisis that has invaded both
the academia and the boardrooms of establishment politics. In short, what
cannot be refuted is the fact that modern industrial society is at the historic
conjuncture of a systemic crisis.
The
ferment of working people and youths has been a central element within this organic crisis of the world capitalist
system. These waves of upheavals have been both resistances against different
dimensions of the catastrophe humankind now faces and also part of the
atmosphere of turmoil, taking several shapes and producing diverse results thus
far. The most resounding of these, have been the ongoing revolutions in North
Africa and the Middle East. The Occupy Movement in the United States, the “Squares
Movement” of “the indignants” in Greece and Spain, mass strikes across Europe,
the electoral rise of the radical Left (and worrisomely of the far-right as
well) in France and Greece, fractures within the post-apartheid power bloc in
South Africa and eruption of angst in the mines and communities, upsurge of
students power on the streets in Quebec and Chile, exacerbation of protests in
China, the merging of protest and elections in the removal of Abdoulaye Wade as
President in Senegal and anti-fuel subsidy removal revolts in Nigeria are major
signposts of intensified class struggle. These have entailed and witnessed the
combination of old and new methods and tactics of popular resistance in the
unfolding era.
The
contents, forms and narratives of these tumultuous, popular, mass resistances
have been shaped by the context of social, economic, political and ideological
pressures they confront, the political opportunity structures that they could
seize and the dynamics of organisation(s) they encompass. These include what
could be considered as structural or traditional in the sense that they have
been historically established and those elements that could be considered as conjunctural
or tactical in the sense that they are responses to the particular forms in
which the master class of big business and pro-establishment politicians (try
to) make the working masses bear the cost of recovery from the crisis. There is
of course, as this paper unveils a close-knit dialectical relationship between
the structural and the conjunctural, both in terms of the crises and the
revolts they have called forth. Humankind definitely makes history, but within
the confines of the concrete reality each generation inherits from all things
bright and beautiful, as well as all that is sordid and malignant, from its
past
In the
light of the foregoing, this paper argues that we are in the midst of a general
crisis of modern industrial society and of its neoliberal incarnation in
particular, which is rooted in the logic and nature of capitalist development.
Thus, the question of transitional transformation
is posed. The crisis itself is one that will obviously be long-drawn and the
resolution of this posed question will involve the evolution of the character
of the social forces in contention for the re-shaping of the world. The centrality
of the working class to the politics from below which challenges the status quo is identified. While not
being oblivious of the importance of technology and communication, this paper
stands by the otherwise self-evident fact that it is human beings as social
groups and not mobile phones, laptops or any form of communication technology
that wage class struggle. The popular
resistance waged by students, oppressed nationalities, and the entirety of the
working masses is put in perspective within the broad canvass of the
dispossessed people’s struggle to win emancipation and reclaim the earth. The
contradictions and bridges between reforms and social revolution are examined
in an effort to understand the problems and prospects before the mass upsurge
we now witness and its unfurling future.
To
achieve its set tasks, the paper is structured into two main sections. In the
first (growth, development, crises and social transformation), the
social-historical context of the present moment of revolt is captured, with
particular emphasis on the tumultuous era of the Great Depression. An
understanding of crises and revolts in general, which puts the similarities and
differences of these in perspective, is considered essential for understanding
the current situation. Considering the fact that this paper’s primary concern
is the relations between social and economic pressures and the nature, growth
and development of mass movements, such an historical excursion takes on added
significance. The second main section explores
the forms, contents & narratives of the popular resistances, explored in
the light of the established general perspective. Finally, in conclusion, the
paper explores problems and prospects for the ongoing mass movements with
regards to the emancipatory quest for social transformation.
Growth,
development, crises and social transformation
Pre-capitalist
societies were quite static. In their idyllic balance with nature, today could
very well have been yesterday and tomorrow just like today. Traditions and
superstitions were, not surprisingly, very dominant. There was as well no supposed
separation of the economy from society as a whole. Social life had a rhythmic
blend with nature. Capitalist development liberated humankind from the
stagnation of this past, but at a price. Growth became an obsession as well as both a real and perceived need. At the
heart of this growth is accumulation.
Related to this accumulation are cycles and circles of prosperity and
destitution, progress and retrogression, in short, in different times/spaces,
development and under-development. This structural dynamis of modern industrial
society accounts for the general thrust of economic pressures that bear on mass
movements of working people and youths at moments of crises such as the present
conjuncture.
Growth and development; the logic of
capital accumulation
The
“growth paradigm” as Gareth Dale defines it (2012), “refers to the proposition
that economic growth is good, imperative, essentially limitless,
and the principal remedy for a litany of social problems.” Along with
the “liberal creed”[5]
central to capitalism came a disembowelling of the economic moment from the
holistic rhythms of social life, making it the master of other processes of
national and global life and consequently modelling the modern industrial world
in the image of the capitalist master class. Karl Marx, the German thinker and
revolutionary activist described it thus:
Accumulation for the sake of accumulation, production
for the sake of production: this was the formula in which classical economics
expressed the historical mission of the bourgeoisie in the period of its
domination[6]
He
however pointed out that capitalist development marked a turning point for
humankind, separating it from the backwardness of pre-modern society. It did
represent in its emergence, a huge leap forward for social progress and the
acme, of development, at that point in time. The logic of its trajectory,
located in prioritization of profit over people and greed over human need,
however leads to the ruin of society as it is. It thus bears the seed of its
destruction, within it.
In the
progressive era of capitalism, accumulation driven by competition in the animal
spirits of the market spurred growth like never before. In its infancy and
early youth between the fifteenth and the nineteenth centuries, it brought
about transitional transformation. In
four hundred years, humankind’s mastery of nature and development of the
specie’s productive powers surpassed that of the preceding four thousand years
of human history combined. This expansion of the horizons of production (and
consumption) stretched beyond national and regional barriers. The traversing of
the Cape of Hope, the “discovery” of the Americas, and the West’s conquest of
the Far East were all part of the processes driven by this drive to growth. It
involved as well as resulted in the materialization of a world market and
gradually what could be called a global world, socially politically and in a
sense culturally[7].
To
what extent such stupendous growth has resulted in development is however one
that quite often has been asked and keeps being asked. The point of departure
for the question is often what is considered as “development”. This could be
because, as Walter Rodney (1973, p.6) puts it “development in human society is
a many-sided process”. As he further notes “more often than not, the term
‘development’ is used in an exclusive economic sense-the justification being
that the type of economy is itself an index of other features” (ibid, p.8). He then goes on to show that
humankind in general has had economic development (even in pre-capitalist
societies) to the extent that in different regions at different times human
beings have increased their collective capacity to utilise nature and its
fruits for beneficial purposes.
Economic
development requires the formulation of policies that would engender such
processes as those of industrialisation, modernization[8]
and strengthen institutions which promote these. In a manner of speaking,
economic growth could possibly be fully on auto-pilot. Economic development
though, requires conscious measures, amongst which the actions of states are
central, towards ensuring transition from more traditional (pre-capitalist or more
properly speaking, peripherally capitalist) economies to more advanced
capitalist production of goods and services[9].
In could be argued that, it is aimed at utilising the expanding prosperity of a
country for the increase of its citizens’ social well-being and the expansion
of political liberties (O’Sullivan & Sheffrin, 2003).
It is
hardly surprising that concern for economic development in an explicit manner
was after World War II, at a time when state capitalism became pivotal for the
development of capitalism as a whole. The means of production as well as that
for destruction (the latter being well demonstrated in the two world wars) had
become so enormous that the mass poverty which was palpable could not but be
confronted both practically and theoretically within countries and
internationally. Arguably, economic growth should lead to economic and human development[10]
both within nations and globally, but this did not seem to be the case. Sixty
two years back, no less notable figure than President Harry Truman of the United
States observed at his inauguration that:
More than half the people of the world are living in
conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate, they are victims of
disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a
handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. For the first
time in history humanity possesses the knowledge and the skill to relieve the
suffering of these people[11].
The
reality today is that economic growth and development has not only resulted in
an increasing number of people living in conditions that do not merely approach
misery, but rather make misery an understatement. It has equally led the world
into a state of intense crisis. This is despite the policies and programmes of
governments and declarations and goals of multilateral economic and political
organisations, supposedly aimed at the contrary.
To understand
why the current crisis and how it has taken shape, it is of the
utmost essence to grasp the reason(s) for this seeming paradox which really is
no paradox at all. It is the impoverishment of the many that is the basis of
the super wealth of the few. The labour of the toiling masses is what creates
social wealth. But this wealth is appropriated by the few who own the means
with which it is generated. It is not impossible to win some level of
re-distribution of wealth through struggle from below leading to compromise of
some sorts by the owners of capital. But “capital exists and can only exist as
many capitals”[12].
Thus, competition between the different owners of capital results in the
continued expansion of extended reproduction of commodities for the market, for
which there is no guarantee of consumption. This competition as well as the
short-term benefit of increased profits forces the “many capitals” to invest in
increasing the productivity of labour[13].
The flipside of this “progressive development of the social productivity of
labour”[14]
is a general tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Such decline in the rate
of profit results in the capitalists’ sharp contraction of production and
consequently economic crisis. All the most flowery of words and declarations
will never compel the captains of industry and finance to pump in investments
without a whiff in the air of an upturn in the rate of profit.
Development, underdevelopment and crises
General
crises of the capitalist system are multi-dimensional in their manifestations.
It is not so much that the different dimensions of such crises merge as that
they are organically combined producing one over-arching atmosphere of chaos. The
critical elements of the general crisis, as is well known now include: a global
financial crisis; a world economic crisis and; a food crisis. Emerging from
these material crises is political contention and crisis in the realms of
ideas, which we will look at in more depth in the subsequent section. These
material crises did not just come out of the blues. At their roots is the for profit nature of capitalist economic
development. This engenders expansion and contraction in a cycle of development
and underdevelopment, prosperity and crises.
Accumulation and business cycles before
the neoliberal “counter-revolution”
Since
its age of puberty, in the 17th Century, capitalism had always had
its cycles of booms and bursts, periods of expanding economic expansion turn
into the murky waters of recessions (O’Sullivan & Sheffrin, Op cit pp 57; 310). This is not something magical it is an
inescapable dynamic of the capitalist accumulation. But what seems so simple
now did not seem so to the earliest of liberal economists or even to their
later day scions either. Economic crises in the 18th Century was
considered as extraneous to the workings of capitalism, with wars, famine and
other episodic catastrophes being thought to account for these[15].
It was the Utopian Socialist, Jean
Charles Sismondi who first deciphered economic crisis as being part of the
cycle of capitalist development in 1819.
In his view, at the root of the perennial cycle of booms and bursts were the
twin problems of overproduction and, primarily, in his view, under-consumption.
As
spirals of prosperity and depression dogged the capitalist world throughout the
19th and early part of the 20th Centuries, business cycle theories
became a central theme in understanding the nature of modern industrial
society’s development. The Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter codified these
into four on the basis of their periodicities[16].
Crises were however portrayed by the neo-classical school of economics dominant
at the turn of the 20th Century as passing disruptions of economic
equilibrium, a mechanism within the deemed self-regulating nature of liberal
economic development. The Great Depression confirmed the worst fears of the
more attentive of pro-establishment social scientists on the dangers of
economic crisis, with its attendant social upheavals. It also spurred efforts,
on their part, to overcome this Achilles’ heel of the system.
John
Maynard Keynes provided what was perceived as the key emblazoned with the
mantra of counter-cyclical countervailing measures to address under-consumption
or otherwise put, the question of effective aggregate demand. This gave birth
to the field of macroeconomics, representing a bold attempt to overcome the
anarchy of business cycles within the confines and indeed, on the basis of capitalist development. It did seem to have been a
successful attempt for many decades, ushering in the Golden Age of capitalism which
spurred the Welfare State in the developed West and the developmentalist state
in ex-colonies (in an era where imperialism was re-structured such that
manufacturing by transnational corporations in these neo-colonies were labour
was cheaper helped forge a “triple alliance” which included the state and a
nascent national bourgeoisie[17]).
In both instances, the state assumed a strongly interventionist role in
ensuring social policy reforms, regulating the finance sector within national
borders and guaranteeing the real economy’s continued production.
In
this period which lasted from the end of World War II to the early 1970s, it
did seem that severe global slumps had been banished. The post-War Order
established at Bretton Woods in 1944 institutionalised some form of regulation
for international financial and commercial relations. Central to this was the
International Monetary Fund and what would become the World Bank. It also
heralded the hegemony of the United States as the guardian of global
capitalism, even as it led to the establishment of the United Nations. The
seeming state of tranquillity within this order began to evaporate by the late
1960s, took a nosedive with the collapse of the Bretton Woods arrangement by
1971 and ended with the 1973-74 crises. The subsequent period of neoliberalism
with its unbridled spirit of deregulation, privatisation and cuts in the
funding of social services is considered by some as being instituted on the
foundations of some form of counter-revolution.
It is
however of practical significance for today’s scholars and activists to
consider just to what extent it was that Keynesian ideas and policies helped to
stem the spread of the Great Depression and spur the so-called Golden Age of
capitalism. As Keynes argued and not without justification, ideas rule the
world! And today, within the melee of contending ideas is that of possible
salvation from the road trod with Keynes General
Theory. The reality might not be as simplistic as it appears. Between the
Great Depression and the Golden Age lies a bloody chapter which explains the
room for re-construction and with it the re-birth of flourishing capitalism.
This was World War II.
Instituting transformation; class
relations, the state and world orders
Social
transformation within modern society emerges
from the dynamics of development, encapsulating in broad strokes, the
contradictory surge immanent in the multi-faceted processes of social change.
Such contradictory reflection of objective progress arises from the fact that
what transformation at any time amounts to, involves intense political and
ideological contention. Thus, it could be argued that moments of general crisis
of capitalism present the most significant conjunctures from which social
transformation tends to result. In the wake of the Long Depression of the18th
Century’s last quarter, the world witnessed what Karl Polanyi describes as The Great Transformation. This was the belle époque which lasted till the Great
Depression. At its heart was the reverence of the “liberal creed”. Its collapse
led to the Keynesian transformation pointed out earlier. The neoliberal
transformation of the 1970s-90s would be the last of the “great transformations”
of a very eventful 20th Century. These transformations have brought
about massive restructuring of society economically, socially and politically.
These have been within countries, regionally and in the form of some world
order or the other. Questions, lessons and unresolved developments from the
past weigh heavily on the choices and alternatives open to contending forces at
this present conjuncture.
It is
however important, for several reasons, not the least of these being for
understanding the geography of the current popular resistances to a global
crises, as well as how this crisis has taken shape in different regions of the
world, to put in perspective the fact that while there have been universal
manifestations of social transformations, the magnitude and facets of these in
different regions of the world reflect the uneven and combined nature of
socio-economic and political development which imperialist domination
kindles. It is not accidental that
countries in which the local master class could not exercise the powers of
sovereignty, even in a formal sense during the inter-war years have had a
relatively significant difference in the trajectories of crises and revolts
that now shake the world[18].
In looking more closely at the relationship between crises and social
transformations towards, and in the wake of the two major crises before the
current conjuncture, it would be worthwhile to have this in mind, to better
understand and draw lessons from the unfolding character of mass struggles that
we now witness. Central to the revolts across the lines of “developed” and
“underdeveloped” countries as we shall see though, are the critical issues of
how social relations of production have taken formation and related to this,
the forms and character of class struggle arising from this and the global
context, which largely is determined by world orders entrenched by the dominant
imperialist powers, being the
advanced capitalist countries.
Another
important point of note is that dark nights of angst and the fury of revolt
hardly ever just fall on us. They creep in with heralds in the twilights of
preceding eras. It is impossible for example to understand the Great Depression
and the dynamics of class struggle in that period outside the wake of the First
World War and the interval of the roaring twenties. Similarly, the crises of
the mid-70s have roots that go beyond 1968 and which were manifested in the
turmoil of that year.
From “the Age of Catastrophe” to the
“Golden Age”
The
Great Depression was part of the organic crisis of capitalism starting with
World War I, leading to and ending with the final hours of World War II. At its
centre was the Western world. The rest of the world was under its imperialist
domination as colonies or semi-colonies. While farmers as a social group had
become “little but objects of nostalgia” by the beginning of the 21st
Century, “before the First World War, farmers composed the largest single group
in every country” including in the centres of imperialism (Drucker, 1994).
Workers had no social security whatsoever, there was no extra pay for overtime
work, nor did an employee enjoy paid vacation. Except in Germany, there was no
health insurance and unemployment benefit which was nothing but a pittance was
paid only in Britain (and this started just two years before World War II). Patriotic
passions were stirred by the master class in the countries of the Allies and
the Central Powers alike. Working people were brought to face each other on the
battlefields of the human carnage that cost 9 million lives.
The end
of the war marked the curtains for four great empires and the re-drawing of the
map of Europe (Keegan 2000, p.7). It also marked an era of revolutions of which
the 1917 Russian revolution had the most lasting significance. With this reign
of chaos and the threat it presented to the order of the Gilded Era, the first
concerted efforts at establishing an institutionalised world order, beyond the
complex dynamics of sheer balance of European powers politics, were taken. This
took the form of the League of Nations (LON), formed in 1919. It was clear to
the master class of industrialists, statesmen and politicians in the different
capitalist countries that concessions had to be made to the working class if
the legitimacy of capitalist order in general was to be maintained. The
International Labour Organisation (ILO) was thus formed as an organisation of
the LON, to promote tri-partite “pluralism”. Within countries though, socialist
organisations that could influence workers along radical lines were hounded and
revolutions such as those in Germany and Hungary were smashed with the utmost
ferocity.
The
1920s opened with this background. From the murk of death, destruction and
disease wrought in World War I and its aftermath, Euro-American economies
stumbled through a brief recession, into the “roaring twenties”. Spurred by the
expansion of the corporation and particularly international finance capital,
the consumption of fruits of technological advancement such as electricity,
telephone, radios and automobiles became diffused. America was particularly
best placed to be at the heart of this decade of prosperity, it was the least
battered of the Allies. It had entered World War I barely a year to its end and
was far removed from the main theatres of destruction. The American state had
also much more brutally than any Western state confronted the spectres of
communism and working class mobilization headlong on the eve of the 1920s. A
“red scare” had been whipped up, with strikes and socialist organisations
portrayed as satanic footholds of Bolshevik revolution. In quick succession, the
Espionage and Sedition Acts were passed in 1917-18. Private police supplemented
the state police in attacking activists and workers. In some instances, union
activists and striking workers were murdered by such police, while the state
declared martial law.
The September
1919 US Steel Corporation workers strike was a turning point in the routing of
workers’ power which was central to the roaring of the 1920s. Almost half a
million employees of the company spread over 50 towns in 10 states walked out when
management refused to recognise their right to be unionised. For three months
the strikers remained adamant despite the most horrendous of attacks. The
government in Gary, Indiana declared martial law and company police killed 26
strikers in Pennsylvania. Thugs were brought to break picket lines and the
homes of many strike leaders were burnt down by unknown persons. The defeat of
the strike by January 1920 signalled the defeat of organised labour. The
massacre of almost 100 coal miners in the “battle of Blair Mountain” the
following year confirmed the determination of employers and the state to ensure
that organised labour remained emasculated.
The
modern mass society could be said to have its foundations in this decade.
Urbanisation expanded at rates mind-boggling rates, with an ever increasing
proportion of the population living in towns and cities. Advertisement, the
mass media and the novel cinema led to the flourishing of consumerism which in
turn engendered the spread of large-scale production. Having successfully
beaten the unions into retreat, the master class could be “magnanimous”. There
was so much optimism such that in his inaugural speech as president, Hubert
Hoover, claimed that: "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph
over poverty than ever before in the history of any land". This was in
1928, barely a year before millions of Americans sank into the deepest depths
of poverty, with tens of thousands at the very least living in “Hoovervilles”.[19]
These were shanties with “houses” built using cardboard, scrap metal, wood from
crates, and old newspapers.
The
1930s were like never before, a decade of “crisis and revolts”. The events of
the current conjuncture are often compared to those of that period. This is not
surprising. Lehman brothers collapse on September 15, 2008 seemed to echo the
“Black Tuesday” of October 29, 1929, when the New York Stock Exchange crashed.
Three years after that crash, one quarter of the workforce in the United States
were unemployed. Not unlike what would befall eleven heads of states and
governments in the current crisis, President Hoover lost his bid for
re-election that year. Franklin Roosevelt won the elections on the platform of
establishing a “new deal” that would bring the crisis which hurt capitalists
and the working masses alike, but in very
different ways, to an end. His election did not bring mass anger to an end.
There
were massive movements of the working masses as job losses went along with the
loss of homes foreclosed when “poor folk” could not pay mortgages. Soup
kitchens sprang up as charities ventured to provide food for many who could
otherwise have starved to death. Anti-eviction movements, riots in urban
centres and “farm strikes” became the order of the day. But of the greatest
significance was the rise of working class militancy, particularly, but not
limited to the form of mass strikes. Waves of “sit-in” strikes spread like wild
fire from 1934 to 1937. Workers occupied their
factories, confronting employers and the state in sometimes bloody battles.
Within the cauldron of crisis, a revival of the working class was established,
and with it, its leadership of the revolutionary pressures from below of the
mass of Americans. In the course of this its hour of rebirth, the American
working class: won recognition of unions as a right; established some of its
largest unions and, related to this; organised around industrial lines,
including the formation of a federation of this new mammoth expression of union
combination, the Congress of Industrial Organisations (CIO).
The
series of “new deals”[20]
were meant to contain this tornado of rebellion, restore the profit incentive
for business and, reconcile these two otherwise extreme class poles. They were
of course also geared at ensuring the continued tenure of the Roosevelt
administration which represented this pseudo-bonapartist “balance”. The first
new deal constituted a Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), through
which $500m was made available for soup kitchens and unemployment benefits (Lowe
1988, p. 117). The second new deal involved bolder interventions which made the
state the biggest employer of labour in liberal America. These included: the
establishment of the Works Progress Administration, to try curtailing the
rising unemployment rates; the Wagner Act, through which labour unions became
legally recognised; the passage of laws declared to be aimed at safeguarding
workers’ social security, fair labour standards, poor farmers’ tenancy
security, and housing for the working masses (Kennedy 1999, p.4).
These
steps on one hand reflected the turns and twists of the Great Depression, as
the recession of the late 1930s made the earlier recession at that conjuncture
seem mild. On the other hand, they did play a role in shaping the dynamics of
the mass movements of that hour, largely because they were not unsuccessful in
winning, particularly the leading strata of the trade union movement to the
cheerleaders’ club of the “new deal”. But the avalanches of mass anger from
below, just like the depression which had ignited it, could not be placed back
into the bottle of normalcy. The pathway to recovery and some form of class
compromise waded through the damp, dark disaster of World War II.
With
regards to the massive rise of the working class movement in this period there
are some critical elements of note, first, socialist organisations, activists
and ideas were central in the mobilisations. This is not to suggest some
conspiracy or the other as McCarthyism would do in the subsequent period. But
there was a sense in which within the mass upsurge, there was this grasping for
a different reality from that which crisis-ridden capitalism presented them.
The fact that the USSR, which was portrayed as a workers’ state was probably
the only country of note that was not sucked into the labyrinth of depression
gave a sense of concreteness to this aspiration. The Communist Party for
example, grew at an exponential rate. Its militants and those of several other
far-Left groups were active not only in the trade unions but as well in popular
resistance through such mass organisations as the anti-eviction movement, the
Unemployed Councils and Negro rights movements. Second, the more liberal trade
union leaders, in particular those of the more radical Congress of Industrial Organisations
which was nodal within the mood of the moment stood for reforms. In this they
openly and enthusiastically stood by Roosevelt. While being staunchly
anti-communist, they utilised the energy and enthusiasm of socialist cadres to
build the movement and subsequently dumped these.
With
regards to the new deals; these were not policies and actions that were
resolved on by the master class on the basis of a consensus. Arriving at them
involved intra-class contestation on
what was to be done to save the system which the politicians and entrepreneurs
both stood for. Second, the new deals did not represent some well thought out
Keynesian policy framework. Keynesianism would be the ideology of the post-World War II era. Practice
prefigured policy and policy foreshadowed theory towards what would become the
post-World War II era which collapsed with the mid-1970s crisis.
The
great depression was arguably the first truly global crisis of capitalism. While
the United States was undoubtedly its epicentre, it equally hit not only other
Western countries but as well the semi-colonies of Latin America and the
colonies in Africa and Asia, with varying levels of intensity. This as well
spurred revolts which were critical to the form that the subsequent world order
would take.
In
Europe, social discontent took many forms which challenged the status quo. This involved radicalization
of the working masses for social change, as well as that of right wing forces
along ultra-nationalist lines, including the rise of fascism. The population of
officially unemployed workers in Britain rose from 1million to 2.7million
persons, sparking off a series of strikes and “hunger marches”[21].
France witnessed a spate of riots and severe parliamentary instability which
saw to the collapse of five governments in less than two years. The most severe
of the anti-parliamentary riots in the country during this period was that
organised by right-wing nationalist forces in February 1934[22]. Germany was particularly hit as the American
Dawes plan meant to ameliorate the blows of reparations and which tied American investments intricately to European capital seized
in the light of the depression.
The
semi-colonies and colonies outside Europe and North America were hit badly.
This was largely through the channels of trade as the prices of primary
commodities exported from these countries hit the dust. The shock of mass
upheavals in Latin America on the heels of the 1929 crash paved the way for an
era of authoritarian rule, established through passive revolutions (from
above). Arguably the most significant of this phenomenon was in 1930 Brazil.
Getuilo Vargas, “the father of the poor” emerged as president through a
revolution schemed by the military’s top brass. Throughout the 1930s he ran
programmes similar to Roosevelt’s new deals. His emergence was marked by the
“entrance of new important groups into national politics” (Edwards 2007, p.
51). These included the nascent bourgeoisie, a technocratic bureaucracy and the
working class. This, to a great extent, was the situation across the
under-developed world. The period of the Great Depression marked the entry of
the working class and with it the urban working class onto the stage of global history. In the Caribbean, a wave
of strikes and protests hit hard at the underbelly of British colonialism. Asia
was not spared while strikes and anti-tax revolts of women, peasants and urban
poor confronted the colonial masters in West African countries such as Nigeria
and Ghana. In the Middle East and North Africa, the Moslem Brotherhood arose as
an expression of mass anger and resistance (Mitchell, 1969). This movement
rooted in Islamist ideology flourished with the provision of welfare and
solidarity for the urban poor (Lia, 1998).
The
Soviet Union was immune from the worst pangs of that long depression. After the
1917 revolution, it had battled with foreign intervention and civil war that
had left the country in a terrible state. Foreign trade which was a major
channel of the crisis’ transformation had reduced to the barest minimum.
Besides, at this point in time, socialism had become a strong modernizationist
ideology guiding such policies as the five year plan, massive electrification
and industrialization drive, etc, in short, state capitalism was being built
“in one country”. This, equally, was pursued with the most totalitarian of
authoritarian rule which utilised the stratagems of purges, deportation and sundry
means.
Beyond 1968; three decades of the
neoliberal locusts
The
“age of catastrophe” of which the Great Depression was a centre of gravity
ended with World War II. “The Second World War prepared the conditions for a
massive revival in the rate of profit and for a golden age of capital
accumulation. The principal reason for this was the destruction of capital
during the War” (Brooks, 2012 p. 76). By the late 1960s this era came to a
screeching slowdown, as enhanced productivity pushed the rate of profit into
stiff decline, culminating in the global crisis of the mid-1970s. 1968 was the
loud dénouement of that golden era and the class compromise which it fostered
and rested on. Chris Harman aptly captures the spirit and details of that
period[23].
Its eventual end was in the ashes of the 1973-4 crisis, which was “the first
generalised crisis of capitalism since the Second World War” (Brooks, op cit p.78). 1968 had a great deal of
similarity with 2011. There was a plethora of popular resistances, but as
Harman equally stated “there was more to the year than just a series of
exciting events. Each upsurge of struggle inspired those involved in the next,
creating the sense of an international movement. People who otherwise might
have regarded their struggles as over particular grievances saw they had much
more general significance”[24]. In a sense, 1968 did not end until 1979/80 when in the United Kingdom and the
United States, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power, as
incarnations of the neoliberal order that today’s popular resistance
challenges.
The three decades of neoliberalism could be
understood, in my view as argued elsewhere as being comprised of three ten year
periods[25]. 1979-89 represented neo-liberalism’s
globalisation and rabid contestation for dominance. By 1989, its Washington
Consensus seemed to have ascertained neoliberal hegemony world-wide. The
collapse of the Soviet Union affirmed this and we entered a decade of
capitalist triumphalism in which history seemed to have ended with the
neoliberal triumph. 1999 marked the beginning of the end for neoliberalism’s
seeming unbridled towering. The central arena of this shift was Seattle. The
2000s marked a period of intense contestations. But the ghosts of the Kremlin’s
claims and question marks of what another possible world would amount to (which
is not wholly unbeneficial) dogged every step of the alter-globalisation
movement which represented the anti-capitalist personification of this moment’s
popular resistance. This was a prologue to the spectre of today’s global mass
rebellion.
Context,
forms and contents of current popular resistance
The
upsurge of resistance that has swept across the world in recent years has taken
different shapes and had its ebbs and tide. More often than not these waves of
popular struggle have been presented as new movements. In some way and manner,
they are. But more often than not, they represent contextual designs for the
wheel of class struggle and not some re-invention. They have spurred the
involvement of millions of people –many, for the first time- in (radical)
politics. The roots of these movements go deep into the soils of anger and
disillusionment with three decades of neoliberal onslaughts of capitalist
development.
There
have been new narratives which capture age-long expressions of the sense of
exploitation and oppression, representing (not so new) imagery of class and
class struggle. The concept of the rise of the 99% against the 1% of the master
class does capture the “we” versus “them” view from the standpoint of the
exploited and oppressed. It also deepens it showing quite clearly that “we” are
in the most definitive of majority while “they” are an infinitesimal
minority.
The
geography of popular revolts, on one hand, shows a correspondence between the economic crisis and resistance. It is
not accidental that apart from the Middle East and North Africa region, Europe
and North America have witnessed the fiercest and most thorough-going of
upsurge of mass struggle over the last few years. The countries in these
regions have faced the most rabid of social and economic pressures that stem
from the main heat of the crisis, in the form of austerity measures. On the
other hand, the geography of revolts point at how social-political repression serves as a keg of gun powder which the
ignition of added economic crisis could set-off as a conflagration of
revolution. This section looks more closely at the how the popular resistance has taken place in different regions of
the world and what the thrusts of
these have been. It would however be beneficial to start with a grasp of the context of the crisis, taking forward
threads from the last section.
A context of intensifying attacks on the
working classes
Warren
Buffet, in a New York Times interview on November 26, 2006 said "There's
class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war,
and we're winning."[26]
This statement puts the view of “the rich class”, in the clearest of
perspectives. It is in this light that we understand the spate of austerity
which the working masses have been burdened with in a bid to ensure economic
recovery. One clear fact to have in mind as a fundamental element of the social
and economic pressures within which mass movements of protest have risen is
that the master class is not being passive or simply reactive in the face of
resistance, both within nations and internationally.
The
elite’s approach to waging struggle against the working masses, particularly at
the global level, has involved subterfuge when it felt such would be more
effective. Attempts have been made to incorporate as broad a spectrum as
possible into proposed attempts at ensuring a mutually beneficial recovery
(i.e. for the elite and the masses), particularly at the earlier instance of
the crisis. The international trade union movement was involved in meetings of
the G20, which itself was constituted as an instrument for maintaining the
US/G7 hegemony. A pretentious listening ear was also presented to the
International Labour Organisation’s “Global Jobs Pact” in 2009. The truer face
of the elite has however been unveiled with the spate of austerity measures
designed by the IMF, EU & ECB. At the global level, the 2012 International
Labour Conference equally launched what has been described as an “unprecedented attack on workers' rights[27]
There is no automatic link between crisis,
its attendant attacks on the working classes, and the flowering of popular
resistance[28]. The struggles, organisations and ideas
emanating from the preceding period become living wells from which spontaneous
mass responses could grow as politics from below to pose a systemic challenge
to the status quo. These rise up to
shape the imagery and forms of the fight back which they give a soul to.
Idea,
imagery and the intrusion of the popular from below
Lasting resistance is impossible without
ideation of what is sought, beyond that which is rejected. In the initial
moments of a revolutionary upsurge, as that of the current situation, this
appears blurred, but the seed of the former can be gleaned from the latter. As
the waves spread, subsequent entrances of the mass into the arena of politics
become clearer about the movement’s goals. Emancipation becomes the idea,
taking on flesh and blood in struggles and the courage and sacrifices that go
with these, particularly, but not limited to its militants. The movement
ascribes its aims in slogans and demands, which capture the imagery of where it
stands and where it aspires to take the country as a whole.
Ideas do not fall from the skies and mass
movements’ imageries are real abstractions. They reflect the level of
development of the movement’s consciousness of its place in history and create
its voice and self-narration as it rudely intrudes into the sphere of national
life, disrupting normalcy. There are
of course counter- and other narratives of such intrusion from below. But these
narratives are not primary in themselves, as post-modernist would have us
believe. They express and are part of the material politics of other forces in
contention or support, seeking to de-limit or help advance the intrusion which
popular resistance makes into the monotony of normalcy.
In the general sense of popular resistance’s
imagery and self-narrative, there tends to be a universal idea. This is freedom.
Freedom, or rather what is considered as freedom is shaped by the economic,
social and political context of misery, deprivation, or dispossession in which
politics from below and the self-narrative it engenders arise from. In each
case, it aims at emancipation from the shackles of such context. The universal
i.e. might be general to humankind,, but its self-narration and awakening
cannot but start from the particular. It is in the cause of struggle that its
universalization emerges to the movement(s) itself, spurred on by solidarity. The
different theatres of the current global rebellion have captured these ideas
with the imageries of slogans.
In understanding how the social-historic
contexts have been critical to the trajectory of the different mass movements’
development, it is not so much the slogans in each region or country that
matters, as the similarities and differences between these. The key slogans in
different regions will be identified and these similarities and differences pointed
out, towards forging a clearer picture.
Ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam (“the people
want to bring down the regime")
A plethora of slogans blossomed in the Arab
Spring reflecting the resolution of the people and their anger against the
ruling class. But probably none had the resonance of ash-shab yurid isqat an-nizam! It started as a battle cry in
Tunisia and rang out loudly and clearly in; Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen,
Sudan, Jordan and Palestine. And in Syria for example, the government’s arrest
of youths spraying this slogan as graffiti marked the ignition of insurrection.
As the sweep and phases of the struggles expanded, it was modified where need
be. For example in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak and the continued
intransigence of the military top brass, it became “The people want to bring down
the field marshal”. In Jordan, where the tempo of the “Spring” was
relatively low, the slogan similarly took on a less ambitious tone as “the
people want to reform the system”.
This imagery of the revolutionary upsurge of
the awakening captures the political idea
of repression by the regime, which the
people want to bring down and can only bring down by bringing down the
regime. Of course, anti-democratic ethos was rife and still is rife in the
region, on the part of its ruling class. Unelected
kings and sheikhs and more or less life presidents have been the norm. But
earlier sit-tight leaders such as Nasser and even the earlier Gaddafi had been
able to starve off such ruptures from the humdrum of normalcy not because they
were more charismatic than those now torn apart by the whirlwind of the spring.
It was largely that they had been able to buy-off mass anger, at an earlier age
of growth and stability earlier in the second half of the 20th
century. This was with an admixture of massive infrastructural development,
welfarist social policy and authoritarian paternalism. With the global crisis,
immiseration which had been on the rise through the neoliberal age went from
bad to worse. The regimes became the immediate faces of the increasing misery
of the working masses.
Democracia
real ya! “For real democracy now”
The los
indignados movement in Spain is one of the most significant of the waves of
popular resistance that has swept through the Western world in the course of
the current crisis. Sweeping through over 80 cities and towns, in a matter of
months it had drawn millions of youths (and rank and file working people) into
the fray of radical resistance. These insisted that despite the institutions of
actually existing democracy, “no one represents us”. Consequently, they
demanded and marched for “real democracy now”. This is a clear pointer to the un-representativeness of parliamentary
democracy for the immense majority of the population.
It is not only a negative imagery that this
narrative presents (“no one represents us”). It equally declares that there
could be an alternative democracy which is real,
in that it is participatory, i.e.
essentially from below. With this,
the May 15 Movement which personified this “idea” declared the intrusion of not
just itself but the mass of toilers onto the terrain of active politics by not
just demanding, but within the spaces it created implementing such democracy from below in the form of general assemblies.
This particular element of the los
indignados moment was an inspiration for the Occupy Wall Street’s instant
of popular resistance.
“We
are the 99%”; “Occupy everything!”
Naom Chomsky expresses the view that “the
occupy movement is an extremely exciting development. In fact, it’s kind of
spectacular. It’s unprecedented” (Chomsky, 2012 p.24). While this assertion
could be considered arguable, it does capture the intrusion which the movement
made on behalf of the 99%, disrupting the 1%’s conspiracy of normalcy. “The
imagery of the 99 percent and 1percent” has brought “things that were sort of
known, but in the margins, hidden” into the fore of national discourse
(Chomsky, ibid p.70). In doing this,
occupy movement does not only make explicit the antagonism between “we” and
“them”, it also does not just point out that “we” are much more than “them”, it
equally fosters the idea of co-operation, solidarity and the power of politics
from below.
The fluidity of the image of Occupy is
presented by one of its enthusiastic proponents Pham Binh, as being “more than
a movement, less than a revolution and long overdue”. He then adds that “occupy
isn’t about ideology, it’s about the 99%”. But this imagery itself is the
projection of an ideology, albeit a counter-hegemonic one. It rather tries to
capture the broad array of scope of the population which it stands for.
“Our
future is not for sale”, “we cannot pay and we will not pay”
The major slogan of the Chilean students says
it all; “our future is not for sale”. At the heart of this struggle is the
countering of neoliberal “reforms” in the education sector. The students did
not only agitate against the reforms, they made a counter-proposition “Social
Agreement for Chilean Education”. Similarly, the British students had in 2010
agitated against a huge increment in fees, insisting that “we cannot pay and we
will not pay”. This makes it clear that on one hand the fees are not payable
and on the other the students are resolved not
to pay. The imagery of this slogan, not
being limited to the studentry, or the leaders of tomorrow as youths are
often described, made it to find resonance in other struggles beyond that
against the increment in university fees.
The lines of congruence and diversion between
these non-exhaustive examples can now be identified. In each instance, we find
both a refutation and an assertion. But the contents of this while essentially
the same, in being emancipatory, reflect the immediate object of mass anger. In the Middle East and North
Africa, where revolts culminated in revolution, this object confronted is the
institutional personification of the state. States in general are the summation
of the coercive powers of the master class. They manifest as regimes, including
even the liberal democratic regimes. But, the expanse of democratic rights won
in more democratic regimes one hand provide spaces for the exercising of such
freedoms as those of assembly, speech and organising. With the constriction of
this in such authoritarian states as those in the MENA region, direct
confrontation of the powers that be from below, in an era such as this, could
not but pose the question of state power in all in its nakedness, which
basically is what a revolution is.
It would be an illusion though to think that in
those more democratic states, where there is more than the mere iota of
citizenship for the working masses the fangs of dictatorship would not be bared
when push got to shove. Protesters were assaulted in various ways and manners
in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, etc, as the militancy of the
revolts became more salient. In Quebec, a law was hurriedly enacted to hold
down the protest movement against increase in tuition fees.
This brings us to yet another convergence,
even if with different hues. The mass in rising confronted and broke the laws
of the master class. In Egypt, the martial law was defied and made redundant.
The students in Quebec, marched in utter contempt of the then Law 78. The
Occupy movement witnessed ultra-left expressions of such political disobedience
with the activities of the black bloc, while in the United Kingdom; spontaneous
riots expressed deeper derision for the system and its laws.
Forms, organisation(s) and trajectory of mass
upsurge
Every
upsurge of resistance at some point in time arrives at the crossroads where,
like the Maoist La Cause du Peuple in 1969, it sees the need for “a new form of organization...”[29]
More often than not; these “new forms” of struggle are actually adaptations of
time-tested strategies and tactics. The differences such adaptations bring to
bear provide an insight into the changes between different eras of crises and
revolts, and particularly, the changes that have taken place in between these.
The forms of the movement, as a whole, equally show the inter-play of the
influences of classes, organisations and ideas within it. The actual form of
such movement as a whole might not exactly reflect its contents and the
narratives of these. Revolutions and radical reforms, which basically are the
goals of popular resistance in moments such as this, become movements of the
people, in a sense, inter-class alliances of the oppressed masses and even sections or elements of the master
class. The decisive component of such “historic blocs” however, is the
working class. This is not some metaphysical “belief” in that class, as not a
few would argue, but because of the centrality of workers to the system and
consequently their being key to bringing it to its knees, which is the worst
blow, the elite could suffer.
There
have been different forms which resistances have taken in the ongoing global
rebellion. These have included the inter-play of diverse organisations, as well
as the dominance of one form or the other, and led along the pathways of
different trajectories. Basically, these have included: mass strikes; street
demonstrations/procession and occupations. There trajectories have led to
political revolutions, (offers of) reforms and electoral Left turns. They have
equally met with the crackdown of reaction by the state and the mellowing of
the working masses self-activity by the institutionalised platforms of the
mediation between the working class and the master class, particularly the
trade bureaucracy. Mass strikes and the Occupy/Squares Movement are considered
as cases here, due to the limitations of space.
Mass strikes and street demonstrations;
the new and the old
Mass strikes
have been known as the most powerful weapon of the working class (Luxembourg
1906). These could be and have in the current period included strikes at
enterprise and sectoral levels, as well as general strikes at local and
national levels. There was even for the first time, mass mobilisation for a
pan-European general strike for September 29, 2010. Eventually though, it was
only in Spain that a strike held that day. Every mass strike is political,
because it poses the question of power, even if at a localised level. The mass
strikes called by trade unions at this conjuncture have been mainly on economic
issues such as pensions, retirement age, job cuts and so on and so forth. They
have had hitherto unprecedented levels of compliance by workers in many
countries. But they have as well integrated broader demands and drawn in
several other sections of the general populace such as students, small farmers
and the urban poor, making them more and more political, challenging the
present order, even where they do not demand a holistic transcendence of it.
This is because the general crisis of capitalism which has thrown up the
economic issues of concern to the workers is such that the 99% is sucked into
the abyss of being made to pay for the ineptitude of the system and the greed
of its beneficiaries, the 1%. Thus, the strikes have not just been about
downing tools. They have involved demonstrations and processions of workers and
other aggrieved citizens.
There are
arguably new tactics of mass strikes, which have unfolded in the course of the
last few years. These have included workers marching to “obstruct” workers in
non-unionised firms, who were then “forced” to be part of the strike. “But
perhaps the most novel of (these) tactics” was that of the “rolling strikes”,
in France, during the October 2010 general strike. To ensure that morale was
kept up while minimizing the backlash of “no work, no pay” laws “at some point
in time, some workers were allowed to work for some days while others were on
strike, after which they would down their tools and some of those on strike
days earlier would go temporarily back to work”[30].
The need for such new tactic reflects the heightened levels of job and income
insecurity that the neoliberal regime has entrenched with its flexibilization
of labour, over the last thirty years.
It is
also noteworthy to point out that while CNN, Al-Jazeera and most other
mainstream mass media have concentrated on the Squares and the streets, mass
strikes were crucial in forcing the revolutionary situation in Tunisia and
Egypt to the end game for Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak respectively. These of
course were borne out of intense labour activism, in defiance of the law, for years as neoliberal policies had made
life harder for the working class. Naom Chomsky identifies this as a major
difference between the Egyptian Revolution and the Occupy movement, thus:
In
fact, one striking difference between the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings and
the Occupy movements is that, in the North African case, the labour movement
was right at the centre of it. And in fact, there is a very close correlation
between such successes as there have been in the Middle East and North Africa
and the labor militancy there over the years...as soon as the labour movement
became integrated into the April 6 movement-the Tahrir Square movement-it
became a really significant and powerful force.[31]
Mass
strikes have rocked sub-Saharan Africa as well in different ways in the present
historic moment. The two main instances have been in the two largest economies
within the region, Nigeria and South Africa. In Nigeria, where since 2000
General Strikes have always been accompanied with “mass protests”, the 8-day
General Strike which became the backbone for two weeks of revolt in January
2012 brought the economy to its knees with an estimated loss of $300bn. The
mass protests that swept the country were equally unprecedented, sweeping
across over 50 cities and towns. While the short lived uprising started as a
revolt against the 140% increase in fuel pump price, by the time it ended,
demands for regime change was in the air. The trade unions were of the view
that this was beyond their mandate and, in a manner many in the civil society
movement, and on the streets, found
questionable, suspended the general strike.
Waves
of mass strikes have hit South Africa since the early years of the current
period. These started with the public services between 2008 and 2010. By 2011,
the mining sector which had been relatively quiet since 2005 became the major
theatre for such workers’ upheavals. Starting with official strikes in the coal
mines and then the gold mines, by 2012, these had led to wild cat strikes in
the platinum mines, culminating in the Marikana massacre. These strikes have
largely been for increase in wages, but as Andrew England points out they also
reflect the fact that “There has also been mounting frustration with the level
of poverty and gaping inequalities in South Africa, 17 years after the end of
apartheid.”[32]
The conjuncture of global crises here, as
with in other countries, merges with the deeper lasting contradictions,
which in a systemic sense, is part of the threads that wove the fabric of the
crisis in the first place. South Africa’s minerals-energy complex has been the
central plank for the country’s integration into the neoliberal order driven by
global financialisation over the past 17 years of the post-apartheid regime.
The mining sector represents the pillar as well as the major fault lines of
capitalist development in the country.
Occupy and the Squares movement
Tahrir
Square marked a new beginning in so many ways. The occupied square became the
focal point of a power parallel to that of the status quo. The triumph of the
January 25 revolution in Egypt which the Square personified became a tonic for
mass protest of working people and youths across the world, which had been
unfurling since the beginning of the global crisis. As the occupation in Cairo
was on, over ten thousand protesters camped at the Capitol in Wisconsin against
proposed anti-union legislation by Governor Scott Walker. This later became the
seed for what would be the We are One (WR1), movement in the United States. The WR1
movement, which rested on traditional street demonstrations and processions,
petered out within a few months without making much impact. But the Occupy form of resistance which
commenced on September 17, 2011, in New York became what many see as a new form
of mass protest. It was inspired by the Egyptian revolution, the encampments of
squares and parks in Spain by the los
indignados and the “Movement of the Squares” in Greece against continued
austerity measures.
Before
looking closely at the Occupy Movement which seems to have captured global
imagination the more, largely due to its unexpected rise in the United States,
it would be pertinent to point out what could be considered as the points of
divergence of encampments movement in Greece and Spain from the Occupy Wall Street
movement.
In
Greece, the Squares Movement had a greater synergy with working class struggles
than either Spain or the US. The roots of this could be traced to the
traditions of alternative politics and ideas within the class in that country compared
to the other[33]. There were no less than 17 general strikes in
the last two years, in response to the austerity measures whip, which Greece
was on the frontline of collecting from the IMF, EU & ECB. Syntagma
(Constitution) Square which was the epicentre of the “Movement of the Squares”
integrated this mass movement from the factories as strikers’ processions had
there as their take-off or end points. It is also instructive that while the
indignant youths in Greece might have had distaste for what they could consider
mainstream politics, radical parties such as the KOE, SEK & Synaspismos and
coalitions-as-parties such as SYRIZA, & ANTARSYA were part of the Movement
of Squares, winning the confidence of mass and paving the way for a Leftward
electoral turn in May/June 2012.
In
Spain, there was greater disillusionment with partisan politics. The los indignados actually called for
boycott of parliamentary elections in 2011. This could have contributed to the
electoral loss of the unions-backed, social-liberalist Socialist Party, and the
subsequent return of the conservative People’s Party. The encampments in Spain
more than anywhere else did try to coalesce, physically. While Puerta del Sol
in Madrid, was its centre at the onset in May 2011, by “July there was the
Indignant People’s March from all parts of the country to Madrid where a new
camp was set up at Paseo del Prado” (Aye, Op
cit p. 101). At this new camp, The
Book of the People was compiled for presentation to parliament. The Spanish
indignant were also central to the “International March on Brussels”, where as
part of the Global Day of Rage called by Occupy Wall Street on October 15 an
alternative vision of the way out of the crisis was presented the European
parliament.
October
15 was the landmark point at which “occupy” in its most specific-idea form
became, in a sense, generalised. The phenomenon of “Occupy” basically boils
down to the establishment of popular assemblies, within encampments. This “new”
form is not exactly as new as it
seems. From the earlier sections of this paper, we find that there in the 1930s
we had a wave of factories “occupation” in the United States, described as
“sit-in” strikes, in that period. In the wave of revolt of 1968, factories were
equally occupied in France for example, even while became the lodestone of
“occupation”. The shift of the locus of occupy from factories to campuses and
now parks reflect a number of economic, social, ideological and demographic
pressures stemming from the changing nature of capitalist re-production
globally and particularly in the Western countries. The loss of faith in the
trade unions and “vanguard” organisations reflected in the rise of situationism
in the 1968 period and autonomism in the current period[34].
In
looking at form, the typical “Occupy” encampment had General Assemblies
enthroning, participatory democracy and
propagating some form of immediate
democracy, or the other. These worked through working committees which were
recallable and discussions in them were open to all with the use of progressive
tacks of would-be contributors to discussions, or the drawing of lots as in
Athens. It is pertinent to point out that “The movement was not limited to its
encampments. There were mobilisation in the streets which the state attacked
spraying pepper/tear gas, hitting protesters with truncheons and arresting
scores in several cities including New York and Auckland” (Aye, Op cit p.79). The movement spread beyond
the New York and the shores of the United States, and with this the “idea” of
occupy also expanded both within and outside its founding sites to become an empty signifier. In this sense, “it”
became much more than occupied encampments to becoming “occupy everything”, by
a representative slice of the 99%.
While
the occupy movement in its concrete form has become dissipated, not the least
due to concerted attacks by the powers that be, it continues to inspire the
still unfolding mass movements and angst against the 1% and the world it has
moulded in its own image.
In lieu of conclusion:
problems and prospects
This essay
has tried to put in perspective the dynamics between (global) crises and
popular resistance with a view to showing how social, economic and political
pressures have impacted on the trajectory, forms and ideas of the mass
movements of popular resistance. It would be pertinent in concluding to summarily
draw out possible problems and prospects that lie ahead for the movement as a
whole.
The
hegemony of the master class has been fractured but lies far from being
shattered. On one hand, decades of its ideology have stunted revolutionary
ideation in the popular milieu. On the other hand, the leaderships of traditional
mass organisations such as trade unions and the formerly social-democratic
reformist parties have to different degrees incorporated into the system,
seeing no future beyond capitalism. But without a clarity of post-capitalist
aims, the movement as a whole cannot but be stuck in the realms of the limited
possibilities of reforms. In Europe, the electoral Left turn witnessed in
France and particularly Greece for example represent the rise of radical reformism, which fills the void of
disdain for the traditional reformist parties on one hand and the limited
horizons of what “change” amounts to, in the masses, at this juncture[35].
Human
beings are generally conservative. Revolutions break out not because the mass
start out as being revolutionary, but because in the cause of resistance the
strategy of reforming the system makes itself clear as being unworkable and the
possibilities of more fundamental changes become more probable. Such confidence
would rise from developments both within different countries and across
countries. Indeed, the present period has confirmed the international character
of revolutionary waves. Tunisia made the possible appear probable to Egyptians
and the Egyptian revolution opened new vistas of possibilities to an ever
expanding groundswell of global resistance.
The
threat of a rising Rightwing is however not something to be discountenanced as
a political pressure in the moment ahead. But it is unlikely that such forces
would be able to win the necessary following that fascism won with the defeat
of revolutionary alternatives in the 1930s Europe, both from within (the
tactics of the Popular Front) and without (crushing by the state). The master
class has however shown that it would not blink about taking off its democratic
toga if pushed to the wall and the possibilities of its getting away with it
can be gleaned.
There
is however the possibility of some new “new deal” emerging as an appeasement to
rising resistance. The immediate future seems bleak for capital accumulation
and sharper crisis is more likely to widen the opened Pandora’s Box of
rebellion. Intra-elite class contestation will most likely sharpen. But it is
not likely that the carrot would be favoured over the stick in the immediate
instance going by the gale of austerity measures and continued obeisance to the
altar of neoliberalism even as its prophecy proves to be an utter failure.
Meanwhile,
the confidence won by the rising masses is unlikely to be quelled in a hurry,
not the least with the working and unemployed youths. Interlinking of
activists, networks and organisations in the past few years would also most
likely serve as springboards for the emergence of new, more radical platforms
and the renaissance of more traditional Left forces.
Lessons
have been learnt from the past and are being learnt from the present by the
mass movements of the working people fighting against being made to bear the
brunt of an “economic recovery”, which does not seem in sight. In learning from
practice, the toiling 99% of this world is re-making its history. It is
unlikely that transformations which will lead to transition from capitalism
would be won in this instance. But the foundations are being laid for grasping
a post-capitalist world, as a possibility, in the foreseeable future.
References
Amsden,
A 2003, The Rise of “The Rest”, Oxford
University Press, NY
Aye, B 2009, “Neoliberal Globalization
and the Informalization of Work; a Critical Class Analysis of Trade Union
Strategies in Nigeria and South Africa”, Labour
Factsheet, September-December,
viewed 27, July, 2012, <http://solidarityandstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/04/neoliberal-globalization-and.html>
Aye, B
2012, Era of Crises and Revolts, Solaf
Publishers, Ibadan p.93
Batra,
R 2002, "Economics in Crisis: Severe and Logical Contradictions of
Classical, Keynesian, and Popular Trade Models", Review of International Economics, vol. 10, issue 4, pp. 623-44
Brooks,
M 2012, Capitalist Crisis: Theory and
Practice, Mick Brooks, London
Callincos,
A 1983, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl
Marx, Bookmarks, London (4th reprint, 2010)
Callinicos,
A 2012, “The second coming of the radical left”, International Socialism, Issue 135, summer, viewed 12, September
2012, <http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=819&issue=135>
Callinicos,
A 2012, “The Long Depression is going from bad to worse” Socialist Worker issue 2315, 11
August, viewed 12 August, 2012, <http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=29283>
Chomsky,
N 2012, Occupy, Penguin Books, London
Choonara, J 2009, Unravelling Capitalism: A
Guide to Marxist Political Economy, Bookmarks, London
Dale,
G 2012, “The Growth Paradigm: a Critique”, International
Socialism, Issue 134, spring, viewed 6 July 2012, <http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=798&issue=134>
Drucker, P 1994, “Age of Social Transformation”, The Atlantic Monthly, viewed 27, July,
2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/95dec/chilearn/drucker.htm?
Edwards,
T. L 2007, Brazil: Global Studies
Handbook, ABC – CLIO, SB
England,
A 2011, “S African gold miners strike” 28, July, viewed September 3, 2012, <
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ca05686e-b931-11e0-b6bb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26A9D1RPo>
Evans,
P 1979, Dependent Development, Princeton
University Press, NJ
Harman,
C 1998 The Fire Last Time: 1968 and After, Bookmarks, London
Harman,
C et al 2008, “The year the world caught fire”, Socialist Review, May, viewed 11
September, 2012, <http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10386>
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1994, Age of extremes: the short twentieth century, 1914-1991, University
of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
IndustriaALL,
2012, “Unprecedented attack on workers' rights at ILO”, 16, June, viewed 27,
July, 2012, <http://www.industriall-union.org/unprecedented-attack-on-workers-rights-at-ilo>
Keegan, J 1998, The First World War, 2000edn, Vintage Books, UK
Kennedy, D 1999, Freedom from Fear: The
American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945, Oxford History of the United States Vol.
9, Oxford University Press, NY
Keynes, JM 1936, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, 2006 edn.,
Atlantic Publishers
La Cause du Peuple #3 New
Series, February 1969, viewed 8 August, 2012, <http://www.marxists.org/history/france/post-1968/gauche-proletarienne/cause-03-1969.htm>
Lavalette,
M & Mooney, G 2000, Class Struggle
and Social Welfare, Routledge, UK
Lia, B 1998, The Society of the Muslim Brothers
in Egypt: The Rise of an Islamic Mass Movement 1928-1942, Garnet Books,
Reading, UK
Lowe, N 1988, Mastering Modern World History, Masters’ Series, 2nd
edition, Macmillan, London
Luxembourg,
R 1906, The Mass Strike, the Political
Party and the Trade Unions, Online version 1999, Rosa Luxemburg Internet Archive (marxists.org), viewed 11,
September 2012, <http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm>
Marx,
K 1971, Capital Vol 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow
Marx,
K 1973, Grundrisse, Penguin books, Harmondsworth
Marx,
K. 1976, Capital Vol. 1, Penguin
books, Harmondsworth,
Mink,
G & O’Connor, A 2004, Poverty in the United States: An
Encyclopedia of History, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, ABL-CIO, SB
Mitchell, R P 1969, The Society of the Muslim Brothers,
Oxford University Press, London
O’Sullivan,
A & Sheffrin, SM 2003, Economics:
Principles in Action, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Pirsch,
M 2011, “Class Warfare, the Final Chapter” 15, March, viewed 11 September, 2012
<http://archive.truthout.org/class-warfare-final-chapter68146>
Polanyi,
K 1954, The Great Transformation, Beacon
Press, Boston
Soucy,
R 1995, French Fascism: The Second Wave, 1933–1939, Yale University
Press, New Haven
Rodney,
W 1973, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,
Tanzanian Publishing House, Dar-Es-Salam
Sen, A 1983, “Development: Which
Way Now?”, Economic Journal, Vol. 93
Issue 372, Pp.745-762
Schumpeter,
J 1954, History of Economic Analysis, George Allen & Unwin, London
Soucy,
R 1995, French Fascism: The Second Wave,
1933–1939, Yale University Press, New Haven
Truman,
H 1949, “Inaugural address”, January 20, Harry S. Truman Library and Museum,
viewed 7 August 2012, <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/calendar/viewpapers.php?pid=1030>
Viénet,
R 1968/92 Enragés and Situationists in
the Occupations Movement, Autonomedia, New York, viewed September 11, 2012
< http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/enrages.html>
[1]
Being a
paper prepared for the 3rd Insituto de Estudos Sociais e Economicos
Conference; “Mozambique: Accumulation & Transformation in a Context of
International Crisis”, held at Maputo, Mozambique on September 4-5, 2012
[2]
Baba Aye’, author of Era of Crises & Revolts; Perspectives for Workers and Youths is
the Head, Education, Planning, Research & Statistics Department of Medical
and Health Workers’ Union of Nigeria and Deputy National Secretary of the
Labour Party. He is also National Chairperson of the Socialist Workers League
[3]
Callinicos, A 2012, “The Long Depression is going
from bad to worse” Socialist Worker issue
2315,11 August, viewed 12 August, 2012,
< http://socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=29283>
[4]
In this sense, we find liberal democracies such
as Greece and Italy installing so-called technocratic governments to push
through unpopular austerity measures on one hand. But from below, we find the
democracy of the street in general assemblies and people’s committees as with
the los indignados, the Occupy
movement and in the Egyptian revolution.
[6]
Marx, K. 1976, Capital Vol. 1, Penguin books, Harmondsworth, p. 742
[7]
In this sense, on a level we find the
universalization of knowledge without a commensurate spread of the powers to
utlise such for equal development and on another level we find the spread of
consumerism in the form of the coca-cola, denims and MacDonald’s culture
[8]
While industrialisation could be considered as
being at the heart of modernization, it would include other dimensions such as
democratisation. The more advanced capitalist countries more often than not
pass this off as adding up to “westernization”, as do several new elites in
neo-colonies.
[9]
It is in this sense that advanced capitalist
countries are considered as “developed” as against “developing”,
“under-developed”, “less developed” or “under-developing” countries. This of
course reflects value judgment. This is however not of direct concern within
the scope of this particular paper.
[10]
Sen, A
1983, “Development: Which Way Now?”, Economic
Journal, Vol. 93 Issue 372, Pp.745-762. While such perspective which has
informed the formulation of the Human Development Index and the compilation of
Human Development Reports are of immense use for benchmarking, it does not
address the fundamental question of transitional transformation beyond the
capitalist system
[11]
Truman, H 1949, “Inaugural address”, January 20,
Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, viewed 7 August 2012, <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/calendar/viewpapers.php?pid=1030>
[12]Marx, K 1973, Grundrisse,
Penguin books, Harmondsworth, p.
414
[13]
Callincos, A. 1983, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, Bookmarks, London p. 170
(Fourth reprint, 2010)
[14]
Marx, K 1971, Capital
Vol 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow p.212
[15]
Batra, R 2002, "Economics in Crisis: Severe
and Logical Contradictions of Classical, Keynesian, and Popular Trade
Models", Review of International
Economics, vol. 10, issue 4, pp. 623-44
[16]
Schumpeter, J 1954, History of Economic
Analysis, London, George Allen & Unwin
[18]
This argument is pursued further by this author
in understanding the “missing link” in Alice Amsden’s separation of “the Rest”
from “the Remainder” (Aye’, 2012 p. 40)
[19]
Mink, G & O’Connor, A 2004, Poverty in the United
States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, ABL-CIO, SB
[20]
contrary to the view of a “new deal”, there were actually two new deals in quick succession
i.e. 1933-34 & 1935-38
[21]
Lavalette, M & Mooney, G 2000, Class Struggle and Social Welfare, Routledge,
UK
[24]
Harman, C et
al 2008, “The year the world caught
fire”, Socialist Review, May, viewed
11 September, 2012, <http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10386>
[25]
Aye, B 2009, “Neoliberal Globalization
and the Informalization of Work; a Critical Class Analysis of Trade Union
Strategies in Nigeria and South Africa”, Labour
Factsheet, September-December, online at: <http://solidarityandstruggle.blogspot.com/2009/04/neoliberal-globalization-and.html>
[26]
Pirsch, M 2011, “Class Warfare, the Final
Chapter” 15, March, viewed 11 September, 2012 < http://archive.truthout.org/class-warfare-final-chapter68146>
[27]
IndustriaALL, 2012, “Unprecedented
attack on workers' rights at ILO”, 16, June, viewed 27, July, 2012, <http://www.industriall-union.org/unprecedented-attack-on-workers-rights-at-ilo>
[28]
Choonara, J 2009, Unravelling Capitalism: A Guide to Marxist Political Economy, Bookmarks, London
[29]
La Cause du Peuple #3 New Series,
February 1969, viewed 8 August, 2012,< http://www.marxists.org/history/france/post-1968/gauche-proletarienne/cause-03-1969.htm>
[30]
Aye, B 2012, Era
of Crises and Revolts, Solaf Publishers, Ibadan p.93
[31]
Chomsky, N 2012, Occupy, Penguin Books, London, pp. 58-9
[32]
England, A 2011, “S African gold miners strike”
28, July, viewed September 3, 2012, < http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ca05686e-b931-11e0-b6bb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz26A9D1RPo>
[33]
A striking example of this is that far Left
groups have closer ties with the trade unlike the situation in Spain and the
US, where the “centrist” Socialist Party and the liberal Democrats are home for
trade union leaderships
[34]
There are several ways, in this author’s views in
which the los indignados/Occupy movement,
seems a déjà vu of the “Enragés”
and “Occupation Movement” of 1968 France. See Viénet, R 1968/92 Enragés and Situationists in the Occupations
Movement, Autonomedia, New York, viewed September 11, 2012 < http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/enrages.html>
[35]
Callinicos, A 20012, “The second coming of the
radical left”, International Socialism, Issue
135, Summer, viewed 12, September 2012, < http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=819&issue=135>
Comments