Socialism Issues

8/9/2019 Socialism Issues

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/socialism-issues 1/46

FROM THE EDITORS

NEW SOCIALIST 2008-1

Welcome to this issue ofNew Socialist. We are devotingthe entire issue to an exploration of the relevance andnecessity of socialism in our times.

This is a dif c lt tim for p opl withi th bord rs of thisCa adia stat who wa t s rio s social cha . As Ala S arswrit s i th articl that op s this iss , “th olib ralproject of slashing social programs and deregulating the

co om whil i cr asi th r pr ssi pow r of thstat s ms to b id olo icall xha st d a d i cr asi l

pop lar. O th oth r ha d, th possibilit of a alt r atis ms lit rall thi kabl . Th r is wid spr ad c icismabo t th domi a t id as, t irt all o disc ssio of oth rperspectives.”Movements of protest and resistance have suffered reals tbacks i th last mb r of ars. Th r ar still somd t rmi d a d i spiri campai s a d str l s, b t most ofth L ft is low o r , hop a d isio .

We at New Socialist wa t to co trib t to th cr ati a do -do matic r thi ki of radicalism toda , drawi o

th r so rc s of f mi ist, q r, a ti-racist Marxism. W archa i th ma azi to b tt r s it that rol .

A p blicatio that looks i r at r d pth a d br adthq stio s fac d b p opl who wa t radical chab mor s f l i h lpi la th ro dwork for fmobilizatio s a d th xt w L ft. W wo ’t b pas fr q tl , b t w hop o ’ll d th a al sis, thi ki a d isio i o r th m iss s to b worthwait.

If o ’r looki for a al sis of c rr t ts of thNew Socialist s d to p blish, w will co ti to post rr ports, ws, a al sis a d thi k pi c s b socialistsradicals o o r w bsit . Pl as o to www. wsocia

W HAT S HOULD S OCIALISM M EAN T ODAY ?

This issue ofNew Socialist looks at th politics of lib ratioand transformation that are needed in our time and placarticles cover topics ranging from union activism to genand sexual politics to the struggles of indigenous peoplarticl s mo b o d local sol tio s to isio bifor tra sformi th capitalist s st m a d wi i lifrom all forms of oppression. This strategic approach is

c ssar b ca s , as Ala S ars writ s, a si l -mfoc s o th local “ ltimat l m a s limiti th hocha ” to m r ti k ri , l a i th basic str ctbr tal s st m i tact.B t i af rmi that th socialist tra sformatio of sois both c ssar a d possibl , th co trib tors to thc rtai l do ’t dismiss toda ’s str l s. O th coshar a d rsta di that low-i t sit r simporta t. S ch r sista c fost rs th ki d of co tfrom b low that co tai s th s ds of radical cha

W hop that som r ad rs will s this a d f t r tissues as resources for discussion groups (please contac

s for i formatio abo t disco t rat s o b lk ord rWe encourage you to send us letters and other responseto what o r ad; w pla to p blish th s o o r wAlso, if o ha a id a abo t a f t r th m issk ow. W wa tNew Socialist to b a r so rc for all whoas S bastia Lamb writ s, “r f s to aba do th slo‘A oth r World is Possibl !’”.

Socialism for Our Times

Note to our subscribers: Since we are publishing lessfrequently, those with one year subs will be gettingfour issues, those with two year subs will be getting 8issues, etc.

P A u L K L e e , A n g e L u S n O v u S , 1 9 2 0

Walter Benjamin was a Marxist Jewish refugee from thehorrors of fascism who explored the complexities of ndinga way through the present and into the future. This imageby Paul Klee called Angelus Novus captures Benjamin’s ideaof the Angel of History looking intently towards the past,yet about to y off into the future.



Issue #63 2008-1

Box 167, 253 Coll StToro to, On M5T 1R5

416-955-1581Ma azi @ wsocialist.owww. wsocialist.or

NEW SOCIALIST offers radical analysis ofpolitics, social mo m ts a d c lt r ithe Canadian state and internationally. Ourma azi is a for m for p opl who wa tto str th toda ’s acti ism a d for thoswho wish to r plac lobal capitalism with a

i l d mocratic socialism. W b lithat th lib ratio of th worki class a doppr ss d p opl s ca b wo o l thro h

th ir ow str l s. For mor i formatioabo t th p blish r of this ma azi , thn w Socialist gro p, pl as s th i sidback co r.

EDITORS

S bastia LambHarold LavenderSandra SarnerAlan SearsD borah Simmo s

EDITORIAL ASSOCIATES

Richard Ba rAdam BarkerS sa F r soTodd gordoAlex LevantMorgan MacLeod

DESIGN

Co r: Christoph r W bbInside: Sandra Sarner

Signed articles do no necessarily representth i ws of th ditors or m mb rs of thn w Socialist gro p.

n w Socialist is a m mb r of th CMPA.Pri t d at JT Pri ti , a io shop.

SPECIAL ISSUE ON SOCIALISM FOR OUR TIMES

Notes towards a socialism for the times ..................................Alan Sears

The necessity of socialism ........................................................... J ff noo a 8

Gender, sexual, human liberation .......gabri ll géri & Sa dra Sar r 11

Indigenous traditions in freedom .................................D borah Simmo s 16

Book review: Dances with dependency ................Tricia Mcg ir Adams 20

White, anti-racist, socialist practice .....................................Sheila Wilmot

No borders on human freedom .......................................................Yen Chu

Marxism, anarchism and liberation ...................................S bastia Lamb 25

Socialist organizing today ....................................................... David McNall

Union activism today .................................................................... Alex Leva

Is culture our weapon? .................................................................Daniel Serg

The ght against global warming ...............A i t r i w with Ia A s

Global justice against imperialism ...D borah Simmo s with Salim vall 3

Latin America ...................................................................................Phil H ars 40

Book review: The shock doctrine ........................................Tob Moorsom 36

Next issue ...........................................................................................................

Time to organize ...............................................................................................

n w Socialist ma azi w lcom s d bat . L tt rs will b pri t d o o r w bco ra r ad rs to s bmit articl s a i with th id as p t forth i o r

for p blicatio ith r i pri t or o o r w bsit . Pl as s d to th addr ss oraddr ss abo .



4 NEW SOCIALIST 2008-1

These are strange days indeed for socialists and all those who ghting for a better world.

On the one hand, the neoliberal project of slashing socialprograms and deregulating the economy while increasingthe repressive power of the state seems to be ideologicallyexhausted and increasingly unpopular. On the other hand,the possibility of any alternative seems literally unthinkable.

Tere is widespread cynicism about the dominant ideas, yet virtually no discussion of other perspectives.

Te major parties in electoral systems around the worldhave completely aligned themselves with neoliberalism, withonly the smallest number of exceptions such as Venezuela,Bolivia and Ecuador, where the parties in question are linkedto insurgent social movements.

In the Canadian state, the NDP, Liberals, Conservativesand Bloc Québecois completely agree that neoliberalism isthe only game in town; the differences between them come

down to minor disputes about how to play it out. Te labour movement has reconciled itself with neolibe

alism and lean production (which uses just-in-time methoto eliminate “waste,” and new models of teamwork to m

workers partners in productivity), with the deal between Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) and the giant auto-partrm Magna standing as an important milestone in a lonterm process of adaptation and partnership with the emploers and the state. Social movements are, in general, at a

ebb, in most cases using only the most passive strategieght for the most realizable changes within the dominaframework.

Tere is a remarkable consensus across the political sptrum around a set of ideas that is increasingly unpopular. Tresults of 30 years of capitalist restructuring are in, anddevastating toll is clear. Working-class people are living wever-greater insecurity and more are facing poverty with fewer resources. On a global scale, people face greater riers to mobility while corporations and investments f Alan Sears is an editor of, and frequent contributor to, New Socialist.

NOTES TOWARDS ...

A S

A socialism for the times

Massstruggleby left andindigenousforcesshookBolivia in2005.

P H O T O : J e F F W e B B e R



NEW SOCIALIST 2008-1 5

fewer limits. Te environmental threats to our health andthat of the planet are ever-increasing in this era of unbridledcapitalism. Te attempts by Bush, Harper and others to convince us that our increasing insecurity results from “terror” tobe combated by imperialist war in Afghanistan and Iraq hasbeen highly unsuccessful.

“Te Richest of the Rich, Proud of a New Gilded Age” was a headline in the New York imes on July 15, 2007. Tearticle pointed out that the current concentration of wealthin the hands of a tiny ultra-rich minority has not been seensince the late 1800s and early 1900s. Meanwhile, at the otherend of the income scale we are living through a period ofappalling poverty and dislocation, marked by a shocking in-crease in inequality locally and globally.

Tis sounds a lot like the world Marx described in theCommunist Manifesto, which was written in the mid-1800s when class polarization was particularly visible. Many of the working-class gains that might have created the illusion thatclass divisions were eroding – such as the welfare state, high-er working-class wages and secure union contracts (at leastfor some) – have been swept away.

Yet socialism is not, at this point, rising from the ashes. Tis is a time when the relevance of socialism seems almostself-evident, and yet it is, in practical political terms, moremarginal now than at any time during the 20th century. Weneed to understand more about this contradiction.

W HY D OES S OCIALISM M ATTER ?

One response to this contradiction would be to say thatsocialism is over and will not be relevant to future freedom

struggles. But there is a lot to lose if we casually write social-ism off. Socialism points beyond capitalism, towards another way of organizing human life based on unleashing our cre-ative capacities through genuine democratic control of thekey productive resources ofsociety. Te compass of so-cialism shows the way toanother possible world, evenif it is way over the horizonand invisible from our pres-ent location.

Tis orientation beyond

the current power structuremeans that socialism provides a unique perspective formapping capitalist society. Itallows us to see the everyday world we are familiar within dramatically new terms,bringing to light aspects oflife, work and politics that we usually take for granted

because they seem xed and unchangeable. At the moment, for example, the US economy seems to

be in recession and far worse times are likely in the near fu-ture. From within the system, this seems to be the action ofimpersonal market forces shifting rather like a sharp changein the weather when a storm front approaches. It is futileto protest against a coming snow storm as it is not (at leastin any simple and direct way) the result of human actions,and therefore we cannot really change it. Daily life undercapitalism convinces us that market forces are much like the

weather, something that happens to us that is not the resultof human actions and not subject to change.

Te economy, however, is very different than the weatherin that it is made up of relations between people and inter-changes between people and nature. Ultimately, it is humanactivity within a particular framework of social relations thatleads to economic upturns and downturns, even if the patternsare very complex. Te huge bubble of subprime mortgages inthe United States, for example, was the result of nancial in-stitutions trying to make big prots out of the housing needsof lower income households in an environment where the -nancial system was bulging with cash from the mega-protsof the very rich and state regulations were very lax.

Socialism provides us with a perspective that allows us tosee the ups and downs of the economy as part of a systemof human relations that can be swept away and replaced. If

we take the limits of capitalism as the horizons of possibil-ity for human experience, then we see these ups and downsas the product of market forces that are not subject to hu-man decisions. Most ways of looking at the world, includ-

ing many that are critical of social injustices, take capitalismfor granted and therefore seek change within that dominantframework.

Right now, when socialism is highly marginalized, manyactivists and theorists sug-gest that freedom strugglesshould concentrate on nd-ing solutions at the local scale,leaving aside any big projectsfor transforming the system.

Tis ultimately means limit-ing the horizons of change

to what is possible withincapitalist social relations, asthis power structure will bethere until it is deliberatelyoverturned.

The rich get richer Thos i th top o p rc t of u.S. ho s holds mad a a ra of $1.7 millioi 2001. Th also ot abo t 15 p rc t of total i com .

Share of income earned by wealthiest one percent of Americans.

Similarly in Canada ... Thetop 5% control over 25% ofthe wealth and their share isincreasing.

Statistics Canada




Socialism provides tools for unlocking our dreams of realfreedom by connecting our activism and our analysis of in-

justice to an orientation towards other possible worlds. Itallows us to connect these dreams to a map of the powerstructure of capitalist society that reveals the ways it can beoverturned. Specically, its map reveals that the people wholabour every day in factories, offices, schools, mines and a

variety of other settings have the potential to collectively anddemocratically seize control of their workplaces, which takentogether make up the key productive resources of society.

Tis vision of socialism rests on the conception of over-turning the capitalist system through the active and demo-cratic mobilization of the mass of the working class, ratherthan liberation being the act of some small elite. Tis per-spective highlights strategies for change that challenge thedominant power structure through building counter-powerfrom below.

Tis counter-power is necessarily built within capitalistsociety, ghting for immediate improvements and reforms,

yet is always oriented towards the creation of new forms ofdemocratic participation that challenge the limits and, ulti-mately, the existence of existing institutions. Te orientationtowards building a counter-power makes a big difference inthe way we conduct ourselves in everyday freedom strugglesin capitalist society, which at key insurgent moments owtogether to open the possibility of a broader social trans-formation. Rather than simply signing petitions, appealingthrough the courts or voting for someone to represent us, webuild a counter-power when people become active in theirown cause: occupying, striking or taking demands to the

streets.Underlying this conception of building a counter-power isa great condence in everyday people, the mass of the work-ing class and oppressed people, to act creatively in deningand ghting for their interests, ultimately taking power withtheir own hands. oo many emancipatory theories are ulti-mately dismissive of the mass of the population, seeing themas bought into the system or merely passive, to be liberatedonly through the activity of a heroic minority.

Tis orientation towards building a counter-power thatis ultimately capable of overturning capitalism means chal-lenging the dominant ideas of democracy within capitalist

societies. Capitalism is not inherently democratic, but on thecontrary is based on monopolization of the key productiveresources in society and the exploitation of the majority bythe small minority in control. Te whole system of govern-ment is distorted towards keeping this minority in controland meeting their insatiable need to prot from the labourof workers.

Democracy was not a gift from above, but was won frombelow through hard struggles by workers, people of colour,

women, lesbians and gays, indigenous and colonized peoples.

Socialism thrived as part of these struggles for full citizship, both in the limited form of winning the vote and the wider form of gaining access to certain legal and sorights, such as formal freedom from discrimination and cess to certain health, education and social programmes.

Te limited form of democracy and citizenship that w won from below is important, but we must also be awarhow narrow it is. As long as a small minority continuehave dictatorship over the key productive resources in sety, democracy and equality will be limited and formal.

have no real democratic control over what is produced, hit is produced, how work is distributed or how knowledgdisseminated. Further, citizenship is necessarily exclusary, granting limited rights to some while stripping othof any rights.

Building a counter-power requires that we commit oselves to a far richer, more active and more inclusive formdemocracy. Tere is a very real democratic process that taplace when people mobilize and take the streets, picket orcupy. Tis kind of democracy is often dismissed as “mob ruor “violence” by defenders of the system who would conus to voting once every four years and occasional polite, s

bolic and legal protest. Socialists should value every littlof freedom that struggles from below have managed to out of the capitalist system, yet point to much richer undstandings of democracy grounded in collective activity.

Te orientation towards building a democratic countepower to challenge the fundamental basis of the capitasystem also means that socialism has a universalistic unstanding of emancipation, potentially bringing real contto the slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all.” Peoseeking freedom have often been drawn to this concept

Workers in Spanish Revolution of 1936: we mustnot “casually dismiss the experience of 150 years ofstruggle for freedom.”




that liberation struggles are deeply interconnected so that noone can be truly free when others are bound in shackles ofunfreedom.

Actual socialist movements have often failed the test ofthis high standard of universalism and solidarity, leavingmany feeling betrayed. Even if socialist movements have of-ten failed to meet their own standards in this area, socialismcan provide an important basis for a universalistic and trans-formative understanding of freedom.

MARGINALIZATION OF S OCIALISM

Socialism may have a great deal to offer us in our strugglesfor freedom, but it has very little weight these days. Social-ism is marginalized in part because it is seen as a colossalfailure. Indeed, it is possible in the current climate to ca-sually dismiss socialism by pointing to the collapse of theSoviet bloc, the dramatic erosion of the welfare state andthe end of “Tird World” economicand political strategies to regulateinteractions with global capitalism.Part of this casual dismissal is theidea that socialism not only failedto make a better world, but actuallymade things worse.

If socialism really has failed on a world scale, then any attempt to re- vive it might seem to be the projectof relatively small numbers of left-over cultish dogmatists deliberate in their ignorance of thisugly legacy. Tose of us who want to argue for a renewal of

socialism need to start with patient discussion of what wemean by socialism and how we explain the legacy of 20thcentury socialisms.

Socialism has come to mean a lot of different things overthe past 150 years. US socialist Hal Draper claried debatesabout what we mean by socialism tremendously by distin-guishing between ideas of socialism from below and fromabove. Socialism from above is associated with increasedstate and party control over the society in the name of thepeople, while socialism from below is based on the collectiveand democratic seizure of power by the mass of the workingclass with their own hands.

Much of the “failure of socialism” is associated with so-cialism from above strategies that sought to use state powerto moderate the impact of capitalism on the population and/or run the economy directly. Tis was true of the one-partyforms of rule associated with the Soviet bloc and MaoistChina as well as with the electoralist social democratic par-ties in the West. Te neoliberal restructuring of capitalismsince the 1970s has specically squeezed out the space forcertain forms of state regulation of the economy associated with the welfare state, the imposition of conditions on cor-

porations and the nationalization of property.It is a common assumption that socialism means state

control, one-party rule and vicious restrictions on free ex-pression. Tis ignores the long history of bitter strugglesagainst authoritarian socialism from above waged from vari-ous socialism from below perspectives. Te casual dismissalof socialism and the idea it has failed is being used as a wedgeto separate us from our collective memories of struggle, par-ticularly obliterating the libertarian forms of socialism asso-ciated with vibrant ideas of real democracy and freedom.

Te marginalization of socialism today is not only the re-sult of the failure of certain forms of socialism from above,but also the overall weakening of our counter-power, and theinfrastructure of dissent that supports it, since the 1970s. Inrecent issues of this magazine, I argued that 20th centurysocialism thrived as part of a rich and varied infrastructureof dissent that helped activists develop capacities for com-

munication, analysis and solidarity. Te struggles for basic democratic,labor and social rights developedkey elements of community througha variety of shared political, cul-tural, educational and social spaces,ranging from sustained oppositionmovements within unions to left-

wing cultural spaces. Many of these spaces are now

gone, due not only to a decline in thelevel of activism but also important changes in working-classlife and work. Around us we nd only the faintest echo of

the forms of community that sustained earlier mobilizationsand nurtured socialist consciousness. We must begin to un-derstand and orient ourselves around the new forms of infra-structure of dissent that emerge with new rounds of struggle.Socialist organizing is not a substitute for rebuilding the in-frastructure of dissent, but can and must be oriented aroundmaking a contribution to that broader process of rebuildingour collective dissent capacities.

S OCIALISM AND THE N EXT N EW L EFT

Tere is every reason to believe that there will be new waves of struggle, given the unpopularity of neoliberalismand the toll that capitalist restructuring has taken on ourlives. Te mobilizations will see the emergence of the nextNew Left, as the old Left inherited f rom the past is orientedaround a particular conguration of work, community andpolitics that no longer exists in the same way. New Lefts haveemerged before as movements face challenges that the toolsanswered by previous left formations do not fully answer, forexample in the insurgent wave of revolt after World War I orin the massive mobilizations during and after 1968.

One of the challenges facing the next New Left will be

We build a counter-powerwhen people become active

in their own cause: occupying,striking or taking demands

to the streets




rebuilding the infrastructure of dissent that develops our collective capacities to express, analyzeand act together. Examples of modest rebuildingabound in the struggles of our times. CAW work-ers used the mobility of contemporary communi-cations technology to build a whole new genera-tion of ying pickets that were able to stop scabsfrom getting into Navistar in Chatham duringthe strike there in 2002. Te meat packers strikein Brooks, Alberta in 2005 provided a taste of thenew forms of anti-racist solidarity that need tobe built as genuinely inclusive forms of ghting

working-class organization are being built. Teglobal justice movement of the period 1999-2001reminded us that demonstrations need not be sim-ply symbolic events, but organized forms of orga-nization for collective activism that could actuallymake things happen.

Socialist ideas can make an important contri-bution to rebuilding these capacities, providing animportant orientation beyond capitalism towardsother possible worlds. Socialism at its best offersa series of tools for uid action and analysis ratherthan a single correct path.

If we are to think socialism anew for thesetimes, we cannot be bound by the versions of so-cialist organizing that emerged through the 20thcentury; nor can we casually dismiss the experienceof 150 years of struggle for freedom. We need anew socialism that is genuinely transformed by its

encounters with feminism, anti-racism, queer lib-eration and ecological movements, so that it is trueto the idea of universal emancipation. Te strug-gles of the 1960s and those since have created newstandards for activism in the areas of gender, racial-ization, sexuality and environmental sustainabilityand a socialism that does not meet these standards

will not meet the challenges of these times. Tis requires genuine encounters with these

movements and the emancipatory perspectivesthat emerge from them. o begin building a so-cialism for these times, we need to learn from the

movements around us and from the critical exami-nation of past struggles. Socialists are often in a bitof a hurry to teach, and do not spend enough timelistening patiently, investigating open-endedly,and learning. Te development of a socialism forthese times requires collective work of investiga-tion, debate and discussion, which can only hap-pen as we reect actively on the struggles of theday and those that are just emerging beneath theradar.

J N

In a growing global crisis of human life-values, liberal capitalismsquandered whatever political capital it might have amassed foll

ing the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Tis crisis has created a new oping for a non-dogmatic socialism, focussed on building a democrsociety that prioritizes the satisfaction of human needs over capitaprots. Tis perspective sees the fundamental problem of capitalias a contradiction between the particular needs of the system anduniversal human needs required to sustain fullling forms of life.interpreting the contradictions of capitalism in this way retains core of Marx’s systematic critique of capitalism, but discloses m

clearly the universal values underlying the socialist project. o begin, a brief survey of the main dimensions of this life sis today is necessary. Te unifying principle that allows one to lithese different elements of global crisis together is what ethicist JMcMurtry calls the “life-ground of value.” Te starting point for tlife-ground of value is identifying the ways that objects, practicesinstitutions contribute to satisfaction of the life requirements and

velopment of the creative capabilities that make life meaningful socially valuable.

ENVIRONMENTAL C RISIS

A snowless December 2006 in much of Canada accomplis

what more than a decade of scientic argument failed to produa growing social consensus that climate change is a serious threaplanetary life. We are already seeing an extinction crisis affecting

The necessityof socialism

Jeff Noonan is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Windsor.

Hamilton smokestacks: Environmental degradation goes frombad to worse, even with increased awareness of the threat ofglobal warming.




mammals, large marine life and, perhapsmost serious over the long term, plank-ton that forms the basis of oceanic foodchains. Underlying both climate changeand the extinction crisis is the ever-ris-ing demand of industrial and consumercapitalism for more energy.

C RISIS OF H UMAN L IFE C ONDITIONS

Human life also depends on economicand social conditions. In the world today,there is a crisis in the form of the scourgeof poverty that affects more than twobillion people who simply do not haveadequate resources for basic food andshelter. Te growing consensus aroundhuman rights has not led to the deep value changes necessary to support a seri-ous international commitment to wealth

redistribution. Poverty is not only a prob-lem in the global South. Its life-damag-ing effects are found also in rich nations,in rich provinces and states, in rich citiesand rich neighbourhoods. Women andchildren the world over suffer dispro-portionally from the harms of absolutepoverty.

C RISIS OF M EANING

Humans depend upon social relationsand institutional interactions, not only

for continued organic life, but also formeaningful and valuable activity. A lifeled without meaningful, valuable activ-ity – for self and for others – is generallyagreed to be a “waste.”

Human consciousness has many ca-pabilities: for original cognitive andimaginative thought, for world and self-transforming creative action, for non-in-strumental and mutually rewarding rela-tionships, for work that contributes to theoverall health and value of society, and fordeliberative participation in public affairs. Te realization of these capacities is de-pendent on the satisfaction of uniquelyhuman sociocultural and political needs.

It is essential to global capitalism thatthe operation of political and educationalinstitutions, artistic practices and othercultural forms of expression serve thegoal of global market growth. In this way,the priorities of the global economy aretyrannically imposed on people who nd

themselves forced to live according to the values of the global market – or not atall. All of our human capacities are sub-ordinated to the growth imperative of theglobal market.

T IME C RISIS

Te value of a free human life is notfully realized through the developmentof creative capabilities. Te free develop-ment of creative capabilities depends alsoupon the satisfaction of a need for freetime. Free time is an experience of timeas an open matrix of possibilities for life-activity. In other words, the experienceof time as free is the imaginative experi-ence of oneself as having real alternativesto pursue over a lifetime. Tis experienceis contrasted with the experience of time

as a closed routine in which one’s every

activity has already been determined. Butpreprogrammed work and leisure activityis, as Marx was the rst to show, essentialto capitalism. Hence capitalism also failsto satisfy the human need for free time.

o argue that the crisis facing the globeis a unied crisis of life-value is to say thatthe ruling socio-economic and politicalforces and powers systematically fail tounderstand the proper relation betweenthe value of life and that which serves life.

Whether one is talking about harms doneto the web of planetary life, the satisfac-tion of the basic organic needs of humanbeings, the development of principles ofinstitutional governance that ensure thecultivation of peoples’ specically humancapabilities, or the temporal organizationof the economic system, the depth causeof crisis is that the requirements of thesystem are ranked above those for mean-

ingful human life. Te global capitalisteconomy, and the political regimes thatsupport it, treat life as a mere tool of thefurther growth of its ruling system value– money-capital. Human needs are sat-ised if, and only if, people can pay forthem, and only if it is protable to pro-

duce them.S OCIALISM AND H UMAN N EEDS

In its many different historical forms,the meaning of socialism has always beenlinked to an economic system that pri-oritizes the satisfaction of human life-re-quirements over considerations of prot. Tus socialism has always been implicitlylinked to the life-ground of value – theset of conditions without which life can-not reproduce itself and/or most fully

develop meaningful and socially valuablecapabilities. Making this link explicit to-day has the potential to invigorate anti-capitalist movements by giving them apositive, life-grounded socialist goal.

Satisfying the objective conditions tosustain, develop and enjoy life is the ma-terial condition of expanding life-value. We have seen that global capitalism hasbecome a threat to human and plan-etary life-value. Only the radical trans-formation of this system can reconnecteconomic systems to their proper goal– serving the interests of human life inthe satisfaction of its fundamental life-requirements.

Judging the effects of social processes,institutions and frameworks of valuefrom the perspective of life-value solvesthe contradiction between life needs andsystem needs by revealing the shared re-quirements of life that lie beneath what-ever particular goals and interests people value. Clean air and water, comfortableshelter, education, institutions that culti- vate creativity, participation in public af-fairs and free time are not the exclusiveinterest of any one class, gender, race orhistorical form of civilization (e.g. the West). Tose who object to this life-grounded framework might argue that itrests upon an unacceptable paternalismthat undermines people’s need to choosetheir life freely. In defence of the life-val-ue perspective, there are two responses.

Pr pro ramm d worka d l is r acti it is,

as Marx was thrst to show, ss tial

to capitalism




beings are social beings. Tus we alwaysnd ourselves in contexts where decisionsmust be made about resource productionand distribution and the general prin-ciples of collective life-regulation. Sincethese decisions can make people’s livesbetter or worse, it follows from the life-

grounded perspective that everyone hasa need to participate in these decisions. Tis democratic approach to problemsof social production is the very socioeco-nomic heart of socialism and contrasts with the essentially undemocratic andneed-depriving procedures and outcomesof global capitalism.

REVITALIZING S OCIALISM

Te life-grounded conception of theuniversal values that socialism hopes to

realize brings together, at the deepest lev-

el, the demands that different oppressgroups have made against the exclusand need-deprivation that have denthe history of capitalism. Te institutionalization of the demands of thostruggles has generated a history of so– as opposed to simply political – dem

ratization. Whether one is talking about the e

franchisement of women and excludracial minorities, legal limitations on

work day, public funding of educatilibraries and art galleries, or the redistruting of income f rom prots to wages, general trend of social struggle has btowards increased need-satisfaction the planes of life-requirement discusabove. Tese social goods are requirby everybody if they are to be more f

alive. Recognizing the shared naturethese requirements is the hidden secthat must be revealed if non-sectarinon-dogmatic struggles for a future, ligrounded socialism are to be successf

Te life-grounded foundation of sociaism is not an anachronism, therefore, bin fact, the general expression of a loterm trend of social development whgains are currently being rolled backglobal capitalism. Read at the levelits deepest values, the story of social mocratization links the many strugglesdistinct oppressed groups to secure accto democratic control over the shared quirements of human life in the endles

varied ways that its life-value appearhuman history and cultures.

Te life-grounded perspective does ndeny that there are separate historiesstruggle and oppression. Rather, it matains that different forms of oppressare real experiences of the same genform of systemic need-deprivation the three dimensions of life-need. In th

way, it also puts forward a universal gof different political struggles against pression: social and natural wealth isbe produced and distributed in ordersatisfy the fundamental needs of humbeings so that they are enabled to reize their capabilities through self-detmined projects. If that is not the geneprinciple of socialism, it is not clear to

what is.

First, there is no meaningful choice without the satisfaction of the materialconditions needed for realistic options toexist. An author might choose to write abook in support of capitalism, while an-other might choose to criticize it. But ifeither lacked the education needed to de-

velop the capability to read and write, nobook could be written. By setting out thebasic material (natural and social) con-ditions for the existence of options, thelife-grounded account for the foundationof socialism promotes, rather than denies,freedom of choice of life-activity.

Second, the understanding of humannature does not reduce human intereststo mere biological needs. Instead, the life-grounded understanding of human beingsshows – as did Marx – our animal and

human sides together in unity. Human

It is a challenge to think seriously about the future of socialism in a period where it is often treated as kitsch - a funny retro joke.




GENDER ... SEXUAL ... HUMAN

L I B E R A T I O N

In today’s neo-liberal world, there is a greater need than everfor socialist feminism – that is, socialist, internationalist,

anti-racist, anti-heterosexist feminism

G G S Swith participatio b M L andG G in discussions leading to thedevelopment of the ideas and structure for this article.

Gabriele Gérin is a student activist and member of the New SocialistGroup. Sandra Sarner is an editor of n w Socialist magazine. ManuelLarrabure and Gabriella Gonzalez are both student activists and membersof the New Socialist Group.

We live in a world today where there is no longer a needfor feminism – or so we are told by the mainstream

media. And while it is true that the struggles of women, gaysand lesbians in the 1970s and early 1980s led to many im-portant gains, it is equally true that inequalities and oppres-sion continue and are deepening as a result of neoliberalism.

Women have achieved the unquestioning right to partici-pate fully in the workforce. Yet women in Canada still earnonly 62 percent of men’s wages, according to 2001 Canadacensus data. Job ghettoization, insecure part-time and con-tract work with few benets are on the rise, particularly for women of colour and immigrant women.

Canada currently has no law against abortion yet access isextremely limited. Tis is particularly so for women in ruralareas, young women, Aboriginal women, racial minoritiesand immigrants. In some provinces, abortions are not avail-able at all. Fewer than 18 percent of hospitals today provideabortion services, a decline from over 20 percent in 1977.Clinic abortions can cost $500 or more.

Te on-going cuts to social services also have an unevenimpact, causing nancial hardship and forcing individuals totake on more of the work of caring for children, the sick,the disabled and the elderly. oday, despite the prevalenceof notions of shared responsibility between women and men

in the family, the bulk of domestic labour continues to beperformed by women. A strong indication of the pervasive existence of sexism

and homophobia in our society today is the on-going prob-lem of violence against women and those with alternativesexual identities. According to Health Canada, women con-

tinue to outnumber men nine to one as victims of assault bya spouse or partner. “Coming out” as a lesbian, gay or trans-sexual is a dangerous move in most rural areas as well as in

most high schools, for example, even in large urban centres with vibrant queer communities.Gays, lesbians and, more recently, transgendered people,

have gained some acceptance as sympathetic characters inmainstream movies and on V. However, those who do nott into sexually normative categories continue to face dis-crimination in jobs, housing and other areas.

Worldwide, the economic realities of globalization impacteveryone – but women are particularly hard hit. In poorernations, women bear a greater burden of labour as a result of

International Women’s Day: celebration of gains,struggle for demands around many issues we still face.




brutal structural adjustment plans. Displaced by rapid eco-nomic changes, many Tird World women have been forced

to leave families behind and migrate to wealthier nations asguest workers with few rights.

In the neoliberal world of today, there is a greater needthan ever for feminism – and more specically, for socialistfeminism, which should be understood, as Barbara Ehren-reich described in 1975, as “socialist, internationalist, anti-racist, anti-heterosexist feminism.”

Clearly, there is also the need for a movement to improveconditions for women, gays, lesbians and transgenderedpeople – indeed, for all poor and working people, peopleof colour, immigrants and Aboriginal people. oday, when

we support various struggles, we are building the seeds of afuture left movement. We need to analyze and understandthe way the oppression of women and other minority groupsbolsters neoliberal capitalism. By paying attention today tothe special demands of oppressed minorities in all struggles– for immigrant rights, international solidarity, resistance tocuts, union struggles, etc.– we are building the basis for the

vibrant anti-racist, socialist-feminist movement of the fu-ture.

S OCIAL R EPRODUCTION

Socialist-feminist theory plays an important role in help-ing us make sense of how capitalism is developing and howresistance to changes unfolds. One important contributionis the concept of social reproduction. Tis was developednotably, but not solely, in reference to social spheres and ac-tivities generally associated with femininity and tradition-ally considered private, apolitical and unproductive, such aschildrearing, housework and education. Tis has been coun-terposed to the public sphere of waged labour and wealthproduction, traditionally associated with masculinity. Whatthis concept highlights is the notion that capitalism unfolds

in, and depends on, not only the sphere of waged prodution, but also on all other aspects of social life where conditions for the continued accumulation of capital are cated. Te concept of social reproduction therefore provida framework for understanding the productive characteunpaid, reproductive tasks and their role in maintaining transforming) the social order.

Te family is arguably the most widespread and importainstitution in the reproductive realm. It has undergone machanges over the years and yet, in important ways, continto full its function as a source of unpaid labour that bolsthe system and an important site of the oppression of womand those with non-traditional sexual identities – lesbiabisexuals, gays, transgendered people.

As a result of women’s increasing participation in workforce, as well as the gains of the women’s and gaybian liberation movements of the 1970s and 1980s, a raof alternate family forms are far more accepted today thgeneration ago. Straight, lesbian, gay, with or without chdren, married or common-law, even forms of communal ing – all are options. However, there are limits to this eibility, particularly in smaller communities and among soimmigrant groups.

Te family is a contradictory phenomenon, in all its var

Families today come in many forms, however, lesbianand gay men still face enormous hurdles in adoptingchildren.

P H O T O : J O S H A n D J O S H . T y P e P A D .

C O M




ing forms. On the one hand, it can be a source of compan-ionship, support, love and joy – it can even be a sphere where we express our creativities, develop diverse skills and gaincontrol over our lives and selves. But it can also be a sphereof conict, oppression and even violence, as well as a site where we are forced to make choices contrary to our desiresfor the sake of survival. For many working class people, espe-cially women, the family is an inescapable responsibility, as women today continue to provide most of the physical andemotional labour needed to raise children and provide forthe day-to-day needs of family members.

But social reproduction is not limited to the household.It encompasses all social relations, processes and institu-tions relied upon by the system of capitalist production andexchange for its reproduction and expansion. Capitalismevolves not only in the sphere of formal production at the workplace but also through the constant structuring and re-structuring of social relations of reproduction of society as a whole – through education, culture, law, and the organiza-tion of households and communities.

Te concept of social reproduction sheds light on areasof working class life under capitalism that impact on classstruggle in all sorts of ways. Tese areas include households, various communities and even individual and interpersonalrelationships. In our neoliberal world, the changing pressuresof capital accumulation impact strongly on these social re-production relations and spaces. Capitalist restructuring is

Famil al s – Tor st l

Th Harp r o r m t’s r al commitm t to famili sis o displa i a w pi c of immi ratio polic .Moth rs of childr who will b l ft back i th ir homco tr ar fa o r d to b s l ct d as “ st work rs”

d r this polic , as th s kids at hom ar s asr d ci th “risk” th will o d r ro d i Ca adawh th ir l al tim h r is p.

The government recently privatized an aspect ofimmi ratio co trols. emplo rs ar ow p rmitt d toappl for th ri ht to bri “ st work rs” i to thco tr if th ca show that th ar abl to d

Ca adia s to ll c rtai jobs.Som fast food compa i s o th w st coast ar alr adtaki ad a ta of this w pro isio . Th r latio sallow th “ st work rs” to sta for a maxim m oftwo ars. Th compa tak s f ll r spo sibilit for th irtra sportatio a d ho si whil i Ca ada. O rs asr cr it rs ar s d to d work rs a d, altho h thar ot s ppos d to r q ir pa m t from th work rsth ms l s, ma of th m do.

characterized mainly by an increase in the burden of unpaidlabour, especially for women, oppressed minorities and thepoorest sections of society – especially with the retreat of thestate from providing quality public services and adequate in-comes for jobless, disabled and other disadvantaged people.It has also seen the expanding submission to the logic of themarket of all aspects of social life and the commodicationof more and more aspects of social reproduction. Aspects ofpopular, collective control over social reproduction have be-come increasingly alienated from the working class, as eachindividual and household is forced to nd private solutions,often mediated through the market, for survival. Becausecapitalism is a system that unfolds not only in the publicsphere of waged production but also in the private sphere ofreproduction, it is crucial to understand how both spheresplay a role in how resistance to the system develops.

S URVIVAL P ROJECTS

One useful way to think about all the various ways that working class people organize their lives is the concept of“survival projects,” a notion developed by U.S. socialist-femi-nist Joanna Brenner. Survival projects encompass activitiesand relationships in the realms of both production and re-production – waged labour and our after-work lives. Teyrefer to all the ways that working class people develop tosurvive under capitalism – employment, state services, fam-ily, friendships, community, etc.

Te nature of our survival projects impacts both on ourabilities and our willingness to resist as well as on our tenden-cies to accommodate to the system. For example, belongingto a union and/or to a community support group may helpa working class immigrant woman to participate in struggle

while other aspects of her survival project – her family tiesand responsibilities, potential reprisals at work – may act aslimits on her participation. Te concept of survival projectsallows us to develop an integrated approach to looking at

working class resistance and accommodation to neoliberalcapitalism.

Tere is also a component of survival projects that provides a glimpse into a possible socialist future. Most of usstruggle to keep as much control as possible over our lives.In various ways, we try to reduce our dependency on the

Worldwide, the economic

realities of globalization impact

everyone – but women are

particularly hard hit




market and affirm our humanity in how we live and methods we develop to survive. Tere are many examplesnon-capitalistic, and even socialist-like, survival projectspractices. People help each other as neighbours, friends relatives. Community members come together to form suport groups or recreation teams. Women (and men) devenetworks to share childcare responsibilities. Even whendevelop “free, unnecessary” friendly relationships with

workers, for example, rather than competing as individu we are showing our human, social inclination towards coltive solidarity. And all this in spite of the pressures of a sety that promotes competition and bombards us with imaof ourselves as violent, selsh and distrustful.

Tese spaces of everyday life where socialist social rtions are expressed and built can be understood as pottial contributors to the process of social transformation. Tcreation of these alternatives produces social relations contradict the capitalist logic – even if incompletely – are a necessary aspect of any revolutionary process. Resicapitalism is inseparable from the production of non-catalist, socialist-like social relations. In these spaces todaycan catch a glimpse of the seeds of socialism and the pottials in a socialist future.

Provocation: Sexual Revolutions?BY M ANUEL L ARRABURE

Th act of s x is a pow rf l a d i t s xpr ssio of bothth i di id als i ol d as w ll as of broad r social r latio sa d, as s ch, ca s r as a sit of r sista c that ca fost rhuman emancipation.It is p rso al i that it i ol s som co scio s s lf-r ctio ,a d social i that th wa s it is d rtak ar co ditio db forc s o tsid th b droom, som of which ar li k ddir ctl to capitalism. It is a sit of r sista c b ca s th actof s x, as a xpr ssio of positi h ma traits, ca comp l

s to r ct o th a ti-h ma lo ic of capitalism that mab i t rtwi d with th act its lf. This th allows for actir sista c to this lo ic that ca , for xampl , tak th form ofsexist attitudes.Capitalism, b d ma di that i di id als dl ssl comp twith o a oth r, fost rs f li s of f ar a d mistr st. Itsperverse logic of exchange value compels us to think ofo r acti iti s – thos that ar ot mark t tra sactio s

– i r latio to what th ar worth i th mark t. Do sthis maximize my income? Does that represent the most

f ci t s of m tim ? A d, as olib ralism co ti s topush the logic of capitalism deeper into every facet of ourli s, it is i itabl that o r s x al li s will b mor d pli t rtwi d with its lo ic.I this wa , som thi that has th pot tial to b a act ofd p solidarit , cari a d acc pta c ca b com o iwhich part rs b com p rc i d lik commoditi s – thi s

that ca b bo ht a d sold. I som wa s, s x al io s car ct th q al tra sactio b tw work r a d capitalist.Th r s lt is that s x b com s a m r xcha al , losiits intrinsic sensuousness.It is therefore imperative to engage in a process of sexual de-commodi catio . A d, altho h this proc ss ltimat l has totak plac o th pick t li a d o th str ts – b a ii dir ct battl with capitalism – it ca also tak plac i thb droom. W d to ima i w wa s of a i with oa oth r a d att mpt to ht th di isi forc s of j alo sa d comp titio . W also d to cr at , as b st w ca ,

w s x al id titi s for o rs l s – id titi s that challth r stricti s x al rol s r i forc d b th lo ic of capital

– s ch as machismo, to s o of ma xampl s.e d r capitalism, it is possibl to d lop w, morsocial a d h ma , r latio s of b i . Doi so pos s a dir ctchall to th s st m a d, i t r , op s p w a sfor r sista c a d f rth r pro r ss, as w co ti s to r cto th oppr ssi charact r of capitalism. How xactl wtra slat this to th b droom, I’ll l a to o r Marxiaimagination.

A ti-s x backlashTh a ti-s x backlash is bi b si ss, sp ciall iu it d Stat s. Carol Platt Li ba ’s bookPrude: How theSex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America, Too!) is a xampl of th absti c li that is t r ieducation and AIDS prevention into a farce.O i t r sti f at r of th absti c i d stth wa th ma a to so d a bit f mi ist. Thpick d p o a k co tradictio of th 1960s s xrevolution. Male dominance in this society means thawom oft fac s x al co rcio , sil ci of tow d sir s a d a lack of acc ss to birth co trol aor abortio . Wom ar still oft r d c d to s xobj cts for th pl as r of m .Th absti c i d str claims that th b st wa prot ct wom from s x al co rcio is to cos x to marria , as if that has r prot ct d womfrom iol c or ab s . R al s x al lib ratio m

c ssaril i cl d th ht for f ll acc ss fr a d birth co trol, a d a o oi battl a ai st scoercion and male violence. It means the real freedomto sa “ o” to s x as w ll as to sa “ s.”For a f , i si htf l a d mo i o l abo t ot ach r’s ht a ai st th absti c i d str iu it d Stat s, r adThe Abstinence Teacher b TomP rrotta.




However, it is important to note that there are limitationsto the revolutionary potential of survival projects – eventhose that are quite radical in nature. Developing models foralternative practices and social relations is not sufficient forbuilding an anti-racist, anti-homophobic, socialist-feministmovement against capitalist exploitation and oppression.Plus, there always exists the danger that these alternativespaces become ends in themselves, leading to a kind of life-style activism that does not connect with broader struggles

against the system. o be effective and meaningful, anti-cap-italist spaces and social relations must be integrated into, anddevelop at, the heart of broader class-struggle movements. Tis also creates the conditions through which they can ex-pand and be appropriated by more and more people.

Struggles are extremely important for a whole range ofreasons. One is that they offer us spaces where we can pro-duce new, disalienated social relations and where we can dis-cover creative ways to organize social reproduction. Child-care is a good example. Without affordable childcare thatextends beyond normal working hours, women in particularare handicapped from full participation in unions and other

working-class political organizing. It is no coincidence that, when women enter into struggle, the issue of childcare be-comes central. Te rst demand made by women workersseeking to democratize the Ontario Public Service Employ-ees Union in the mid 1970s, for example, was for fully subsi-dized childcare at all union meetings.

It is also in struggle that we acquire a fuller consciousnessof ourselves and of our potential for creating alternatives thatcontradict capitalist logic. Successful struggles, in particular,can radicalize our understanding of ourselves and society,

and bring dynamism to our “socialist instincts” – helping usdevelop ideas about different, more humanistic forms of so-cial organization. So, for example, in 2006, in Argentina, inthe wake of economic collapse and mass working class upris-ings, workers throughout the country took over factories thathad been abandoned by their employers and restarted themas collectives under workers’ control.

o build a better world for women, lesbians, gays andtransgendered people – as well as for all oppressed minori-ties and working class people – we need struggles that help

build a broad, dynamic socialist movement and the alterna-tive social relations that pregure a socialist future. But thatis only possible if these struggles take on an emancipatoryform. Tey must be democratic and dynamic, with partici-pants having genuine collective and creative control over theprocess of transformation. Only in this way can these strug-gles not only lead to concrete gains for the working class,but also become the occasion for building genuine, emanci-patory popular counterpower, characterized by unalienatedsocial relations.

It is in struggle that we acquire

a fuller consciousness of

ourselves and of our potential

for creating alternatives that

contradict capitalist logic

International Women’s

Day March,

Toronto 2007:Still ghtingfor abortion

access,reproductive

rights, workers’

rights,immigrant

rights, an endto war, racism,

homophobiaand violence.




he nationalist idea that Canada is akinder, gentler state is rmly rooted

in the myth of a benevolent “partnership” with indigenous peoples established byFrench and English colonists duringthe fur trade. Tis heritage supposedlystands in brutal contrast to the genocidalIndian Wars that subdued indigenouspeoples south of the border.

Tis myth obscures two fundamen-tal aspects of the history that forgedthe Canadian state: the capitalist de-

velopment that has violently dispos-sessed indigenous peoples of theirlands and sovereignty; and the strug-gle and resistance that has repeatedlyforced Canada’s rulers to make con-cessions to indigenous rights.

Te history of capitalism in thiscountry can be traced back to theHudson’s Bay Company’s restructuring of the fur industryunder competition from independent traders in the late 19thand early 20th century. Tis was far from a partnership: thecompany was viciously competitive and did not hesitate tothrow its indigenous workers into starvation in the interestof efficiency and greater prots. Te history of treaties and ofthe Indian Act is one of successive attempts by the state toopen the way to capitalist enterprise while preventing costlyconicts with indigenous peoples.

Indigenous resistance to assimilation cannot be under-stood solely in cultural or political terms – in defending theirland-based subsistence practices, indigenous peoples also de-fend traditional economies that are profoundly incompatible

with capitalism. Tis present reality of a non-capitalist mode

of production in indigenous societies came to fascinate KarlMarx in the later part of his life, especially via the writingsof anthropologist Henry Lewis Morgan and his representa-tions of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy. Unfor-tunately Marx was unable to synthesize his working notesfor publication before his death – the notes, written in thelast weeks of 1880 and the rst days of 1881 are now pub-lished under the title Ethnographic Notebooks.

T RADITIONS IN F REEDOM

Te Notebooksreveal Marx’s enduring revolutionary comitment to “the emancipation of all the human qualitand senses.” Morgan’s ethnography for the rst time gaMarx insights into the concrete possibilities of a f ree socpregured in past and present history rather than conjuup in theory. Marx shows great interest in the combinatiof cultural practices, egalitarian decision-making procesand non-oppressive gender roles that Morgan descri

in Haudenosaunee society. Marx painstakingly copied whole pages of text from Morgan’s book Ancient Society , dscribing numerous details about the Haudenosaunee waylife – including indigenous terminology and concepts.

Marx was focused on the complexity, the dynamism, in fact the superiority of Haudenosaunee society compato the degraded societies founded on the capitalist promotive. In his words, “primitive communities had incomrably greater vitality than the Semitic, Greek, Roman aa fortiori the modern capitalist societies.” As commenta

Deborah Simmons is a n w Socialisteditor living in the NorthwestTerritories.

‘POWERS OF THE MIND’ Indigenous traditions in freedom

D S

Savagery to “Civilization.” The Indian women: We whom you pity as drudgesreached centuries ago the goal that you are nownearing.




Franklin Rosemont remarks, here it is possible to glimpsethe “then-undreamed of possibility that such peoples couldmake their own contributions to the global struggle for hu-man emancipation.”

Marx’s interest in indigenous society was not merelyhistorical or instrumental. Tis is emphasized by Raya Du-nayevskaya in her reections on the Notebooks : “Marx’s hos-tility to capitalism’s colonialism was intensifying...[He] re-turns to probe the origin of humanity, not for purposes ofdiscovering new origins, but for perceiving new revolution-ary forces, their reason, or as Marx called it, in emphasizinga sentence of Morgan, ‘powers of the mind.’”

Te inuence of Marx’s readings on indigenous societies was manifested most remarkably in his response to a letterfrom Russian radical Vera Zasulich that arrived while he was working on the Notebooks.Zasulich wanted him to clarify whether he viewed the Russian peasant commune as merelyan anachronism that would have to be superseded by a capi-talist stage, or whether it could be the basis for a new collec-tive society. According to the letter, this had become a sourceof vigorous debate among Russian Marxists inuenced bythe rst volume of Marx’sCapital (the other volumes hadnot yet been published):

“Nowadays, we often hear it said that the rural communeis an archaic form condemned to perish by history, scien-tic socialism and, in short, everything above debate. Tose

who preach such a view call themselves your disciples… theirstrongest argument is often: ‘Marx said so.’ ‘But how do youderive that fromCapital ?’ others object. ‘He does not discussthe agrarian question, and says nothing about Russia.’ ‘He

would have said as much if he had discussed our country,’ your disciples retort…”

Marx had already been studying the Russian peasant com-mune, and intensied this study in formulating his answer toZasulich. Te gravity of the question for Marx is evident inthe four draft responses that he produced. He refers directlyto Morgan (“an American writer”) in admonishing that “weshould not …be too frightened by the word archaic,” con-cluding that far from being a social form of the past, “thecommune is the fulcrum for social regeneration in Russia.”

Marx did not make the mistake of equating Haudeno-saunee society with Russian peasant society. But he was in-spired by his understanding of the human potential embod-ied in both societies to become a supporter of a movementthat his own disciples scorned as “ahistorical,” “utopian,”“unrealistic” and “petty-bourgeois.” His readings about these

WASÁSERadical I di ismTh m mb rs of th radical i di o sWasás twork, i spir d b thwriti s of Mohawk scholar TaiaiakAlfr d, ha b a d i d catioand activism exposing the contradictionsof ”part rship” d als with o r m ta d i d str , a d ha th r b ar dop hostilit from of cial l ad rs.

Wasás m mb rs oppos thdomi a t form of i di o s politics,whos obj cti is limit d to s kir co itio of xisti l al “ri hts”b Ca adia stat i stit tio s. Thideas of Wasáse are grounded in“critical traditio alism,” af rmi thpot tial of pr -colo ial traditio s whilack owl d i that traditio al c lt r sca b appropriat d a d commodi dwithi th capitalist s st m if th arnot linked to radical anti-colonial politics.

Th id as b i disc ss d b Wasásm mb rs r pr s t a si i ca td lopm t b ildi o th milita tR d Pow r mo m t of th 1970s.

Th ar also a r ctio of thcurrent conditions of radical strugglei Ca ada: th small mb r of p oplwilli to t r a r i to actio a ai stwhat o r m ts a d corporatio sar doi ; a d th o oi racism

xp ri c d b i di o s p opl rday.

While the importance of collectivepoliticalaction is r co iz d bWasás s pport rs, th mphasisis on dismantling the colonialideas that bi d i di id als i to th s st m.Whil capitalism is d rstood to ba tith tical to i di o s traditio s, it iscolonialism and colonial consciousnessthat ar s to b th mai obstacl toindigenous self-determination.

A ga dhia discipli of tr thf la d critical thi ki , h althf l li i ,co ctio to o ’s ow traditio alh rita , a d o - iol t r sista cis promoted as a form of self-determination in the present. Theidea of revolution is constrained towhat s ms to b possibl i toda ’sconditions. While the solidarity of non-

i di o s i di id als is w lcom d,si i ca t solidarit from th o -i di o s worki class is ot i w das a possibilit .

A critiq of th r alistic asp cts

of th arli r R d Pow r mo m t,alo with a sob r ass ssm t ofc rr t co ditio s for str l , hasl d Wasás m mb rs to a d lib ratpragmatism. There is a certain strengthi this approach – th Wasás ro pis do bt dl o th c tti dof revolutionary ideas and activism incompariso to th rall wo f lli ad q at L ft i Ca ada.

Wasás m mb rs ar d lopi th irid as i actio . Th ’r l adi a ari tof political mobilizatio s d f diindigenous lands from corporated lopm t i t r sts, opposi thselling out of sovereignty in land claima d s lf- o r m t otiatio s,and exposing the dehumanizing anddestructive aspects of the dominantsoci t . Th r is m ch to b l ar d ir adi , dialo a d commo actiowith Wasás acti ists.




societies led him to understand that there are multiple roadsto a social revolution that would open the road to socialism.

D ESTRUCTION FROM W ITHIN

However, Marx’s readings on the Russian commune alsorevealed the complexity of undertaking revolution where ele-ments of capitalism have begun to take hold. Russia was atthe time one of the least economically developed states in anotherwise predominantly capitalist Europe, but it was by nomeans isolated from capitalist forces.

Marx observed that the commune had long been “ex-ploited fraudulently by the intruding capitalists, merchants,landed ‘proprietors’ as well as undermined by usury” – withthe active support of the Russian state. Peasants were in-creasingly able to accumulate private property, money, andeven slaves and serfs. Tis had the effect of dissolving the“original social and economic equality” of the commune. Ifleft unchecked, these forces would lead to the emergence ofclass divisions in peasant society, where a minority wouldbenet from allegiances with outside capitalist interests. Tecommunal system would be destroyed from within.

While Marx was writing the Ethnographic Notebooksand studying the Russian commune, the new Dominion ofCanada was preparing for a second round in the battle withMétis and indigenous rebels opposed to the usurping of theirland rights and sovereignty. Te battle ended in defeat for theMétis. Even so, the federal government learned early about

the virtues of buying allies within indigenous communities. Tis was the great advantage of the Band Council systemimposed and nanced by the Department of Indian Affairsto supplant traditional governance systems. But it is not untilrecently that conditions have existed for the crystallizing ofclass divisions in indigenous communities, similar to thosepredicted by Marx among the Russian peasants.

Te resource development boom that has been intensify-ing in Canada since the late 1980s is leading the state, along

with corporate interests, to look for politically acceptable

ways to open up previously marginal indigenous landsexploitation. Tis has involved a number of concessionsaboriginal governments, including negotiation of the ncomprehensive land claim agreements in areas where ltitle remained unsettled; nancial compensation to First Ntions for acquisition of Crown title; and nancial rents aother benets for exploration and development on aborigilands. In the process, First Nations have established signcant corporate entities of their own, and joint ventures windustry are increasingly commonplace.

For the rst time since the earliest days of the fur tra when indigenous people maintained a powerful positionsovereign and independent producers, it would seem that partnership model is being realized. Opinion leaders suchOsoyoos Chief Clarence Louis and writer Calvin Helin

reinforcing this with the popular message that indigenopeople should shed the outdated attitudes and dependencof the colonial past and join the bright new era of indigeneconomic development.

But are-ups of rebellion against these new developminitiatives on indigenous lands are indicators that the neconomic partnerships are not oriented to sustaining indenous sovereignty and collective heritage. A critical miity in indigenous communities across the country is pointout that treaties and self-government agreements represextinguishment of sovereignty; cozy deals with industrybeing exposed as betrayals of ancient and sacred trust

sustainable land stewardship.S OLIDARITY

Socialists should not place conditions on our solidar with indigenous activists struggling in opposition to domnation and racism; nor should we pretend to hold a formfor indigenous liberation. Certainly we should vigorouoppose the Stalinist dogma (promoted by self-styled Maist academics Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard) tindigenous people must integrate with the capitalist syst

Protestingreal estatedevelopmenton Six Nationsterritory atCaledonia. P H

O T O : C P , H A M I L T O n S P e C T A T O R , S H e R y L n A D e R




relinquish their connections to their traditional lands andculture, and become absorbed into the working class in orderto achieve liberation. Tis would be tantamount to support-ing the most right-wing elements in the Conservative Partyagenda. Nor should we make the opposite mistake of assum-ing that it is necessary to be (or pretend to be) indigenous inorder to be revolutionaries.

Tere has never been a signicant socialist current amongindigenous peoples, so there are aspects of indigenous strug-gle that non-indigenous socialists know very little about. But we do share in common with indigenous activists an interestin analysing the inhumanity and ecologically destructive na-ture of capitalism; the role of the state in maintaining stableconditions for capitalist development, including the divisionsthat pit the exploited and oppressed against each other; andstrategies for building resistance. We also share a commongoal in developing a vision for a society free of racism, sexismand other forms of oppression. It is our responsibility to beas rigorous as possible in holding up our side of the dialoguein these areas of common interest, and to demonstrate ourcommitment in action.

Despite the difficult conditions of struggle in Canada to-day, we must avoid at all costs the temptation to conceive ofsocialism as a reality to be deferred to some indenite andabstract future. Like the vision of the Wasáse group, oursocialism must involve strategic thinking for our times, adisciplined realism. But we should also take direction fromanti-colonial writer Frantz Fanon, who warned against thefragmented thinking that results from taking what seemspossible in today’s circumstances to be all that could ever be.

A solidarity limited by the conditions of the present inevita-bly leads to a debilitating pessimism, a narrowing of the ho-rizon of possibility. We need to look back into history to ndthe diverse moments of struggle and human self-realizationthat can be windows into what revolution might look like.

Now more than ever, indigenous peoples are facing thebrutal impact of capitalist expansion and dispossession. Moreand more indigenous communities are experiencing the kindof legal dispossession, cultural erosion and spiritual destruc-tion that comes with corporate prot-making on their lands.More and more indigenous people are being forced intourban centres, either completely impoverished and home-less and subject to systematic police brutality, or reduced to

working in low-wage jobs. Tis is an unacceptable reality inthe Canadian state; indigenous participation and servitudein fullling the dreams of those who rule Canada is not anoption for those seeking true liberation.

Solidarity with indigenous peoples must be multi-faceted, with demands for rights to land and self-determination be-ing a core principle. Indigenous self-determination must beunderstood as an aspect of every struggle. A sign of successin the socialist strategy will be when spaces have been cre-ated for indigenous activists to become genuine (not token)leaders in all of the movements that affect them: environ-mental, labour, anti-poverty, women’s and gay rights, anti-imperialist/anti-war … and the list goes on.

Writing about the revolutionary potential of the Rus-sian communal movement, Marx warned that it would notbe possible to sustain such a revolution in isolation. As ahighly industrialized settler-state, Canada by no means re-

ects the social conditions that existed in 19th century Rus-sia. Te Russian communes were proportionally much largerand more economically powerful, and the Russian state wasmuch weaker. Since early in the 20th century, the workingclass has been at the core of the Canadian economy and thekey potential force for transforming society.

Te political weakness, bureaucratization and fragmenta-tion of the current working-class movement belies its poten-tial power; the history of the Winnipeg General Strike andother mass mobilizations sheds light on the enormous po-tential of the working class to change society. Te challengeof creating new social movements, including a new workers’

movement, can be a task for non-indigenous socialists in col-laboration with radical indigenous activists.

Referring to the demands of anti-colonial struggle, aiaiake Alfred has written, “Action is the life sign of peo-ples whose existence is officially denied … we must ght for

what is precious to us, or it will be stolen away and used forsomeone else’s benet and enjoyment. Fight, not talk.” So-cialists cannot lead the ght of indigenous peoples, but oursolidarity in building radical social movements can help tocreate the conditions for victory.

Opposition to resort development on Songheestraditional territory in B.C.

PHOTO:WWW.CATHeDRALgOve.Se




D D :I S S -R

C HR M G A

F Duncan Campbell Scott (deputy super-intendent of the Department of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932) and PrimeMinisters Jean Chrétien and Pierre rudeau, Calvin Helin – real estate devel-oper and member of the simshian FirstNation – introduces his take on how tonally solve the “Indian Problem” in hisbook Dances with Dependency .

His argument focuses on the national well-being, nancial security and devel-opment of Canada, and therefore explic-itly not on the well-being of indigenouspeoples. His mantra is repeated continu-ally throughout the book, “It is time totake the giant leap forward for the benetof Canada as a Nation.”

Helin takes a blinkered approach to welfare dependency. He sees all of the“Aboriginal woes” – poverty, alcohol anddrug abuse, laziness, fatness, slowness, be-ing stupid and youth suicide – as the di-rect results of the dependency trap. In his view, it is time for “Aboriginal Canadiansto take responsibility for our problems, just like our ancestors of antiquity wouldhave done,” by forgetting about the pastand work on creating wealth through

“development” opportunities.Helin’s analysis is quite simply wrong.

Te dependency trap is but one symp-tom of colonialism and the oppressionof indigenous people’s minds and bodies.Because he focuses on only one symptom

of colonialism, rather than addressing itsroots, he is able to come up with no morethan band-aid solutions.

A SSIMILATION

Helin states throughout the book thatno amount of government money thrownat the “Indian Problem” will ever solve it.He argues that money will only “exacer-bate existing struggles.” Yet paradoxicallyhe views nancial wealth to be the prin-cipal means of self-determination: “Tegood news is that Aboriginal Canadiansare in the best positions ever to integrateeconomically with the mainstream, topartner with industry and create wealthand opportunities for all.”

And the source of this new wealth isresource extraction, the plundering of oil,

Canadian government and Canadicorporations are the main benefactorsthe direct oppression and exploitationindigenous peoples’ land.

Tis book is extremely dangerous that its assimilationist agenda is cloakin a rhetoric that indigenous peoples cagree with. Who doesn’t want to see end to the poverty, welfare dependen

youth suicide and violence that indenous people live with on a daily basi

Te history of Canadian capitalismshows that Helin’s solution, wealth cation through resource extraction, wnot bring an end to these problems. Othe contrary, this ecologically destruceconomy is what caused the problemsthe rst place, by displacing indigenpeoples from their traditional role stewards of the land for the well-beingtheir communities, and for generationscome.

Capitalist ventures will never reindigenous people’s unique worldviand values. Nor will exploiting our lmake our ancestors proud.

Tricia McGuire Adams is Anishinaabe fromBingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek (Sandpoint FirstNation) near Thunder Bay, Ontario.

BOOK REVIEW

Offering bandaid solutions

Helin’s solution is theassimilation of indigenous

peoples into the very systemthat has almost destroyed

them and continues to makemillions off of them

diamonds, gas, forestry, hydro, miningand minerals on traditional indigenouslands. Helin’s solution is for indigenouspeople to achieve “real leverage withinthe Canadian economy – which will re-sult in an unprecedented opportunity toforge a new era of self-reliance.”

Helin goes on to ask, “How can theconstructive future of indigenous nationsbe founded on festering grievances of thepast?” Although the victim mentality cre-ated by colonialism must be challenged,indigenous peoples cannot simply forgetabout the legacy of colonialism. It is stillhaving a direct impact on their lives. Te






INDIVIDUAL AND C OLLECTIVE C HALLENGES TO RACISM : Even without a broad-based movement, we can take on the inci-dents of everyday racism that go on around us, we can chal-lenge our own and each other’s white supremacy and racism,and we can act in our communities and workplaces to chal-lenge the structural racism that often comes in the form ofpolicies and programs, or lack thereof.

A NTI -R ACIST O RGANIZING FOR B ROAD S OCIAL C HANGE : Tis is a tough challenge, but we can try to organize in

communities, workplaces and unions with the broad goalin mind, while recognizing it is a step-by-step process withoften externally imposed limits. o be effective, this actionneeds to be done within an integrated, anti-racist, organizingframework. Tis is demonstrated by how we set and worktowards our political goals, whom we choose to work with,

who the leadership of our projects is and what projects wechoose to work in and/or politically support.

U NDERSTANDING A GENCY

All political work must be anti-racist work. As well, wemust have a clear set of political goals, an overall strategy toget there and a exible set of tactics that can be applied indifferent situations, depending on the context and the avail-able people. What we need is a collective, on-the-ground ap-proach that plans where it is going and seeks to build some-thing from each activity and event, with the transformationof our society as our ultimate goal.

And here we need to accept another contradiction: whilethis may be our ultimate goal, it is not enough to add “anti-capitalist” to our group’s basis of unity or our organization’smandate. Given the broader social conditions we face, we are

generally not relating to workers in the context of a brcritique of how society functions as a whole and an analof what we need to do to change it. Most people get involvin struggles out of dire personal need. In the words of activist, “I was totally apolitical but this was the last strenough was enough.”

At the same time, we cannot shy away from argumethat critique capitalism, assuming that “community peop

will be alienated; we shouldn’t fall back onto those mstream explanations of how our economy or society sho

function. For example, when government tells us that can’t raise the minimum wage because it’s bad for busin we do not have to cede that terrain. We just need to be suto put people’s agency and the faults of a prot-based enomic system rst, while at the same time being concrand not abstract or dogmatic.

In political terms, we can think of “agency” as the abof exploited and oppressed people to use what they knand understand from their own experience to resist astruggle. Although maybe not so frequently thought ofpart of agency, I would also include in the denition whatdo individually and collectively that results in our benetfrom the oppression of others – and how these actions teract with structures of domination. It is often said by sofar-left thinkers that white workers use racism to expl

why they are exploited and poor in their everyday livemake sense of the world around them.

A narrow focus on agency does not shed light on whyare not blaming the ruling class for the damage they are ing. If we are just making sense of the world, why is that predominantly racist way? Tere are powerful forces at wto make white workers make cross-class alliances instea

R A D I C A L P H I L O S O P H y A S S O C I A T I O n A n T I - R A C I S M

P R O J e C T




working class ones. We need to see our agency in its fullnessand as part of the workings of structures of domination if weare to appreciate, and hope to realize, the potential of agencyat all.

C OMMON G ROUND

White activists need to nd new ways to take the politicalresponsibility of engaging with people of colour. Te “ally”concept, which is found in practice in a number of politicalgroups and many community-based, anti-racist educationalprograms, is important for white anti-racism. When we ap-ply the concept well, we are taking responsibility and direc-tion at the same time.

Yet, the responsibility-direction balance can tip too far attimes with an over-emphasis on seeing ourselves as merelyallies and not as interested parties in the struggle. If we reallybelieve that none are truly free until all are free, we must seesolidarity relationships as two-way streets and not as forumsto which we humbly bring our skills, and in which we willalways defer to the opinion of people of colour.

Being a good ally does not mean just doing what we’retold; it means respecting people of colour and ourselvesenough to disagree sometimes and, in doing so, risk ndingout that one of us is not right. In the words of late activistDave Brophy of the Winnipeg Indigenous Peoples Solidar-ity Movement, it means developing together a “better articu-lation of ‘common ground.’”

Effective anti-racist organizing puts non-white people’sagency front and centre, not in a romantic or deferential way,but based on the respectful treatment of equals. Tis means

building trusting political relationships over the long termthrough being an obvious and consistent ally, and through valuing and supporting the leadership development of peo-ple of colour, especially women.

Part of this is getting involved in things we may not “get,”such as when people of colour come together to organizepublic, political-cultural events that do not “look political” to white folks. When an opportunity is there, let’s get ourselvesinto environments where we are the minority, do some good work, and learn about different aspects of community-basedorganizing at the same time. Tis kind of experience can help

us be a white anti-racist bridge to other white-dominatedpolitical groups and settings.

At the same time, we do need to accept that sometimes we will work together, and at others, separately. If we buildreal political relationships with organizers of colour we willhave the basis on which to understand when and why thismust happen. o strategize on improving our anti-racism aspart of our political work, we could look at reviving someform of meeting of white allies in our union and communitysettings.

When we look for direction, we do not need to be com-pletely deferential and remain silent; we ought instead to beactively listening and contributing to political discussions

with people of colour about how to develop our collectivestrategies. Tis becomes easier as people get to know us andtrust starts to develop, a key foundation of any successful po-litical relationship.

F ROM R AGE TO A CTION

I spent most of the fall of 2001 in an inspired rage. Terage was about the US attack on Afghanistan and the ratch-eting-up of domestic racism. Te inspiration came from themultiracial organizing that, although short-lived, blossomedin response to it. I remember one discussion-oriented meet-ing I attended at which there were a lot of white folks. I wasunable to control my anger at all when I spoke, that ragegushing forth as I said, “It’s f—n time we white folks steppedup to the plate!”

Now, where that plate is and how to nd it aren’t easyquestions to answer. But, I still have that sharp feeling that

we simply can no longer let it go on, as more “security laws”

get put in place, as more and more migrants are restricted orpermitted only temporary access. Rights are being reducedand racism is on the rise. So we’ve got to get on it.

Moving forward requires not only the balancing act oftaking responsibility/taking direction. It also requires bal-ancing hopefulness and inspiration with a thoughtful as-sessment of conditions and possibilities. It feels, here in mylifetime, like it’s high time we get down to it. And I will notsay I hope that we can do that because, at some point, wesimply must.

Te white anti-racism thatdoes exist is due to the activism

against racism by people

of colour

We do need to accept thatsometimes we will work

together, and atothers, separately




he No One is Illegal (NOII) cam-paign launched across Canada in

the wake of 9/11 and the growing overtlyracist political climate. No One is Illegalunites under the fundamental demandsfor regularization of all non-status peo-ple, an end to detentions and deporta-tions of immigrants and refugees, and —reecting the link between immigrationand the war on terrorism — an end tosecurity certicates. Another importantinitiative is the “Don’t Ask Don’t ell”campaign, mobilizing service providersto defend the rights of all immigrants tohave their basic needs met through accessto housing, education and the social wel-fare system.

Te “No One is Illegal” slogan emergedin the late 1990s in Europe with the SansPapier and No Borders movement. How-ever, it could be argued that the struggleagainst borders started with the dawn ofcolonization and imperialism. NOII or-ganizations see the ght against imperi-alism as an integral part of their struggleboth abroad and at home, where they work to support indigenous sovereignty. Te building of the Canadian nation-state started with the near annihilationof indigenous peoples, communities andculture. Indigenous resistance challengesthe legitimacy of the state to grant citi-zenship in the rst place. Ongoing strug-gles in places like Grassy Narrows and SixNations territory share a common goal with anti-racist struggles in the migrantrights movement – an opposition to Ca-nadian nationalism and imperialism.

Te same state that has dispossessedand displaced indigenous peoples is alsoresponsible for the displacement of refu-gees and economic migrants. During the2002 G8 summit, activists marched underthe “No One is Illegal” banner to makethe links between the war abroad and

the war at home and how the policies ofthe G8 displace those in the South whoare then forced to migrate. While capitalmoves freely across borders, displacingand dispossessing people along its way,the movement of people is increasinglybeing regulated, controlled and criminal-ized. As a result, the poor, the working

class and people of colour are increasinglyforced to live with precarious immigra-tion status, and end up becoming a poolof low-wage labour.

For socialists, the ght against racistimmigration laws is important not onlyfor social justice, but also to build work-ing class solidarity across state and raciallines. State borders and a divided work-ing class are fundamental to the competi-tive aspect of the capitalist system. Forthis reason, the struggle for the rights ofmigrant workers has deeply radical im-plications.

Marx saw the state as a coercive “il-lusory community” whose purpose wasto maintain private property. He arguedthat true community can only be estab-lished with the abolition of classes andthe state. At the same time, he supportedmovements of oppressed nations againstimperialism as a “necessary condition andprerequisite for true internationalism.”

Te ght for people’s right to choos where they live and work is an importaspect of the struggle for socialism. building solidarity with migrant comunities to ght against detentions adeportations and to ght for status for asocialists can begin to pose the possibiof a revolutionary society where peoare placed before prot.

No One is Illegal (Toronto) ...

... is a group of immigrants, refugeesand allies who ght for the rights ofall migrants to live with dignity andrespect. We believe that grantingcitizenship to a privileged few ispart of a racist immigration andborder policy designed to exploitand marginalize migrants. We

work to oppose these policies, as well as the international economicpolicies that create the conditionsof poverty and war that forcemigration. At the same time, it ispart of our ongoing work to supportand build alliances with indigenouspeoples in their ght againstcolonialism, displacement and theongoing occupation of their land.

Exerpted fromtoronto.nooneisillegal.org

Yen Chu is a member of No One Is Illegal inToronto.

Y C

No borders on human freedom

Drawing up the ght against borders.




S L

“So this is freedom — they must be joking.” The Housemartins

We live in a free society. Or at least that’s what we’reconstantly told.

But it doesn’t take much effort to see what’s wrong withthis claim. How free are people who live without adequatefood and shelter? How free are we in the places where we work for pay? Lesbians and gays can marry, but heterosexismstill scars the lives of queer people. Equal rights in law don’ttranslate into real equality for women, people of colour, im-migrants, indigenous people and people with disabilities.

All this points to an important truth: even in the wealthi-est capitalist countries, such as the Canadian state, we are farfrom free.

It’s not that there’s no freedom. In some ways, capitalistsocieties are freer than the other class-divided societies theyreplaced in much of the world. Te French Revolution ofthe 1790s and other revolutions eroded or dismantled someforms of domination that were an obstacle to capitalist de-

velopment, such as the rights of nobles and monarchs thatrestricted the powers of rich “commoners.” Tese revolutionsopened the door to radical people’s struggles for freedom.But such struggles were repressed so that capitalists couldreap the benets of change without risking the loss of theirown property and power.

But while it dismantled some forms of domination andoppression, capitalism reproduced and intensied others.Capitalist colonialism gave rise to a new form of oppression,racism. So it is highly misleading to paint a picture of free-dom as the essence of capitalism.

U NFREEDOM

Clearly there are elements of freedom in Canadian soci-ety today. It would be foolish to deny that gains have beenmade: Laws prohibiting abortion and same-gender sex havebeen struck down. New laws have been established, recog-nizing union rights and protecting people from discrimina-tion. Tese gains had to be fought for, often at great human

cost, against state and corporate power.Sadly, these advances don’t come close to making this a

free society. Te workplaces where society’s goods and services are produced are managerial dictatorships. Decisionsthat affect our lives are made by capitalists who are neverelected, governments that aren’t accountable between elec-tions, and top state officials for whom no one ever casts aballot. Immigrants excluded from citizenship have even lessinuence over who governs us.

Sexism, racism, heterosexism and other forms of oppres-sion are still part of the fabric of society. Te Canadian stateis a colonial settler-state that denies indigenous peoples andthe Québecois the right to determine their own destinies

without interference from the dominant Canadian nation. Te young demonstrators who chanted “Te Communist

Sebastian Lamb is an editor of n w Socialist. Thanks to Kim Parry andShelagh Pizey-Allen for comments on a draft of this article .

R EAL F REEDOM Marxism ... Anarchism ... Liberation

F R O M W W W . u n D e

R . C H / S A n S T I T R e




World is not communist, the Free World is not f ree!” in thelate 1960s were right. Almost all of the Stalinist dictatorshipsthat passed themselves off as “Communist” have collapsed.However, the end of the Cold War did not bring about free-dom — just ask the people of occupied Iraq, Palestine and

Afghanistan.

A R ADICAL V IEW

Freedom struggles are an important part of humanity’shistory, going back thousands of years. Tey have includedrevolts by peasants and slaves, working-class upsurges, rebel-lions against colonialism, women’s mobilizations, anti-raciststruggles, queer protests and more. We see aspirations forreal freedom in these struggles.

But what would a free society look like? Socialists of dif-ferent stripes have long argued that capitalism cannot de-liver on its promise of freedom, and that it will take a radicaltransformation of society to realize that possibility. Unfortu-nately, most socialists have seen socialism as something thatcan be achieved by a committed minority (such as a partyor army) on behalf of the majority. For such supporters ofsocialism from above , freedom is at best a secondary concernand at worst merely rhetoric.

A minority of socialists have always disagreed with this.For supporters ofsocialism from below, a free society — a soci-ety without class divisions, state power or oppression — can-not be handed down by a minority, no matter how sincere. It

will be achieved as a result of the self-organized struggles ofthe exploited and oppressed themselves or not at all.

oday, anarchist supporters of socialism f rom below are

more well-known for their commitment to a free societythan Marxist socialists. For example, anarcho-communist Alexander Berkman wrote in 1929 that “we can live in a so-ciety where there is no compulsion of any kind... freedomfrom being forced or coerced, a chance to live the life thatsuits you best.”

Yet certain Marxist traditions have long articulated astrong revolutionary vision of a free society. Te followinglines appeared in 1847 in a publication of the political groupto which Karl Marx then belonged: “We are not amongthose communists who are out to destroy personal liberty,

who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into

a gigantic workhouse. Tere certainly are some communists who, with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance personalliberty and would like to shuffle it out of the world becausethey consider that it is a hindrance to complete harmony. But

we have no desire to exchange freedom for equality. We areconvinced... that in no social order will personal freedom beso assured as in a society based upon communal ownership.”

Not all supporters of socialism from below have been asclear as this. But it is in this tradition that we nd a trulyradical view of freedom.

REAL F REEDOM

Freedom is not just the absence of constraints. Freedolies in our ability to choose among options and to create noptions for ourselves and for others. Tis includes the fredom to change and for individuals to become what they wto become (for example, to live our gender however we wIt’s not a state of mind, but requires real material conditio

It cannot be achieved through the actions of individuals, only in community. o say that freedom is inherently social doesn’t mean t

individual liberty is unimportant. It doesn’t mean that in viduals need to subordinate themselves to other individor to social institutions acting in the name of the commgood. Tere is a big difference between individualism (actand thinking in one’s own narrow self-interest), and in

vidual liberty. Te owering of true individuality requires a society

which everyone is free. Tere must be f ree time — time which people are free to do whatever they choose, so lon

this doesn’t involve harming others. Tis requires a reductiin the time people spend producing the services and gothat society needs.

For this to happen, the world of work would have to transformed. Workplaces would have to be democratizedthat workers manage themselves. Production would be need, not for prot. Te goals and products of labour woube determined through democratic planning, guided by elogical concerns. Te overall organization of workplaces athe content of jobs would need to be reorganized in orde




undermine divisions among workers such as those betweenmanual and mental labour, and between unpleasant and moreenjoyable tasks.

All across society, authoritarian hierarchies would have tobe replaced by democratic structures for making and imple-menting decisions. As the anarchist socialist Murray Book-chin argued, “A free society will either be democratic, or it will not be achieved at all.”

An inconsistent commitment to socialist democracy intheory and practice has weakened the struggle for a free so-ciety. Such inconsistency can be seen in the functioning ofmany Marxist and anarchist groups. It is also evident in the writings of inuential Marxist socialists Frederick Engels,Vladimir Lenin and Leon rotsky and major anarchist so-cialists such as Emma Goldman.

A N IMPOSSIBILITY ?

oday, the tradition of socialist democracy is largely un-known. In the 20th century, it suffered greatly at the hands offascism and Stalinism, and was reduced to a marginal current. oday, many people in search of genuinely radical politics offreedom identify with anarchism. After all, anarchism is notstained by association with Stalinism, social democracy orbureaucratic union leaders. Yet what is striking about muchof contemporary anarchism is that it isnot dedicated to thestruggle for a f ree, democratic, socialist society.

ake, for example, writer Derrick Jensen. He argues that“civilization” (by which he means societies with cities) “is notand can never be sustainable. Tis is especially true for indus-trial civilization... Civilization is not redeemable... civiliza-

tion turns the entire world into a labour camp, then a deathcamp... the endpoint of civilization is assembly-line massmurder.” So much for the possibility of freedom.

As Bookchin argued against earlier anti-civilization an-archists, to denounce “civilization as inherently oppressive ofhumanity in fact serves toveil the specic social relationsthat privilege exploiters over the exploited and hierarchs overtheir subordinates.” It is not civilization but capitalism thathas caused a global ecological crisis, thanks to its cancerousprot-driven expansion. Capitalism, not urban society, madethe Nazi killing machine possible.

Te politics of Canadian anarchist Richard Day are not

reactionary like Jensen’s, but he too rejects the struggle for afree society. His bookGramsci is Dead dismisses all politicsof revolutionary social transformation (which he caricatures)and the possibility of a society without exploitation and op-pression. In this, he openly follows two French thinkers: Mi-chel Foucault, who saw revolutions as leading inevitably tonew forms of domination and Jean Baudrillard, with whomDay agrees that “the masses” in the advanced capitalist coun-tries have no “political potential.”

Day reaches this conclusion without anything resembling

a careful study of the actual history of the past century ofsocial struggles. Since he sees a free society as impossible, heargues that the best that can be hoped for is small-scale mo-ments of freedom in the here and now, from battles againstoppression to the creation of “alternative economies” like

worker-run small businesses.It should come as no surprise that ideas like Day’s are ap-

pealing to some people in societies like Canada. In this timeand place, ecological crisis, exploitation and oppression areall too visible. However, the low level of popular resistanceand the weakness of the radical left make mass movementsand revolutionary change seem impossible.

A NOTHER W ORLD IS P OSSIBLE

We should not resign ourselves to this politics of despair.In order to ght for real freedom one does not need to be-lieve that it is likely to be achieved. So long as we believe thatit is not impossible , there is good reason to do whatever we canto make this possibility more likely.

Fortunately, there are still people who refuse to abandonthe slogan “Another World is Possible!” made famous by the

“We are convinced that inno social order will personal freedom

be so assured as in a societybased upon communal ownership”

global justice movement before the events of September 11,2001. Tere are still voices insisting that this possible worldmust be a society of real f reedom, beyond capitalism and theforms of oppression intertwined with it.

Hope in the possibility of real freedom has been extin-guished even among many of those who clearly see the hor-rors that capitalism has unleashed, and dread the greaterhorrors it promises to deliver in the future. Te few whomaintain a revolutionary vision of freedom differ amongourselves on many issues. But small in number as we are, we

would be wise to get clear about what we agree on and what

we can do together.By all means, we should discuss and debate our disagree-

ments, but let’s keep these in perspective. Te most funda-mental political division among radicals today is not between“anarchists” and “Marxists.” People who accept these labelsdisagree among themselves more than they agree. Te realdivision is between anti-capitalists who believe that libera-tion is possible and worth ghting for and those who, inu-enced by the despair and political confusion of our times, areresigned to the present reality of unf reedom.




Sometimes the most profound thinking occurs when weare lost, when we do not know where we are, or how

to get to where we want to go. Tis can be true in the lifeof an individual, in study of a scientic problem, or in theevolution of political movements. And the socialist Left the

world over is essentially lost today, living through a periodof intense political disorientation after 30 years of maraud-ing neoliberalism. As a general trend – with important ex-ceptions – unions have been in massive retreat for decades,

while social movements, after a brief resurgence in the formof global justice struggles, have been on the decline since theclampdown after 9/11.

Periods of retreat are especially difficult for the radicalLeft. When people nd it daunting to make even modestimprovements in their lives, thoughts of a radical socialisttransformation of society appear to be wildly utopian, thestuff of otherworldly dreamers. Movements for socialist lib-eration nd themselves on the margins of political life.

B EYOND D ENIAL AND R ETREAT

In times of disarray for the Left, the most scrupuloushonesty is at a premium. So let us begin with a hard truth:the revolutionary socialist Left is today more marginal, moredisconnected from the day to day experiences of working

class people than at any time in the last 150 years. Tis real-ity has produced two main reactions within the left: retreatand denial.

Retreat is, of course, the most common response. Peoplegive up the struggle, sink into defeatism, embrace purely per-sonal “solutions” to what ails the world. Te end result is adecline in the organized presence of socialist politics. Denialis little better. It consists of sticking one’s head in the sandand pretending that no real dilemmas exist. Deniers urgethat all is well, that history is moving forward, and that all weneed to do is prepare to apply the “lessons of history” derivedfrom a great historical event – be it the 1917 revolution inRussia, or the anarchist struggles of 1936 in Barcelona.

Tere is a sleight of hand in such arguments, however. It istrue that history is rich with experiences from which social-ists must try to extract all the practical wisdom they can. Buthistory does not repeat itself; it incessantly generates newphenomena, new problems. All ostensible historical “lessons”are at best partial. Tey offer ways of thinking about and act-

B ildi toward th xt w D M N

ing on the new challenges and struggles of our day. But t

do not offer answers to the challenges that lie ahead. o stay to the left while rejecting retreat and denial volves a politics of “sober senses,” to borrow a phrase Marx. It means persisting with the struggle for a better wo

while reckoning with the terrible odds against us. It requopenly acknowledging that the whole socialist project been thrown into question by events of the last quarter ctury.

And yet, the three vital sources of socialist oppositioncapitalism persist: capital’s intense exploitation and oppsion of the majority of the globe’s inhabitants; powerful inspiring movements of resistance to these realities; dreaand struggles that point toward a radically different wayorganizing human life.

Because of these realities, socialist politics will not dipear, however enfeebled they may become. And for gro

which refuse to give up on the struggle for a truly be world, three interrelated tasks will continue to confrthem, though on dramatically different scales and in qudifferent congurations depending on circumstances. Fisocialist groups must gure out how to contribute to signcant struggles of resistance, so as to nurture opposition

David McNally is the author of A oth r World is Possibl :globalizatio a d A ti-Capitalism , published by Arbeiter Ring.

Lost on a desert island: how many competing socialistorganizations do they need?




build people’s capacities to change the world. Secondly, theymust develop ways of keeping the socialist imaginary – theradical vision of a democratic and egalitarian society – aliveand relevant to people seeking alternatives. And, nally, theymust seek out ways to organize themselves as democraticcollectives based on practices of movement building activismand socialist education.

T HINKING AND A CTING H ISTORICALLY

But to do these things effectively requires thinking andacting historically – with respect to the presentand the fu-ture. o think historically about the present means honestlyconfronting our real possibilities and capacities in the hereand now. A group of a hundred people in a period of retreatfor the Left is very differently positioned from a small partyof ten thousand in the midst of an upsurge of working-classstruggle. As British socialist Duncan Hallas wrote nearly 40 years ago, “Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. Tey arecomposed of actual people in specic historical circumstanc-es, attempting to solve real problems with a limited numberof options open to them.” If groups delude themselves thatthey are on the verge of leading mass struggles, when noth-ing of the sort is probable, they will distort their own development, tending to blame some of those closest to them,be it in their own groups or other organizations of the left,for the recalcitrance of circumstances. Down that road lies asterile sectarianism.

So, part of thinking historicallyis reckoning with the actual tasksof the moment. oday in most of

the Global North this means em-phasizing interrelated processes ofmodest movement-building andsocialist self-education. It meansnurturing collectives of activist-persuaders who are able to contrib-ute to real resistance movements while also increasing the quantityand quality of organized socialistforces. Meaningful socialist groupsmust be able, therefore, to help strengthen anti-capitalist re-sistance and make a compelling case for the continued rel-

evance of socialist politics. o do both of these things means to think and act histori-

cally toward the future. It means discerning elements of thefuture within the present and integrating them into a social-ist politics that speaks to the next wave of mass struggles. Itmeans developing ananticipatory politics that anticipates thedirection of emerging struggles, rather than summarizingthe “lessons” of past mobilizations.

If we think about the mass movements in France in Mayand early June 1968 we get some sense of what this means.

T HINKING ABOUT 1968

Te great struggles of May-June 1968 in France – hugesocial protests, student-occupied universities run by mass as-semblies, a general strike of 10 million workers in which oneto two million seized control of their workplaces – constituteone of the great moments of social insurgency in the periodsince the Second World War. And these events demonstratehow important small radical groups can be – both positivelyand negatively.

May ’68 was an explosion of radical democracy, street pro-test, workers’ power, mass mobilization – and revolutionaryimagination. Wall posters and graffiti sprung up with sloganslike the following:

Be realistic – demand the impossibleRevolution is the ecstasy of history

All power to the imagination!

Slogans such as these, which were widespread, transmit asense of the revolutionary imaginary that informed much ofthe struggle of these amazing weeks. Yet, this sort of politi-cal imaginary had percolated for years in the orbit of smallleftist groups which had demonstrated some capacity toanticipate what the next wave of struggles might look like.

wo such groups in particular contributed mightily to theradical sensibility of 1968:Socialism or Barbarism and the

Situationist International . Whatis remarkable is that both groupsdid this despite incredibly severeshortcomings.

Socialism or Barbarism (SB)had originated in the 1950s and was never more than a current ofa few dozen people that publisheda journal. SB put a major stress on workers self-management of pro-duction (autogestion) and cham-pioned the Hungarian workers’uprising of 1956 against Stalin-ism. By the late 1960s, however,

the group ceased functioning entirely. Nevertheless, many ofSB’s political ideas had a major impact on youth radicals of

1968. Te Situationist International (SI) too was an extremely

small group with a bizarre and unpleasant internal regime. Te Situationists were less interested in workers’ experienceon the job than was SB. But they developed a powerful cri-tique of alienated existence in modern capitalism – a critiqueof everyday life – that was indebted to the Surrealist move-ment of the 1930s and ‘40s. Tey argued that workers in de-

veloped capitalist countries were still poor – in psychological,cultural and social terms – because their time at work and

Meaningful socialist groupsmust be able to help

strengthen anti-capitalistresistance and make a

compelling case for thecontinued relevance of

socialist politics




outside work was controlled by the alienating powersof capital and consumer culture. As student agitationgrew throughout 1967, Situationist analyses became amajor point of reference for radicalizing students. Andin 1968, Situationist slogans could be found scrawledon walls or adorning posters throughout France.

Because each of these groups developed crucial rad-ical ideas – self-management in the case of the SB anda sweeping critique of alienated life in late capitalismin the case of the SI – they were able to have a pow-erful inuence on a major political upheaval, despitetheir small size. Many of their ideas with respect toself-management and their sharply anti-bureaucraticsentiments helped shape the assembly-style democracypracticed by students at occupied universities and thepractices of self-management that inuenced workersoccupying their factories.

Ultimately, neither group was able to contribute tothe building of large, sustained movements and orga-nizations of a New Left, particularly in the aftermathof ‘68 – in signicant measure because each failed todevelop practices of democratic and collective movement-building activity.

Yet, notwithstanding these major failings, their work ofanticipating the future politics of the left indicates one ofthe major tasks that confront small revolutionary socialistgroups: the development of an imaginative socialist visionthat captures some of the tendencies of the future and crys-tallizes them theoretically and practically for the next waveof political radicalization.

Of course, 1968 holds no more magical lessons than does1917 or 1936. Recent struggles in France, for instance, havehad a much more considerable presence of workers and

youth of colour at their forefront than was the case in 1968. Te purpose of looking at 1968 is twofold. First, it representsthe last mass popular upheaval in a capitalistically developedsociety. And, second, it suggests some of the things (but byno means all) that small radical groups might do to preparethe freedom dreams that can inform and inspire new wavesof revolutionary struggle. But what we learn in these regards

will have to beremixed through the living currents of today’sstruggles.

T HE F UTURE IN T ODAY ’S P RESENT

Bolivia and Brazil are probably two of the key places to-day where we can catch glimpses of the next wave of massstruggle. In Bolivia, a cycle of revolt emerged in 2000 thathas seen combined indigenous-worker-peasant uprisingsthat have toppled governments, blocked water privatizationin one city, produced new mass popular organizations, andmobilized against multinationals in the oil and gas indus-tries. A new Marxist-indigenous dialogue has emerged in

which activists are addressing the interrelationships betwstruggles against capitalism and movements for indigenself-determination.

In Brazil, over a somewhat longer period, one of most signicant social movements in the world, the Lanless Workers Movement (or MS according to its Portguese initials), has settled about half a million people on lseized through militant occupations. On their settlemenMS activist struggle to build cooperative social relati

that challenge class and gender hierarchies and nurtureanti-capitalist worldview. Like movements in Bolivia, MS is experimenting with forms of militant and demcratic mass organizing.

A relevant socialism – a socialism for the 21st century has come to be known in Venezuela – will need to learn frthe powerful, liberatory impulses that run through these Blivian and Brazilian struggles. It will need to project a socism that, much more thoroughly than in the past, genuineintegrates anti-racism and feminism into its class politIt will need to champion sexual liberation, a revolutioneveryday life, and a new ecosocialism.

Without such an emancipatory outlook, one that providinspiration for the long haul while also informing strategand tactics of resistance in the here-and-now, socialist potics are not likely to be vibrant and sustainable. Yes, sociorganizing is damned hard, persistent work much of the timBut it must also be uplifting and celebratory. It must inspand build new solidarities. It must, in short, join hard-nosrealism to a lively utopian imagination.

In that direction lies hope, rather than retreat denial.

Mayday, Windsor, Ontario, 1935: Socialist organizations hadreal weight within the working class movement.




A MBIVALENT R OLE IN S TRUGGLE

Tere is little consensus among the gi-ants of classical Marxism on what rolethe union plays in the struggle for socialtransformation. For instance, Karl Marxand Friedrich Engels were optimisticthat unions helped develop workers’ class

awareness. Vladimir Lenin, on the otherhand, was much more pessimistic towardthe potential of unions to foster a revo-lutionary consciousness, and famouslyargued that such a perspective could onlybe brought in “from the outside” of theunion movement (by a political party).Rosa Luxemburg likewise criticized thebest-organized unions of her day forstiing the development of the workers’movement in the context of the “spon-taneous” (self-organized) wave of gen-eral strikes that swept across Russia in1905. Similarly, Antonio Gramsci notedthat unions often acted as a barrier to theemergence and development of factorycouncils, which exceeded the objectivesof unions by organizing workers to oc-cupy and self-manage their workplaces.

Tis ambiguity stems in part fromthe fact that unions occupy a contradic-tory position: on the one hand they actas a barrier to prot-making, but on theother they are an important componentof maintaining existing property rela-tions. In fact, unions tend to defend thecapitalist organization of production atthe same time as they seek to mitigatesome of its worst consequences. In this way, they are simultaneously a part of andagainst capitalism.

As a result, unions have a chequeredpast when it comes to social struggles.On the one hand, they have been on thefront lines of a broad range of struggles,by far exceeding the immediate economicdemands of their members; on the other,union leaderships have often acted di-rectly against some of the most commit-ted and effective activists, organizationsand movements. Tis ambivalent historyof the union movement can be disorient-ing for radical activists.

T HE C ANADIAN S CENE

While the formation of a union in agiven workplace continues to be the big-gest headache of the bosses, the unionmovement has largely been incorporated

Alex Levant is a politically deskilled rank-and-le member of two unions and an editorial

associate of n w Socialist.

Union activism today into how management runs the work-place. In response to a wave of labour

militancy during and immediately af-ter World War II, the bosses reluctantlyshifted their approach from confrontingthe labour movement to co-opting it.

Tis change in strategy came in theform of legislation that forced the bossesand unions to play by certain rules, whichdetermined how to form a union, howto resolve on-the-job disputes, the rulesof collective bargaining, and most otheraspects of labour relations. Strikes werelegal only during contract negotiations

(and some workers continue to be ex-cluded even from this right).While previously unions had to strike to force thebosses to the bargaining table, now theyhad to follow the legal process to forma union and use the law to compel thebosses to negotiate. Furthermore, they nolonger had to convince union members to

A LIt is ot s rprisi that ma worki p opl , i cl di ma radical acti ists, stoda ’s io s as lar l irr l a t, bloat d b r a craci s. Th ast majorit of ra k-a d- l m mb rs ar xp ri ci a pr c d t d disco ctio from th ir

io s. R l at d to th rol of sp ctators i a o oi disp t b tw compaboss s a d top io of cials, or of foot soldi rs mobiliz d a d d mobiliz d b th ir

io l ad rships, r f w io m mb rs xp ri c th ir io s as mor tha as r ic a c that som tim s ad ocat s o th ir b half i xcha for th ir d s.

Radical acti ists ar similarl disco ct d from toda ’s io s. Th t d toxp ri c io s as massi , statio ar or a izatio s that from tim to tim

co trib t f ds or r rh toric to ario s social str l s, b t which s all workto p t th brak s o th s str l s wh th ath r o h mom t m to xc dth ir co trol. As a r s lt of s ch bitt r xp ri c s, f w radical acti ists p t th ir

fforts i to th io mo m t toda , or s th pot tial of that mo m t

to co trib t to social tra sformatio .n rth l ss, io acti ism r mai s a importa t a for social cha toda .This articl off rs som id as o what s ch acti ism mi ht look lik .

Unions tend to defend thecapitalist organization of production at the same time asthey seek to mitigate some ofits worst consequences

pay dues once the law required employersto automatically deduct dues paymentsfrom the paycheques of all workers cov-ered by union contracts.

Te labour movement had won legaland nancial stability, but at an enor-mous long-term cost. As class war be-came transformed into labour relations,ghting the bosses began to require spe-cialized knowledge, which most unionmembers lacked. As a result, a new layerof union officials emerged in the form oflabour lawyers and hired staff, whose job was to ght the bosses on the workers’behalf. Workers became reliant on themto ght for their rights within the legal




framework of labour relations. Te disconnection that most union

members experience from their unions isin large part a result of the form that thelabour movement assumed in the wake ofthe postwar compromise. o ensure com-pliance with this class truce, elected of-cials became legally required to preventtheir members from directly participatingin the struggle, a role that they tended toassume with a disturbing amount of en-thusiasm. In this way, unions became partof the infrastructure of containment.

Alan Sears has argued about the im-portance of the infrastructure of dissent“through which oppressed and exploitedgroups developed their capacities to actin the world …[and] has included every-thing from informal networks in neigh-

bourhoods and workplaces through toformal social and political organizations”(see his article in New Socialist 61 avail-able at www. newsocialist.org). Borrow-ing and inverting his concept, one canalso identify an infrastructure of contain-ment – formal and informal networksand organizations which foster practicesthat weaken our capacities, consciousnessand unity.

o be clear, I am not suggesting thata radical working class is being con-tained here, but that the infrastructureof containment acts as a barrier to thedevelopment of an empowered work-ing class. o the extent that they limit

the development of members’ capacitiesfor collective self-activity, unions servethe long-term interests of the bosses asan important part of the current infra-structure of containment.

A CTIVISM OF R ADICALS IN U NIONS ?

Tis criticism is in no way intendedto encourage radicals to give up on thelabour movement. Despite their cur-rent state, even today’s unions offermany opportunities for activists to do

signicant work on a variety of issues.In fact, the best union activists makethe most of these spaces and push thelabour movement beyond its limitedobjectives and methods.

Unions possess a great power thatusually remains untapped. Because theyare structurally positioned at the pointof production and because they are theonly mass workers’ organizations today,

unions continue to pose the greateobstacle to the bosses. After failingeliminate this threat, the bosses haopted to contain it and to subvert it.

o grasp the importance of union we need to distinguish between thcurrent form and their unrealized ptential. Above all, the labour movemis not simply there to be embraceddenounced, but is a key site of strugfor both workers and bosses. Abstaing from activism in unions plays riinto the hands of the bosses, who uthem to help incorporate unioniz

workers into capitalist society.Radical activists must be active

today’s unions for the following rsons. First, as mass workers’ organtions, unions offer the best opportunfor radicals to connect with workpeople. Tis connection is vital for ativists who see social transformatas a process that must be set in motiand carried through by these very pple themselves, rather than a small sof radicals.

Te role of activists must then bto reform unions into organizatio

Militant USautoworkers formSoldiers of Solidaritynetwork, 2005. P H

O T O : F u T u R e O F T H e u n I O n

Unions possa great pow

that usuallremain

untapped




that help to politically re-skill theirmembers – developing their capacitiesto work together, to think beyond thehorizon of the bosses’ world of possi-bilities, to make them capable of takingon the bosses. Rather than being partof the infrastructure of containment,these unions would become part of theinfrastructure of dissent.

W HAT W OULD T HIS L OOK L IKE ?

ransforming unions into organi-zations that politically re-skill theirmembers is a more difficult task than winning elected union office. Whilethis approach can be fruitful to advancecertain projects or areas of activism, it islargely a dead end if the goal is to makeunion power a reality.

Rather than simply becoming partof the official leadership, activists mustchallenge the relationship betweenleaders and rank-and-le members. Above all, this means building an ac-tivist base within the union, and onthe strength of this base, ghting forstructural reform that facilitates mem-bership involvement by improving de-mocracy and transparency. Challengingexisting leaders for their positions must

be part of this overall effort, but whenthere is no activist base committed tothis project even the best activists tendto become part of the bureaucracy thatthey seek to transform.

Central to this project is challeng-ing all the barriers to the participationof members, which means serious andongoing equity work in terms of howthe union functions, its understandingof its place among other social move-ments, and the scope and nature of its

bargaining demands.Union activism today must be ori-ented on reintegrating rank-and-lemembers into the life of the union. Tis would not only empower the union tonegotiate much stronger collective agree-ments, but would also help to politicallyreskill working people to think, dreamand ght for that which lies beyond thehorizon of possibilities today.

Is culture our weapon? D S

Mainstream politics often seems irrelevant to changing the world, just like an-other V show. Mainstream culture helps keep politics irrelevant. Te media

is saturated with celebrity culture, and when politics is portrayed, like in the U.S.presidential race, it morphs into a celebrity contest, with commentary on candidates’dress habits, past indiscretions, and insult-trading, not real issues. It’s tempting toignore it all. But people watch the news and reality V, and if we want to changethe world we have to start with where we are, not where we want them to be. Weneed to, as the old Leninist saying goes, “be as radical as reality itself.” Can culturebe a tool that helps us reveal what’s really going on? Can we create our own culturalforms, or should we try to use the mainstream?

C ULTURE AND C ONFLICT

Some say culture is a useful tool, but it needs reshaping. German left-wing play-

wright Bertolt Brecht thought popular entertainment pacied people, by posinga conict that gets resolved easily. Audiences learn to empathize with heroes andexpect a tension release at the end – for example, moviesTe Matrix and V for Ven-detta feature revolutionaries triumphing over evil governments. Brecht called this“spiritual dope traffic”: “the greater the grip on the audience’s nerves, the less chancethere was of it learning.” So he tried to create a conict and not resolve it. Te viewer would be upset, agitated and forced to confront that conict in real life.

In real life, there often is no happy ending. Tere are so many unresolved con-icts – strikes, wars, oppressions – to portray. However, if these conicts are alsogoing largely unchallenged in real life, then the viewer has no way to ght to win,and left wing stories can be demobilizing. Rather than ring us up, the examinationof the world as it is can just leave us overwhelmed. Ken Loach’s lms like My Name

Is Joe and Sweet Sixteen portray working class people trying to escape their misery,and failing miserably. Te lesson is that individual solutions to class exploitationalways fail – but how many of us have access to a ghting socialist movement?Loach’s heroes certainly don’t.

Daniel Serge has never been held down by the Man




RED R OMANTIC C OMEDY ?

But is the mainstream alternative keep-ing us complacent? Is there a way to createcharacters audiences like, and even heroesaudiences can relate to, while suggestingthey can still contribute to struggle? Forexample, can there be a romantic comedyabout socialism? Ken Loach’sBread &Roses comes close, portraying the bud-ding romance between a union organizerand worker in the L.A. Justice For Jani-tors campaign. His 2004 A Fond Kiss isanother romance, as Casim, a PakistaniMuslim man and Roisin, an Irish wom-an, try to date in the tense racial environ-ment of modern Glasgow. Casim’s familypressures him into an arranged marriage,and while Roisin has trouble understand-ing the racism that forces his community

inward, she faces discrimination of herown. Loach’s message is anti-romantic:

love can’t conquer all in a racist society. Tese are attempts to humanize struggle– something Brecht rejected bitterly, butthat imitate the narrative forms those ofus saturated by Western media are usedto, and thus have a chance for wider ex-posure.

D UMBING D OWN ?

For many leftists, appeals to a wideraudience seem like dumbing-down. “Sell-ing out” is a constant threat for any musi-cal subculture that courts mass appeal: formany in the punk and hardcore scenes,a lifestyle of do-it-yourself productionand promotion is just as important as themusic itself. British cultural critic CharlieBrooker bemoans “the rise of the idiots”and devoted a 2005 V series, Nathan

Barley, to the consequences of a massaudience for culture: the creation of mo-

ronic hipsters who trivialize issues thetoo complacent to understand. But evBrooker made the show slick – and vfunny – to get his point across.

Te problem with the dumbing-dowthesis is that it ignores how a medsavvy younger generation is able to

and comprehend messages in new waComedians like Ricky Gervais, creaof clueless office manager David Bfrom Te Office , and Sasha Baron Cohecreator of rabid sexist and anti-SemBorat, suggest that offensive, stupid chacters are funny because people alreknow they’re offensive. Audiences arephisticated enough not to take their jokat face value: the fact that Borat’s sexand homophobia make us uncomfoable show that social prohibitions arou

those behaviours are already there. TRight is losing the war on political crectness – hence its insistence that Hol

wood is pro-sex and anti-family, and attempt by Christian companies to crepopular entertainment through lms liMel Gibson’sPassion of the Christ , as was a huge network of music and V prductions.

Te dumbing-down thesis ignores thapeople do have ideas of their own, andspond to media putting across new msages in creative, fashionable ways beccapitalism creates its own contradictio

Te underlying fear of the cultural avangarde – that we’re all sheep – can nebe true, because it takes a high degreesophistication to manage the contradtions of work, reproduce ourselves socan keep working, and steal some real back from the boss. Tat process is painful, and it raises questions socialists answer – if we’re willing to talk the rilanguage.

RADICAL C ULTURE

So does that mean we are seeking cialist art? Or do radicals who wanchange the world celebrate all culture ttouches people and helps them navigthe world? We don’t know how view

will receive culture, and trying to guartee that in advance has an ignoble histof propaganda. As rotsky argues, “relutionary art which inevitably reects




the contradictions of a revolutionary so-cial system, should not be confused with

Socialist art for which no basis has as yetbeen made.” rotsky was ghting a rear-guard action against Stalinist “socialistrealism” – a movement that dictated artmust show an idealized vision of com-munist society, complete with happy pro-letarians shoveling coal and driving trac-tors. rotsky insisted that art must reectclass antagonisms, not pretend they’reinvisible.

However, radicals and progressives havehad a lot of success creating an accessible,political art that, while not preaching amessage, lays bare social conict. Radi-cal blaxploitation lms of the early 1970sused a formula-based genre to portrayblack nationalist struggle. Some African- American groups called blaxploitationracist, because white directors made lms,such asShaft, that played on stereotypes ofpimps and hustlers. But the genre beganin 1971 with Melvin van Peebles’ psyche-delic portrayal of a black activist on therun from the police, in Sweet Sweetback’sBaadasssss Song . Lesser-known examples,like Te Final Comedown and Te SpookWho Sat By the Door , are stories of upris-ings by black revolutionaries.

Tough blaxploitation was notoriousfor its sexism, movies likeWillie Dyna-mite showed prostitutes banding togetherto ght their pimp. Nineteen-eightiessci- icks like Te Running Man andBlade Runner warned about fascist cor-porate rule. Mid-2000s V shows like

Arrested Development poked fun at theracism and corruption of the idle rich.Te Wire , a cop show based in Baltimore,is a critical take on the “war on drugs,” which the producer describes as “a trea-tise on the end of the American empire.”Te Wire ’s producer, David Simon, makes

no apologies for using V with its narra-tive conventions: “we’ve treated televisionas if it’s not a mass medium and we havebeen rewarded in kind.” If we don’t at-tempt interventions, we abandon mediato the banal. Mass culture is not just amonolith: it can be a site of struggle.

As socialists we will never have controlover the means of artistic production, norshould we. Culture is broader than ourpolitics; however, when radical art getsmade, it can be a reection of ongoing

struggles. Artists can be allies of social-ism, because socialism creates the pos-sibility of genuine aesthetic experimen-tation, freed from class exploitation. As rotsky writes, under socialism, “there will be the struggle for one’s opinion, forone’s project, for one’s taste.” Being ableto create art you like is, in fact, revolu-tionary, if you have to create the condi-tions where that’s possible.

Tis side of the revolution, art alone is

not enough for activism. As Brecht ar-gues, “How is [a poet] to show the ex-ceedingly complicated machinery within which the struggle for power nowadaystakes place? If his hero is a politician, howdo politics work? If he is a business man,how does business work? . . . [Poets] are

scarcely likely to learn enough by goinground and keeping their eyes open.” Artcan be a way to express politics; but poli-tics requires learning about history, eco-nomics and other subjects that don’t always t in an artistic form. We still needto struggle and to study.

T HE L AST W ORD

But culture can be more than a tool forothers – it can be our own tool, to sustainand nurture our politics. Te memory of

the working class isn’t just handed downby non-ction books. It’s preserved in ourside’s art, and even in our side’s sense ofhumour: the satire that gives us a sensethat we’re in it together. Te last wordgoes to Jarvis Cocker, ex-frontman of theBritpop band Pulp, who sang these wordsabout the leaders of the G8: “You say thatthe cream will always rise to the top; wellI say, shit oats.” Te struggle continues,and art can point the way.

SUBSCRIBE TODAY CAnADA uS4 iss s $20 $258 iss s $35 (sa $5) $45 (sa $5)12 iss s $50 (sa $10) $65 (sa $10)S pporti Add $20

InSTITuTIOnAL & OveRSeAS InTeRnATIOnAL $40/ arALL PRICeS In CAnADIAn DOLLARS

SenD CHeQueS TO: NEW SOCIALIST Box 167, 253 Coll Str t Toro to, O tario M5T 1R5

IDeAS FOR RADICAL CHAnge

w w w . w s o c i a l i s t . o r

The dumbing-down

thesis ignores that

people do have ideas of

their own and respond

to media putting acrossnew messages in creative,

fashionable ways because

capitalism creates its

own contradictions




Th r ports iss d last ar b th I t r o r m tal Pa l o Climat Cha pro

co cl si l that climat cha is r al, that th pac of lobal warmi is acc l rati , a dthat it is ca s d b h ma acti it . If r ho s as missio s ar ot r d c d q ickl ,climat cha will ha catastrophic impacts o h ma , a imal a d pla t lif r wh r .A I t r atio al Da of Climat Actio was or a iz d for D c mb r 8, midwa thro hth climat talks i Bali, I do sia. D mo stratio s a d oth r actio s w r h ld i som70 co tri s, a d i o r 30 Ca adia citi s i t pro i c s. For mor i formatio sth s w bsit s: • Stop Climat Chaos Coalitio (Ca ada): www.climat chaos.ca • ClimatCrisis Coalitio (u.S.): www.climat crisiscoalitio .or • global Climat Campai (Britaia d worldwid ): www. lobalclimat campai .orI ma co tri s, th participa ts i th s actio s i cl d d s pport rs of th r c tl -form d ecosocialist I t r atio al n twork (eIn).Socialist Voice Managing Editor IanA s is a fo d r a d coordi ati committ m mb r of th eIn. H also dits th

w b jo r alClimate and Capitalism (www.climat a dcapitalism.blo spot.com). Ia wasi t r i w d b th gr k socialist wspap rKokkino (R d).

Let’s begin with a large question – what is ecosocialism?

Ecosocialism has grown out of two paral-lel political trends – the spread of Marx-ist ideas in the green movement and thespread of ecological ideas in the Marxistleft. Te result is a set of social and politi-cal goals, a growing body of ideas, and aglobal movement.

Ecosocialism’s goal is to replace capi-talism with a society in which commonownership of the means of productionhas replaced capitalist ownership, and in which the preservation and restoration ofecosystems will be central to all activity.

As a body of ideas, ecosocialism arguesthat ecological destruction is not an ac-cidental feature of capitalism, it is builtinto the system’s DNA. Te system’s in-satiable need to increase prots – what’sbeen called “the ecological tyranny of the

bottom line” – cannot be reformed away. With that said, it is important to real-ize ecosocialist thought is not monolithic– it embodies many different views abouttheory and practice. For example, thereis an ongoing debate about the view, advanced by some ecosocialist writers, thatsocial movements have replaced the work-

ing class as the engine of social change.Finally, ecosocialism is an anti-capital-

ist movement that varies a great deal fromplace to place. In the imperialist countries,it is a current within existing socialist andgreen-left movements, seeking to winecology activists to socialism and to convince socialists of the vital importance ofecological issues and struggles. We might

say that in the global North ecosocial-ism today focuses on making the Greensmore Red and the Reds more Green.

In the Tird World, by contrast, global warming is already a matter of life anddeath. People there are ghting environ-mental destruction – and the environ-mental destroyers – on a daily basis. Teghts take many forms, including landoccupations, road blockades, and sabo-tage, as well as more traditional actionssuch as petitions, rallies, demonstrations.Such protests occur daily in dozens ofcountries.

What we see there is a growing masspro-ecology movement that incorporatessocialist ideas – that’s especially true inLatin America, where anti-imperialistgovernments headed by Evo Morales inBolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, andRaul Castro in Cuba, are pressing forstrong anti-capitalist, pro-environmentmeasures.

An Interview with Ecosocialist International Network founder IAN A NGUS

The ght against global warming

Adapted from Socialist voic (www.socialistvoice.ca), December 3, 2007.

A recent letter from Evo Morales the United Nations illustrates that poiand another – that in the ght to save thearth, a vanguard role is being playedindigenous peoples. As Morales said:

“[W]e – the indigenous peoples ahumble and honest inhabitants of thplanet – believe that the time has coto put a stop to this, in order to rediscovour roots, with respect for Mother Eart

with the Pachamama as we call it in t Andes. oday, the indigenous peoplesLatin America and the world have becalled upon by history to convert oselves into the vanguard of the strugto defend nature and life.”

And he suggested a global political ganization to combat global warming:

“We need to create a World Enviroment Organization which is binding, a

which can discipline the World raOrganization, which is propelling us

wards barbarism.” Tat’s not just a clever turn of phras

In that one sentence, Morales says ththe environment must be given legal p




ority over capitalist prots and the neo-liberal policies that protect them. Tat’sa profound idea that the left worldwideshould adopt and defend.

What is the Ecosocialist InternationalNetwork?

Te Ecosocialist International Network was formed in October 2007, at a meet-ing in Paris that was attended by ecoso-cialists from 13 countries. Its main goalsare to improve communication and coor-dination among ecosocialists worldwide,and to organize a major ecosocialist con-ference in Brazil in January 2009, in con- junction with the World Social Forum.

Te EIN is a very loose and open or-ganization. Its only organizational struc-ture is a steering committee to plan theBrazil conference. Anyone who supportsthe broad goals of the ecosocialism is welcome to participate – more informa-tion is available on our website (see www.ecosocialistnetwork.org).

How do you respond to socialists whoargue that there is no need for speci -cally “ecosocialist” ideas or activity?

In a certain sense they are correct. Marx-ism embodies a wealth of profoundecological thought, far more than manygreen activists realize.

But while concern for ecology was afundamental part of Marx’s thought, andthe Bolsheviks were certainly aware ofthe issue, the sad fact is that the Marxistleft ignored this issue for many decades.It’s important to correct that – and to doso publicly and explicitly.

Using the word “ecosocialism” is a way of signalling loud and clear that weconsider climate change not just as an-other stick to bash capitalism with, butas a critically important issue, one of theprincipal problems facing humanity inthis century.

But there is more involved. Marxismis not a xed set of eternal truths – it isa living body of thought, a method ofunderstanding society and a tool for so-cial change. Socialists whose views don’tevolve to incorporate new social and sci-entic insights become irrelevant sectar-

ians – we’ve seen that happen to manyindividuals and groups over the years.

Just as Marx and Engels studied andadopted ideas from the scientists of theirday – Liebig on soil fertility, Morgan onearly societies, Darwin on evolution, andmany others – so Marxists today must

learn from today’s scientists, especiallyabout the biggest issues of the day. Eco-socialism aims to do just that.

Can capitalism solve global warming?

Tat depends on what you mean by“solve.” Dealing with global warmingincludes two components – mitigationand adaptation. Mitigation means re-ducing greenhouse gas emissions so thatglobal warming slows down and eventu-ally reverses. Adaptation means makingchanges that will enable people to survivein a world where some climate change isinevitable, and where climate chaos is in-creasingly likely.

In my opinion, capitalism’s insatiableneed for growth, combined with its mas-sive dependence on fossil fuels as thedominant energy source, means that it is very unlikely that we will see an effective

mitigation program from any major capi-talist country.

Scientists say that if the average tem-perature rises more than 2 degrees, dan-gerous climate change becomes veryprobable. Tere is no sign that any of theindustrialized countries will implement

measures sufficient to stop such a tem-perature increase – anything they do willbe too little, too late.

But if we do not succeed in bringingthis system to an end, capitalism willundoubtedly adapt to the new climate.It will do what capitalism always does– it will impose the greatest burdens onthe most vulnerable, on poor people andpoor nations. Climate refugees will mul-tiply and millions will die. Te imperialistpowers will ght against the global South,

and amongst themselves, to control the world’s resources, including not just fuelbut also food and other essentials. Temost barbaric forms of capitalism will in-tensify and spread.

In short – yes, capitalism can “solve”global warming, but a capitalist solution will be catastrophic for the great majorityof the world’s people.

Toronto’s Yonge Street subway line under construction in 1949. Transit inmany cities is inadequate. When will we see a proper investment of fundsfor sustainable public transit?

CI T y OF T OR OnT OA R CHI v e S




C onquest and empire-building didnot enter the world stage with theadvent of capitalism. But capitalism didchange the nature of empire in important ways. Whereas earlier systems mainly involved extraction of wealth from foreignlands and peoples, capitalist empires re-quired that people be completely dispos-sessed of their territory.

In response, new forms of resistance were adopted that became an inspirationfor some early socialists. Where imperi-

alism pitted sections of an increasinglyglobalized working class against eachother, socialists raised the banner of in-ternationalism. And now, as the brutalityof war in the Middle East and the miseryof poverty and disease in so-called “post-colonial” states of Africa and elsewherecontinue to haunt us, it is critical that thesocialist vision for a world without em-pire be renewed.

Te earliest systematic experiment incapitalist empire was the mass expropria-

tion of peasant lands in Ireland by theEnglish in the 1600s. Peasants were re-duced to tenant farmers on tiny patchesof land, forced to grow a monoculturecrop of potatoes for subsistence. A sys-tematically anti-Catholic and racist ide-ology was nurtured by the English rul-ing class to justify their dominance – theIrish were referred to in the English pressas “white negroes.”

Te already hungry Irish population was devastated by the potato famine ofthe late 1840s. Countless thousands died while food continued to be exported.Over half a million people were evictedfrom their paltry lands and replaced by al-most double that number of cattle. Morethan one million people were forced toemigrate to England and its colonies

B D S S V

to survive, often forced into indenturedservitude. Karl Marx described this as “aquiet, business-like extinction.”

Yet this disaster stimulated the development of a radical Irish national-ist movement of peasants and workers.

Situated in England, Marx and Freder-ick Engels were deeply inspired by therevolutionary energy of the Irish. In the words of a young Engels, “Give me twohundred thousand Irishmen, and I couldoverthrow the entire British monarchy.”Support for the right of Ireland to de-termine its own future, and solidaritybetween English and Irish workers, were viewed by these early socialists to be dualconditions for successful revolution.

P RISON H OUSE OF N ATIONS

Anti-colonial movements continuedto inspire and be inspired by socialists asimperialism expanded and evolved. Dur-ing the First World War, Russian Marx-ist V.I. Lenin took considerable pains todevelop an analysis of imperialism in theera of monopoly capital.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917,Lenin and his political party, the Bolshe- viks, argued that the revolution had to ex-

pand beyond the borders of impoverishRussia and gain international supportsurvive. Te Bolsheviks saw national leration struggles as an integral partthe world revolution they fought for. TRussian empire itself was “a prison ho

of nations,” and, at rst, the Bolshevsupported the right to self-determinatiof the various nations within it. But tbureaucratic counter-revolution headby Stalin led to the renewed Russdomination of nations of the former tsaist empire. Te foreign policy of the Unioof Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) geared to the state interests of its rulibureaucracy, not revolutionary intertionalism.

Following World War II, new antcolonial movements emerged, providimportant glimpses into the possibities for socialist transformation. Te riof radical pan-Africanism informed development of the so-called New Laround the world, cutting against somethe social democratic and Stalinist idthat had come to dominate social movments. In Algeria, Frantz Fanon exposthe contradictions of successful radnationalist movements that merely to

Deborah Simmons is an editor of n w Socialist.Salim Vally is a visiting scholar at York University,and a social movement activist in South Africa.

Inhabitants of Galway, Ireland, attack a government potatostore in response to local food shortages.

I L L u S T R A T e DL OnD Onne W S , J une 1 8 4 2

Global justice – against imperialism






M ch of toda ’s world b ars th scars of th h d f ats s ff r db th l ft a d th i t r atio al work rs mo m t i th 1980sa d ’90s – rampa t pri atizatio , th wors i of workico ditio s, th w ak i of th labo r mo m t a d d p iw alth diff r tials. Altho h w ca sa th r has b som thiof a ris of th l ft a d milita t str l i th rst d cad of th

w c t r , owh r has this b so mark d as i Lati Am rica.

he fact that there is today in Vene-zuela a government that projects so-

cialism as the future, and the fact that inBolivia the government comes from the“Movement owards Socialism” (MAS)is of enormous ideological signicance. Whatever the nal outcome of this phaseof struggle, the poor of Latin Americaand the gigantic social movements theyhave generated have given a substantivecontent to the slogan “another world ispossible – socialism.”

urmoil throughout the continent hasgenerated a new wave of strategic debate

about how to defeat the oligarchy andimperialism – a debate that is rooted notin what appears to young people as thedistant past (for example, Chile in theearly 1970s or Central America in the1980s), but in real life alternatives in thehere and now.

However, recent experience shows thatno matter how big and militant the massmovement, there are enormous obstaclesto victory – not just tenacious resistancefrom the local ruling classes, but also a

“crisis of political representation” amongthe popular masses, which is only slowlybeing overcome.

Mainstream commentators in Europeand North America tend to talk about

savings in the nancial crisis.Between December 2001 and J

2002, the popular classes took over streets. Some commentators say four mlion people took part in the movement,an adult population of less than 30 mlion.

Even right-wingers talked of a “prevolutionary situation,” and discuss

was common of “dual power” betweenstate apparatus on the one hand and tpiqueteros, neighbourhood assemband the occupied factories on the othe

Te most popular slogan was Qse vayan todos! (Out with all the politcians!). Yet 17 months later, over per cent of the electorate voted and ttop two candidates were the victorioNestor Kirchner, from the (Peronist) Jutice Party, and former President CarlMenem, the main culprit of the collapof the economy and the impoverishmof millions of Argentines.

Now, only a shadow of the formmovement remains. How can such a d

LATIN AMERICA

No easy road to victory P H

the “Latin American” left as an undiffer-entiated force. Tis is far from being true. Tere are many Latin American lefts, with a crucial divide between the moder-ate “Centre Left,” which largely seeks anaccommodation with neoliberalism, anda militant left which wants to uproot it.

Generally beneath the divisions is onesimple question – is socialism and work-ers’ power possible, or even thinkable, inthe modern world? Centre-left politi-cians give the explicit or de facto answer“no.” And that inevitably leads to an ac-commodation with neoliberalism andto holding back, or even repressing, themass movement.A RGENTINA – V ANISHED M OVEMENT

Between December 19 and 21, 2001, amassive popular rebellion overthrew Ar-gentinean president Fernando de la Rúa. Te uprising led to an unprecedented al-liance between the unemployed, under-employed workers and a substantial sec-tor of the middle class that had lost its

Phil Hearse is an editor of Internationalvi wpoi t and the editor of marxsite.com. Thisis an edited version of a longer article writtenat the end of 2006. Although it does not discussimportant developments since then, these onlycon rm its analysis.

Massivedemonstrations

were part of thestruggle that

rocked OaxacaMexico for

months in 2006.




matic turnaround be explained? Te simple answer is that this huge

mass movement, an incredible display ofself-organization, had no unied visionof what measures to advocate.

Te most brilliantly self-organizedmovement will not continue unless it has

a reason for existing. In Argentina, thepower vacuum was obvious. But the Ar-gentinean workers and urban poor lackeda mass party-type formation to the leftof the Peronists. Such a formation couldnot be improvised in the middle of a rela-tively short political crisis.

BRAZIL : P OLITICAL C OLLAPSE OF THE W ORKERS P ARTY

In Brazil, the election to the presidencyof Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) of the

Workers Party (P ) in October 2002created immense hopes and expectationsfor radical reform, which have largelybeen disappointed.

Lula’s failure can be measured by onesimple fact. State spending in Brazil isaround 14 percent of GDP, as opposedto nearly 50 per cent in France and 42per cent in Britain. Brazil’s hyper-richruling class in one of the most unequalsocieties on earth refuses to pay any seri-ous taxes.

Tis means that no serious health sys-tem, education system, social insuranceinfrastructure or welfare services can becreated. Without the assets of the state,the poor stay poor. Lula has blown it,even if he just wanted to create a seriousreforming government.

Tis result was especially disappointingfor much of the international left, whichhad seen the P as a model of a united,democratic and pluralist movement tothe left of both Stalinism and social de-mocracy.

As the level of class struggle declinedin Brazil in the 1990s, the P and its an-alogue in the trade union movement, theUnited Workers’ Confederation (CU ),moved to the right. Many activists be-came full-time functionaries in the tradeunions, the party itself or in the city andstate local governments controlled by theP . But when the movement is going tothe right, being a full-time functionary

imposes pressures towards ideologicalaccommodation and political excuses forinexcusable facts.

S TRATEGIC P ROBLEMS FOR THE L EFT

Te intensication of the political cri-sis on the continent and the problems for

the oligarchy was dramatized in 2006 bythe election of Evo Morales and the ad- vent of the Movement owards Social-ism (MAS) government in Bolivia.

Also signicant was the long hot sum-mer of struggle in Mexico, which culmi-nated in the giant mobilizations againstthe electoral fraud which installed Fe-lipe Calderón of the ruling PAN (Na-tional Action Party) and robbed Man-uel López Obrador of the left-of-centrePRD (Party of the Democratic Revo-

lution. But the mobilizations failed toachieve their objective and died downleaving Calderón to press ahead with arepressive agenda.

Each of these crises pose basic ques-tions of socialist strategy, which can besummarized as follows:1 What is the nature of these societies

and their relationship with imperial-ism?

2 What is the nature of the rulingclass?

3 What is the character of the revolu-tionary subject? What popular forcesmight be mobilized into an alliance tomake a revolutionary breakthrough?

4 What are the key steps needed tomake an anti-capitalist transition anda break with the capitalist state andimperialism?

Each of the countries of Latin Ameri-ca is oppressed by imperialism. Each has

a super-rich ruling class, which is hand-in-hand with the imperialist bourgeoisie. Tis has created some of the most un-equal societies on earth; in Mexico andBrazil, the rich are rich by internationalstandards and the poor are poor by thesame standards.

Te idea that there can be any kind of“anti-imperialist alliance” with any sectorof the ruling class whatsoever is tremen-dously far-fetched. o achieve real de-mocracy and real national independencerequires a complete break with imperial-ism and the oligarchy.

For example, for Bolivia to achieve realnational independence means really tak-ing control of its own resources, i.e., gas,oil and of course water. Tat means in-roads into the rights of private property– in other words, tasks of the socialistrevolution. Equally, radical democracy ata national level cannot be achieved otherthan by breaking the grip of the oligarchy, who ensure their control of the politicalprocess by corruption and violence. Dem-ocratic questions are directly interlinked with the issue of working-class power.

Te same considerations directly re-

Indigenous activism has been an important part of the mobilization inBolivia for justice and against privitization

L A T I nL A S ne T . OR g




late to the land struggle, which is not justagainst local landlords but increasinglyagainst transnational capitalist corpora-tions. Te ght against imperialism is oneand the same as the struggle against thelocal oligarchy.

REVOLUTIONARY S UBJECT

Te enormous growth of the cities, thedevelopment of agribusiness and semi-industrialization in the major countrieshas signicantly changed the revolution-ary subject. Tis is summed up in thegovernmental slogan of nearly all of theMexican militant left:Un gobierno obrero,campesino, indígena y popular (A workers’,peasants’, indigenous and popular gov-ernment). Tis crystallizes what we canexpect a revolutionary alliance in most of

Latin America to be like. Te urban poor are a vital part of thebase of the Bolivarian movement in Ven-ezuela and of the mass movement whicheventually brought Evo Morales and theMAS to power in Bolivia. Te key de-mands of these people revolve around thebasic questions of the provision of the es-sentials of life: clean water, proper hous-ing, sanitation, education and of coursefreedom from violence and paternalisticmanipulation by the state, i.e., democracy.

A new and positive feature of theLatin American movement has been theemergence of indigenous movements,the most well-known example being theZapatistas in Mexico and sections of themovement in Bolivia.

wo central issues cannot be avoided bythe Latin American left:machismo, and itsopposite, women’s liberation. While theleaders of the social movements in thebarrios are disproportionately women,the violence against and super-exploita-tion of women on the most machista ofcontinents is incredible; from the dailysubjugation of women as the most ex-ploited workers in an often suffocatingpaternalistic family to the ghastly massmurder of women in Guatemala. A morestable integration of women’s liberationinto the strategy of the Latin Americanleft would unleash tremendous new forc-es and energies into the struggle.

T HE Q UESTION OF P OWER

For the left, the decisive issue is howto integrate all these questions – of de-mocracy, land reform, destruction of theoligarchy, an end to economic robberyby the elite and imperialism, the basicsof life for the urban poor and liberationfor indigenous people and women – intoa coherent overarching strategy for thepopular masses to conquer power.

Te “Centre-Left” forces like the Pin Brazil, the Frente Amplio in Uruguayand the PRD of Manuel López Obra-dor in Mexico, obviously do not agree.For them it is about getting more justice within the system, and we have seen whatthis means in Uruguay and Brazil: abjectcapitulation to neoliberalism.

Tis poses rst a question and then aproblem – that of class independence,creating political parties of the popularmasses led politically by the workingclass, independent of bourgeois national-

ist and populist forces.Building a broad class struggle partyon a national basis is a task which Sub-commandante Marcos and the Zapatis-tas have avoided confronting. However,the “Other Campaign” – a bold and auda-cious attempt to move out of their Chi-apas mountain redoubts and unify theMexican social movements – indicates arenewed strategic thinking.

How is the idea of the popular massestaking state power relevant to develop-ments in Venezuela and Bolivia? In Ven-ezuela the bourgeoisie have lost, or par-tially lost, control of the government butare still the economic ruling class.

On the other hand, there has been tre-mendous development of popular self-organization from below in the barriosand in the countryside. Substantial socialprogress has been made through the socialmissions, funded by oil revenues. How-ever the poor remain legion in Venezuela

and the solution to their problems wnot be found outside of a radical redisbution of wealth, which means breakthe power and wealth of the oligarchy

Te narrow defeat of the referendumin Venezuela – which introduced maconsititutional amendments – was

setback. Some supporters of PresidHugo Chávez may have stayed awayavoid voting for the one amendment th

would have increased presidential poers. Now the question becomes: will popular movement continue to press f

ward or will it be held back by partsthe apparatus?

In the context of a political polariztion in which the entire bourgeoisie aa big majority of the middle classes against Chávez, this unstable equilibri

between the bourgeoisie and the massmediated by Chávez, cannot continforever. With threats from the right animperialism, the consolidation of poplar committees into a national netwoof popular power is crucial. Tis wouinvolve arming the popular sectors building a popular militia.

In Bolivia, there were massive conover the now-stalled “nationalization”oil and gas. Te MAS is internally d

vided. Te government has stumbled anmade important concessions to the rig

But the right remains intransigent ahas sought to block the work and undemine the legitimacy of the Constitue

Assembly. Recently, four resource rprovinces, known as the Media Luhave unilaterally sought to declare tonomy. Te MAS has tried to mobilizagainst this threat and, despite the limitions of its agenda, popular sectors hresponded.

Morales and his team will have make their choice between the oligarcand imperialism on the one hand and tself-organized masses on the other.

oday the centre of attention is Veezuela, where the popular forces have been defeated. Venezuela is raising hofor another economic model in La

America. But the question of power hnot been resolved and a race is underwbetween revolution and counter-revotion.

Venezuela is raising hopefor another economic

model in Latin America




S D : R D CB N K A A. K C

R M

“If money, according to Augier, comes into theworld with a congenital blood-stain on onecheek, capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.”

Karl Marx,Capital , Vol. 1

in Te Shock Doctrine clearly establishesNaomi Klein as a left intellectual to betaken seriously, especially given thatit comes at a time when the left is in anear complete state of retreat. Te book’sgreatest strength is that it brings togethera history of neoliberalism for a popularaudience. Most importantly, it accurate-ly reveals how neoliberal economics arepart of a counter-revolutionary strat-egy against working class victories of thepost-war era. Nevertheless, its historicalmyopia and theoretical weaknesses arefrustrating.

MARKET F UNDAMENTALISM

Klein’s central argument is that themarket fundamentalism, which came tobe known as neoliberalism, represents anew phase of capitalist accumulation de-ned by its close association with humandisaster. Tis phase is not an unravellingof coincidences, but a product of plan-ning, often involving the most grotesquecriminal behaviour among an elite that isportrayed by its own corporate media asintelligent and heroic.

Klein follows the parallel formationof research into electroshock “therapy”

a vast crusade in which the Friedman-in-spired ideology of neoliberalism rose toprominence. Neoliberal ideas served asa justication for a “counter-revolution-ary” backlash against post-war Keynesianeconomics and the rise in workers powerassociated with the worldwide anti-colo-nial, civil rights and socialist struggles ofthe 1960s.

Keynesian economics rest, in part, onthe notion that governments can stimu-late an economy in recession by investingin public works and preventing capitalight through trade barriers. It also as-serts that workers need to gain some ben-ets from capitalism in order for them toprovide markets for capitalist consump-tion. More importantly, by ensuring theirinterests are aligned with the system, theyare less likely to swing toward socialismor fascism. (In practice, the beneciariesof Keynesian economic policies tended tobe white males, while women and peopleof colour continued to be excluded.)

on psychiatric patients with a co-

ordinated strategy of disciplining workers and populations aroundthe world toward a new phase ofgrowth based on the destructionof the Keynesian post-war com-promise.

Te outcome has been a form ofcapitalism that traumatizes popu-lations into submission throughnumerous forms of manufacturedcrisis, causing massive displace-ment and impoverishment. Tis

new capitalism allows a wide-ranging extension of the marketinto the terrain of the capitaliststate. In particular, it has seen theprivatization of those parts of thestate that both create and respondto crises. Tus, we see a cycle ofprot supporting a self-referen-tial and increasingly consolidatedgroup of rich and powerful guresthat benet from calamities andstate terror.

T HE M YTH

Te capitalist Shock Doctrine is basedon a myth that people and societies thatare uninterested in conforming to capital-ist demands of self-interest can be healedby a combination of sensory overload,sensory deprivation, isolation and electri-cal shock. Te desired outcome is a stateof confusion in which memory is lost anda new personality can be imposed upon ablank slate.

Not only are these the assumptions be-hind the CIA-funded research of formerMcGill professor Dr. Ewen Cameron,but they are also the assumptions behindthe economic theory of Milton Fried-man and the economics department atthe University of Chicago. Klein reveals

Toby Moorsom is a graduate student in history at Queen’s University in Kingston – a universityestablished by the victors and collaborators in the process of clearing the Scottish Highlands. He is

grateful to Richard Banner and Harold Lavender for signi cant editorial assistance.

Is it really that shocking? BOOK REVIEW




that support a “disaster capitalism coplex.” Tey were therefore increasingable to seal off Palestine and managmilitarily while they continued to destneighbourhoods and build settlemeon their remains.

Te disaster capitalist industry Kledescribes is ready to pounce on masreconstruction contracts wherever thoccur – and interestingly, to remarkainefficient ends. Klein documents msive fraud, with little actual reconstrtion. Instead, disasters become oppornities for social cleansing exercises.

“N EW C ORPORATISM ”

Klein describes this phase of growtha “new corporatism.” Earlier corporatishe suggests, was a practice of govment, business and labour collaboraton a social contract, through which

would offer some concessions to maingrowth. Under new corporatism, busin

interests wholly colonize governmethereby using the state apparatus of pression against workers.

While Klein provides convincing edence of its existence, her analysis is lited in its capacity to explain how nliberal ideology is practiced in everylife, and why workers themselves becoinvolved in transforming their woplaces along neoliberal lines. Instead,

M ARKET D ISTORTIONS ?

Friedman argued that neoliberal poli-cies create distortions in the market, which, if left alone, would “naturally” al-locate resources in an efficient manner. Tus, states need to remove themselves

from the economic sphere and focus onlyon the political. Implicit in this theory isan obsessive, even fascist, desire for mar-ket purity attainable with accurate diag-nosis and prescription.

Klein reveals a maniacal tendency forneoliberal ideologues to draw on medi-cal analogies for describing the ailmentsof society. Tus they can be portrayed asobjective technocrats that are absolved ofany responsibility for the political pro-cesses associated with their prescriptions. Te reality Klein depicts, however, is aneconomic model that not only imposessuffering on a massive scale and is there-fore inherently violent, but also a modelthat requires authoritarian conditions forits implementation.

Te forms of authoritarianism that haveaccompanied neoliberal experiments havechanged over time, largely because Freid-manites have learned from each case ofits application. Klein shows how the fol-lowers of the Chicago School were heav-ily funded by and closely aligned with aproject stemming from within the CIAand the US military, designed to form acounter-revolution against socialist ideol-ogy in the countries of the southern coneof Latin America.

Funded by USAID and the Ford Foun-dation, Latin American students werebrought to study in Chicago and thensent to establish US-funded econom-ics departments in their own countries.However, their ideology met up againstentire societies that were moving increas-

ingly toward socialism.IMPOSITION OF THE M ODEL

Te rst imposition of their modelcame to being in Chile in 1973 throughthe violent overthrow of Salvador Allen-de’s democratically elected socialist gov-ernment, which was soon followed by amilitary junta in Argentina. Te politicalrepression that came with these dicta-

torships, however, was not aimed just atMarxists, but rather at all those who heldany form of communal ideas. Tat is, atentire societies.

Tis provided the model that was thenfollowed in countries all over the worldand is currently behind the invasion inIraq. Klein’s experiences in Iraq reveala situation remarkably similar to Chile, with political gures and community or-ganizers interested in democracy beingtortured, murdered and “disappeared.”

At one point, Klein asserts, commercebeneted from apparent peace betweennations (an argument made by AdamSmith while European colonial powers were pillaging Asia and the Americas).She notes that following the 9/11 attacks,the US stock market fell dramatically.Later attacks, however, were followed bygrowth. Israel is a particular example of astate that has beneted from this growthdespite the lack of peace.

Klein notes that before the Oslo ac-cords, Israeli businesses had wantedpeace in order to maintain the function-ing of their economy. However, he inuxof a million refugees from the former So- viet Union (as a result of Chicago Schooleconomic policies there) reduced Israelireliance on cheap Palestinian labour atthe same time as businesses were invest-ing in the high-tech and security sectors

Chilean Leftist President Salvador Allende just before the 1973 coup that

launched a right-wing offensive in Latin America.




Shock Doctrine appears to be almost aconspiracy among elite men.

Te concept of the Shock Doctrine alsohas historical limitations. What Klein de-scribes is not something especially new tocapitalism; rather, it is primarily the tech-nologies and scope that have changed. Itis really a continuation of the processesof what Marx described as primitive (orprimary) accumulation. Te word “primi-tive” was intended to describe the neces-sary pre-condition for capitalism to exist:the seizure of land and property held incommon. It is only when people are dis-possessed of land and all other means ofproducing for themselves that the sellingof wage labour comes into being.

F IRST C APITALIST W AR

Arguably, the rst capitalist war oc-curred when the English army clearedthe Scottish highlands of feudal rule. In1746, a modern army with breech-loadries and cannons met up with Scottishclansmen armed with swords and bowsand arrows. Following England’s decisiveand rapid victory, the troops marchedthrough the highlands raping and pillag-ing, sending thousands into forced migra-tions and imposing strict orders on those who remained. In particular, symbols of

Scottish nationalism and clan pride, suchas the tartan, were banned. As Karl Marxdescribes:

“From 1814 to 1820, these 15,000 in-habitants, about 3,000 families, were sys-tematically hunted and rooted out. All

their villages were destroyed and burnt,all their elds turned into pasturage.British soldiers enforced this eviction,and came to blows with the inhabitants.One old woman was burnt to death inthe ames of the hut, which she refusedto leave. Tus this ne lady appropriat-

ed 794,000 acres of land that had fromtime immemorial belonged to the clan.She assigned to the expelled inhabitantsabout 6,000 acres on the sea-shore — 2acres per family. Te 6,000 acres had untilthis time lain waste, and brought in noincome to their owners.”

Te usurpation of feudal property bythe rising bourgeoisie went through whatMarx describes as a “transformation intomodern private property under circum-stances of reckless terrorism . . . Tus

were the agricultural people rst forciblyexpropriated from the soil, driven fromtheir homes, turned into vagabonds, andthen whipped, branded, tortured by lawsgrotesquely terrible, into the disciplinenecessary for the wage system.”

Tis expropriation, he suggests, takesplace “in different countries, assumes dif-ferent aspects, and runs through its vari-ous phases in different orders of succes-sion, and at different periods.” Tus wesee, for example, the Opium Wars as ameans of conquering China. While thereare differences the forms taken by primi-tive accumulation, Marx notes that theyalways involve brute force and employthe power of the state “to hasten, hot-house fashion, the process of transforma-tion.” (Rosa Luxemburg marvellously ex-panded upon this history in Accumulationof Capital .)

Tis cnforced transformation inducesshock, striking deeply at people’s senseof identity. Instead of working along clanand household groupings in close prox-imity to one’s settlement, with intimateknowledge of the environment, peopleare forced into cities at a rate faster thaninfrastructure and social support mecha-nisms can keep up with. Tey make con-tracts on a daily basis as individuals for wages and in doing so lose any form ofcollective power over processes of pro-duction. Tis new mode of survival strikesat all aspects of people’s cultural life in a

manner similar to the attacks on Chileansin the 1970s or Muslims currently held indetention by the US.

K LEIN ’S K EYNESIANISM

Understanding primitive accumulationallows us to avoid Klein’s short-sightedKeynesianism. According to Klein, di-saster capitalism is a perverted form ofcapitalism rather than something inher-ently tied to market-based societies. Tus,Klein thinks capitalism could otherwisebe much kinder. So she suggests “it isequally possible to require corporationsto pay decent wages, to respect the rightsof workers to form unions, and for gov-ernment to tax and redistribute wealth sothat the sharp inequalities that mark thecorporatist state are reduced.”

Yet the Keynesian state was clearly notcapable of maintaining such an order – oreven creating it for that matter, as it was always something that existed amidst mas-sive racial and gender inequalities. Capi-tal has an insatiable need to grow and, inthat process, it must continually destroyto build anew. What Klein describes asthe “disaster capitalism complex” revealsthe degree to which capitalism is willingto invade and impose its logic.

Historically speaking, it is more accu-rate to suggest, as Ellen Wood does, thatKeynesianism was the anomaly and that what we are seeing now is a resurgenceof capitalism as it has always been. Tishorrendous reality is exactly why Engels,and later Rosa Luxemburg, suggested thechoice would ultimately come down toone of socialism or barbarism.

Klein argues thatneoliberalism

represents a newphase of capitalistaccumulationdened by its closeassociation withhuman disaster ...

... what Kleindescribes is notnew to capitalism;it is primarily thetechnologies andscope that havechanged.




Th xt iss of n w Socialist ma azi will foc s ol sso s to b l ar d from th lobal r olt of 1968. Itdif c lt i 2008 to ima i what lobal r olt looks likthat str l is ow at a fairl low bb.

earl i 1968, th T t off si b th natio al Lib rata d north vi t am s show d that u.S imp rialism co lb at o th ro d. Th Africa -Am rica mo mo a w milita c aft r th assassi atio of Marti L

Ki i April. St d ts a d work rs ro d Fr ch sohalt i Ma , with a massi ral strik . Th So i t Czechoslovakia in August met resistance in the streets andimporta t q stio s abo t what socialism sho ld r all

It was a ar of mass mobilizatio s that l ad to ps ri st d t acti ism, work r milita c , wom ’s lib rati di o s mobilizatio , a lib ratio , a ti-racist a dlib ratio str l s. It isnot only the inspirationfrom 1968 w d toda ,b t also th l sso s abo t

forms of left activism.1968 was a k mom tin the developmentof a n w L ft, whichsought to reimagine leftactivism. There is muchto b l ar d from th sattempts to revitalizeth l ft, as w att mpt tob ild a w l ft toda .

Above: 1968France: In themidst of theupheavals,French Presidentde Gaulle, his

wife and aidesclimb into threehelicopters andvanish. Panic hasthe country’spropertiedclasses on theedge of madness.On the streetsthe mood is thegreatest jubilationimaginable.

R e C O L L e C T I O n B O O K S . C O M

1968THE NEW LEFT... LAST TIME

... NEXT TIME

Below: Paris May-June 68: Amsterdam exhibition, 1969.



TIME TO ORGANIZEBranches and members of the New SocialistGroup are active in a number of cities. Callfor information about our activities.

VANCOUVER Box 4955, va co r, v6B 4A6 a co r@ wsocialist.or

EDMONTON 780-451-3103 or dmo to @ wsocialist.or

REGINA 306-596-9586

r i a@ wsocialist.or WINNIPEG 204-775-0265 wi ip @ wsocialist.or

TORONTO 416-955-1581 toro to@ wsocialist.or

HALIFAX halifax@ wsocialist.or

For all s @ wsocialist.or other areas 416-955-1581 Box 167, 253 Coll St. Toro to, O tario M5T 1R5 www. wsocialist.or

Th nSg works with th Q éb c or a izatiogAuCHe SOCIALISTe

MOnTRÉAL [email protected]ÉBeC CITy q b c@la a ch .comand theOuTAOuAIS [email protected]

gAuCHe SOCIALISTe

The NEW SOCIALIST GROUP is anorganization of activists working to renew socialismfrom below as part of today’s struggles. Our socialismis revolutionary and democratic, committed to working-

class self-emancipation, internationalism and oppositionto all forms of oppression. We reject bureaucratic andauthoritarian notions of socialism and look insteadto the radical tradition of socialism from below, whichbelieves that liberation can only be achieved through the

SUBSCRIBE TODAY CAnADA uS4 iss s $20 $258 iss s $35 (sa $5) $45 (sa $5)12 iss s $50 (sa $10) $65 (sa $10)S pporti Add $20

InSTITuTIOnAL & OveRSeAS InTeRnATIOnAL $40/ ar

ALL PRICeS In CAnADIAn DOLLARSSenD CHeQueS TO: NEW SOCIALIST Box 167, 253 Coll Str t Toro to, O tario M5T 1R5

IDeAS FOR RADICAL CHAnge

w w w . w s o c i a l i s t . o r

Activists protest policies of the World Bank in Washington,DC. See Global justice – against imperialism, pp. 38-39

Documents

Socialism Issues