thanks Peter, comes very close to what I have observed in Ecuador,
Michel On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM, peter waterman <[email protected] > wrote: > > Further to the exchange with Daniel and Michel concerning the state and > the movements, I contribute this piece by the Uruguayan, Zibechi. > Interesting for me are its reference to Latin American cases. I do not > know, of course whether the situations he talks of have changed > significantly since then, nor if he has (tho recalling a presentation on > the Brazilian state I heard in Lima not so long ago, I think not. > > There is another such Latin American piece I have to find and forward. > More theoretical than this piece, but likewise informed by intense local > experience. > > Best, > > Peter > > [image: Share] > <http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fpostcapitalistproject.org%2Fnode%2F37&title=Governments%20and%20Movements%3A%20Autonomy%20or%20New%20Forms%20of%20Domination%3F*%20%7C%20Envisioning%20a%20Post-Capitalist%20Order&description=> > Governments and Movements: Autonomy or New Forms of Domination?* > Raúl Zibechi > > The end of 2008 marked the ten-year anniversary of Hugo Chávez's first > electoral victory (December 6, 1998), which initiated a new period marked > by the emergence of progressive and left governments in South America. His > clinching of the presidency was the result of a long process of struggles > from below, beginning in February 1989 with the *Caracazo*—the first > great popular insurrection against neoliberalism—which drove into crisis > the party-system that for decades had sustained elite domination. > > In the years that followed, seven other presidents embodying > the ongoing political-institutional changes came to power, accounting for a > total of eight out of ten governments in the region: Luiz Inácio Lula da > Silva in Brazil, Néstor and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina, Michelle > Bachelet in Chile, Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay, Evo Morales in Bolivia, > Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Fernando Lugo in Paraguay. These > administrations were made possible—to a greater or lesser degree—by the > resistance of social movements to the neoliberal model. > > In some cases, admittedly, this change at the top level arose from years > of steady electoral growth (notably, in Brazil and Uruguay), while in other > countries it was the fruit of social movements capable of overthrowing > neoliberal parties and governments (Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and to an > extent Argentina). A decade after the start of this process, it is time for > a brief evaluation of what has happened: > > 1. Beyond the differences between these processes, they share > something fundamental in common: the return of the state to a central role > as the driver of change. > > 2. Movements that in the 1990s and early 2000s were the central > protagonists of resistance to the neoliberal model have been marginalized. > > 3. The dominant contradiction in this period is between the > governments and right-wing sectors, a change that has sucked movements into > a statist whirlwind from which most have been unable to escape. > > 4. There are some tendencies—still dispersed—that seek to rebuild the > movements on new foundations, based on new issues and new forms of > political action. > > The twilight of the "progressive" decade as a source of social, political, > and economic change makes it necessary for social movements to balance > their accounts and take stock of the gains and losses this decade has > brought to popular forces. > > *The risks of subordination* > > An initial stage was marked by government subordination of the > movements, or rather by the movements’ demobilization and division, and the > fragmentation of their initiatives. Only small nuclei remained in open > confrontation with the governments, while most slid toward government > collaboration in exchange for direct economic subsidies (known as *planes > sociales*) and other material benefits. Many other movement collectives > simply dissolved. > > By contrast, in Chile, Peru, and Colombia, the movements are experiencing > an era of vibrant activity. In all three countries, indigenous groups are > taking the lead. In Chile, the Mapuche are recovering from the ravages of > the Pinochet-era anti-terrorism law, which was reactivated by "socialist" > President Ricardo Lagos (2000-2006). The Mapuche, along with high school > students and workers from various sectors, particularly mining and > forestry, have generated a major reactivation of social struggles. > > Indigenous communities affected by mining in Peru are vigorously resisting > through the grassroots Quechua organization Conacami, paying a high price > in lives and arrests for their struggles. The group is leading the fight > against genocidal mining projects that leave behind contaminated water > sources and un-breathable air just to line the pockets of the > multinationals. CONACAMI fiercely opposes the U.S.-Peru Free Trade > Agreement (FTA) and President Alan García's neoliberal policies. > > In Colombia, the long struggle of the indigenous Nasa represented by the > ACIN and CRIC has been doubly fruitful.[1] > <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftn1> The broad social > mobilization known as the "Minga" (literally, collective work), which > brought together dozens of indigenous groups in October 2008 in Cauca, > managed to break through a military siege and the militarization of society > that had immobilized indigenous communities. Cane cutters—most of them > Afro-Colombians—service workers, neighborhood organizations, and human > rights activists all joined the indigenous-led Minga. > > The example set by these movements, which are beset by and born out of > adversity, should be a point of inspiration for the rest of the continent's > movements. The long hunger strike by Mapuche advocate Patricia Troncoso > between November 2007 and January 2008 and Colombia's indigenous Minga > share the potent mission of breaking through the isolation and "soft" > genocide that seek to wipe indigenous groups off the map in an attempt to > silence their existence as a people. > > In other countries, the panorama for the movements is > extremely complex. Perhaps the most emblematic case is that of Argentina. > The vast majority of the *piquetero* movement of unemployed workers has > been coopted by the state through economic subsidies to families (the *planes > sociales*) and the awarding of government posts to their leaders. The > human rights movement—particularly, the Association of the Mothers of the > Plaza de Mayo, which had played a prominent role in resisting neoliberalism > during the 1990s—has joined officialdom, becoming an unequivocal defender > of government policies. Meanwhile many neighborhood assemblies have simply > disappeared. > > Nonetheless, not everything has been a step backward. Over the last five > years, innumerable collectives have sprung up, many of them focusing on > environmental issues, such as open-pit mining, forestry, and soy > mono-cropping. From this process, some 100 local assemblies have emerged > and are organized into the Union of Citizen Assemblies (UAC), which has > become one of the most active opponents of multinational mining. > > Also in Argentina, campesinos and small farmers formed the National > Campesino Front, made up of some 200 rural organizations representing > family and community agriculture against the impetuous advance of soy > agribusiness. The organization represents long-standing movements (such as > MOCASE from Santiago del Estero) as well as new organizations of small > producers, including a handful of collectives from urban peripheries. > > In Brazil, the movements have been incapable of advancing > beyond their long-standing defensive footing—a position aggravated by the > Lula government. In Uruguay, despite organized labor's growing > strength—largely attributable to state protection of labor leaders' > activities—the movements are far from being an anti-systemic actor, and > organizational levels among the urban poor remain local and fragmented. The > *planes > sociales* are largely responsible for this weakening of the movements. > > In Bolivia, the situation is quite different. The movements > have not been defeated and maintain their significant capacity for > mobilization and pressure over the government and right-wing sectors. The > September 2008 crisis, for example, was resolved in favor of popular > sectors thanks to the movement's intense mobilization, which included the > cordoning off of Santa Cruz and the resistance of Plan 3000—the poor and > indigenous peripheral suburb of the oligarchic mestizo city.[2] > <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftn2> > > As Raquel Gutiérrez noted about the current conjuncture, > Bolivian movements have "recovered a margin of political autonomy in > relation to government decisions," particularly when they see the > government as incapable of stopping the oligarchy. "But they have no > inclination to be subordinated when it comes to the fulfillment of their > demands."[3] <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftn3> > > The pressure exerted by the movements, however, comes up > against statist logic, which remains firmly enmeshed in bloated state > bureaucracies (military, judicial, legislative, ministerial, and > municipal). Those bureaucracies are reticent to change. Bureaucracies are > not only conservative by nature, they are also managed by newly empowered > officials—both elected (deputies, senators, council members, mayors) and > non-elected (ministers and hundreds of advisers)—whose main ambition is to > maintain their positions. > > *The new forms of domination* > > It is not possible for movements to overcome state dependency > and subordination without understanding that the new "left" and > "progressive" governments are exercising new forms of domination. The *planes > sociales* aimed at "integrating" the poor play a central role in these > novel modes of social control. > > I recently had the following conversation with a top-level > official of Uruguay's Ministry of Social Development: > > The official said, "For us, social policies are emancipatory > policies, not a way of disciplining the poor." > > "Is this your personal opinion or is it the ministry's as well?" I > wondered. > > The official replied, "It's not just mine, it's also that of the national > government and of the Ministry of Social Development. The national > government did not come here to placate the poor; it came to generate > opportunities for integration and emancipation." > > Such affirmations, no doubt honest in their intent, implicitly > undermine the role of social movements by adopting their discourses and > even their practices. This raises three central questions: > > 1. *The end of the old right*: The new governments born from the crisis > of the first stage of neoliberalism—the period of privatization and > deregulation—consolidated their rule by destroying right-wing elites' > traditional bases of domination. These elites had built extensive > clientelistic networks with local political bosses (*caudillos*), who > used their role as mediators with state institutions and the electoral > system to subjugate the poorest sectors. > > The movements arose to fight against these elites. The *piquetero* case > is symptomatic: the piqueteros’ struggle for direct control of the *planes > sociales* sought to snatch from caudillos their ability to control > patron-client networks. In confronting the right directly, this wave of > mobilizations strengthened the piquetero movement and modified Argentina's > regional political map. > > With mixed success, the new governments have sought to displace these > clientelistic networks, putting government-directed state bureaucracies in > their place. This is arguably the main "progressive" action of the new > governments. In the process of dismantling the old elite networks, the > governments have employed the same language and codes used by the movements > of organized popular sectors. > > 2. *New forms of control*: The crisis of discipline as a way of molding > bodies in closed spaces was one of the most prominent characteristics of > the "Revolution of '68." The overwhelming of patriarchal hierarchies and > the defiance of authority in the workshop, the school, the hospital and the > barracks forced capital and the state to create new forms of open-air > social control. They now had to find new ways to deal with the population > and to maintain security. > > The state-backed *planes sociales*, directed by a coterie of NGO > officials, are how these new forms of domination are being introduced into > spaces and territories that are impervious to discipline. In these sites, > the state becomes capillary, working from within, stretching its reach into > ramshackle neighborhoods that had been bastions of revolt. It works with > the very sectors that had been organized as movements, but its aim is to > disorganize them. > > The state’s presence no longer manifests itself in the grotesque form of > the police baton—though, for sure, it's never absent—but rather in the > subtler form of "social development for citizen integration." For this, the > state counts on all the knowledge accumulated by NGOs over decades of local > "cooperation," during which they adopted the "participatory" practices of > popular education. > > Young NGO officials constitute a new army of functionaries who no longer > wait for children at schools or tend to patients at hospitals, but who > instead go directly to the territories of poverty and rebelliousness. And > they have something that makes this job much easier: They have insider > knowledge of these popular sectors, because many of these officials at one > time participated in resistance against the neoliberal model; they had been > militants or, at least, deeply tied to social activism. > > Echoing Brazilian sociologist Francisco de Oliveira, it could be said that > the *planes sociales* are instruments of biopolitical control in which > the state classifies people according to their material needs and "restores > a type of clientelism" (let's call it state-scientific) in which politics > become irrelevant.[4] <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftn4> > > True, the *planes sociales* help alleviate poverty, but they do not > change the distribution of income, and they altogether avoid the growing > concentration of wealth, while leaving the fundamental aspects of the model > intact. And by affecting the organizational capacity of the movements and > blocking their ability to grow, the *planes sociales* serve the > neoliberal drive to turn all of life into a commodity. In this regard, it > is alarming that left intellectuals are nearly unanimous in viewing the > *planes > sociales* as an achievement of progressive politics. > > 3. *An offensive against autonomy*: States now adopt the language of the > movements, even claiming support for the "critical autonomy" of those > receiving the *planes sociales*. States have devised mechanisms of > coordination so that the movements themselves participate in the design of > the *planes sociales* and are involved in the implementation of local > policies (never general policies, though, or those that might question the > model). > > The movements are persuaded to undertake a "participatory diagnosis" of > the neighborhood or town; in fact they are even put in charge of carrying > out the local charity work. This all falls into the policy of "capacity > building" designed by the World Bank, which involves choosing which > ministry each organization is suited to work with. > > All of this is aimed at "state building" within the everyday practices of > popular sectors, and it is done precisely in areas where people had learned > "movement building." The *planes sociales* are directed straight at the > heart of territories that were incubators of rebellion. These programs seek > to neutralize or modify networks and forms of solidarity, reciprocity, and > mutual assistance that were created by the poor (*los de abajo*) in order > to survive neoliberalism. Once the social ties and knowledge that assured > their autonomy have disappeared, these sectors are easier to control. > > None of this should be attributed to a supposed malevolence on the part of > the progressive governments. Whenever the poor have overturned existing > forms of domination, new and more perfected ones have necessarily taken > their place. Only by neutralizing these *planes sociales* and overcoming > their offensive against the autonomy of the poor will the movements be able > to get back on their feet and resume their march toward emancipation. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > [1] <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftnref1> [*Ed. Note*: For > details, see Mario Murillo’s article in *S&D, no. 51* (November 2009).] > [2] <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftnref2> [*Ed. Note*: > For Plan 3000 resistance to the right wing coup, see Marxa Chávez in *S&D > no. 51*.] > [3] <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftnref3> Raquel > Rodriguez, “Winds of Civil War in Bolivia: Understanding a Four-party > Conflict,” Center for International Policy-Americas Program, October 29, > 2008 (http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5632). > > [4] <http://postcapitalistproject.org/node/37#_ftnref4> See Francisco de > Oliveira, “The Duckbilled Platypus,” *New Left Review* 24, > November/December 2003. > > > -- > > 1. *EBook, November 2012: Recovering Internationalism > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/recovering_internationalism/>. [A > compilation of papers from the new millenium. Now free in two download > formats] <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/>* > 2. > *EBook (co-editor), February 2013: World Social Forum: Critical > Explorations http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/ > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/world_social_forum/> * > 3. *Interface Journal Special (co-editor), November 2012: For the > Global Emancipation of Labour <http://www.interfacejournal.net/current/>* > 4. *Blog: http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman. > <http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman.> * > 5. *Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor) Social Movement > Internationalisms. See Call for Papers <http://www.interfacejournal.net/>, > (Deadline: May 1, 2014). * > 6. > *Needed: a Global Labour Charter Movement (2005-Now!) > > <http://interfacejournal.nuim.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Interface-1-2-pp255-262-Waterman.pdf>* > 7. *Under, Against, Beyond: Labour and Social Movements Confront a > Globalised, Informatised Capitalism > <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>(2011) Almost 1,000 > pages of Working Papers, free, from the 1980's-90's.* > 8. *Google Scholar Citation Index:* > *http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ > <http://scholar.google.com.pe/citations?user=e0e6Qa4AAAAJ> * > > > - > > > _______________________________________________ > NetworkedLabour mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour > > -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://en.wiki.floksociety.org/w/Research_Plan P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
