Peoples' Global Action PGA — Back to Manifesto discussion page / To PGA home page
This criticism is part of a longer contribution by "De Fabel van de illegaal" on PGA, the crisis of the Left, and the PGA manifesto, Peoples' Global Action: An Inspiring Network of Resistance (August 1998, English translation November 1998).
by: "De Fabel van de illegaal"
The writers of the manifesto have made a successful attempt to analyse racism, sexism, homophobia and nationalism in connection with capitalism. But also ecological destruction, culture and education are set in a broader view. It is remarkable that ecological destruction is one of the recurring subjects in the manifesto. This is important progress compared to the more traditional anti-capitalist analyses. Likewise, the specific consequences of the 'Free Trade' for women is mentioned, in a separate paragraph. We tentatively agree with the contents of that paragraph, but unfortunately there is no real anti-patriarchal analysis. This would not limit itself to a single paragraph, but should be the basis of the complete view on globalisation.
We believe that patriarchy is a form of society which is based on the power of men over women. This power and violence relation coincides with an ideology in which the so-called 'male/spiritual' is placed above the 'female/natural'. Therefore, anything and anyone connected to the 'female/natural' sphere ends up on the bottom end of the social scale and will be subject to exploitation, repression and destruction: women, non-white people, the poor, children, those with physical and or mental disabilities, animals and nature itself. These groups will easily be transformed to natural 'objects', on which all kinds of interventions will be justified. All patriarchal societies are drenched in this kind of contrast thinking, be it in historically different forms.
Although patriarchy primarily refers to the relationships between men and women, it is not limited to that. One can analyse all areas of society from an anti-patriarchal point of view. A combined anti-capitalist and anti-patriarchal analysis offers a wider range of concepts and frameworks to understand the processes of power involved with the 'Free Trade', than a pure anti-capitalist vision. More so because not all political and economical decisions are based on pure capitalist considerations. Even patriarchal power processes and simple machismo could play a part. In contrast with the anti-capitalist analysis, the general anti-patriarchal analysis is much less elaborated upon. A true combined analysis is rare. We think that the development of such an analysis is an absolute necessity in order to create a political perspective and to give the Left new inspiration. Such a new point of view will thus lead to new strategies, action forms and organisational structures.
As an example we wish to elaborate on two very distinct subjects that remain undiscussed in the mainly anti-capitalist analysis such as that of the PGA: population politics and animal liberation. We do not aim to give an elaborate analysis at this point, but we wish to show where an anti-patriarchal extension of the PGA analysis could lead.
First, we would like to mention a few issues on population politics. A more combined anti-patriarchal and anti-capitalist vision could visualise for us what keeps capitalism afloat: subsistence economics. This takes place outside the reach of capital, in the reproduction area and on a local level. This informal economic system constitutes an unpaid safety net for those workers who do not earn enough to survive. They are dependent on what their own small fields produce for them. The food preparation and the care for children and elders are part of this 'shadow' or informal economy. The PGA text rightly mentions that this is in particular the work of women. Without all this mostly female 'shadow' work, underpaid and unemployed workers would not be able to survive and would therefore not be exploitable. Thus, without this subsistence economy capitalism cannot exist. In the official economic statistics this does not play a significant role, and the Leftist economists often tend not to deviate from this in their theory development.
Yet, the state intervenes substantially in this subsistence sphere and in the lives of the women concerned. This happens, among other things, through the population programs which always coincide with 'Structural Adjustment Programs' (SAPs), which are conducted in the impoverished countries under supervision of the IMF and the World Bank. In these population programs a majority of those who survive in the subsistence economy are declared to be 'over-population'. They are not deemed necessary for the capitalist economy. The makers of the policy will then try to reduce the 'over-population' by, for instance, the forced sterilisation of women. The fact that within these population programs the primary targets are women's bodies, cannot be understood from a pure anti-capitalist analysis. Sterilisation operations take a lot less time and are much cheaper when performed on men. However, whenever a 'natural' thing such as reproduction is the issue, male policy makers can only think of women. Moreover, these men were raised to believe women are only objects anyway. Although more than one hundred million women in the impoverished countries have been sterilised the last 20 years, many of them either forced or under false claims, the issue of population policy is not mentioned in the manifesto.
One can also use an anti-patriarchal analysis to look at a completely other area: the treatment of animals. PGA member organisations incidentally claim that animals are 'not a commodity, but our livelihoods' and 'natural resources'. We on the other hand think that animals are not things, but living creatures that can suffer and which have their own self worth. The animal liberation movement has given thorough impulses towards a combined anti-capitalist/anti-patriarchal analysis of the relation between man/woman and animal. Many members of the 'Fabel' support animal liberation and are vegan. Within the Radical Left movements of a number of enriched countries the view on man/woman and animal relations has changed significantly. In many countries, however, today animal liberators and vegans are still considered crazy. We don't think it is a good idea to try to convert the rest of the world to veganism. In many impoverished countries many people are completely dependent on the sales and consumption of animal products. Animal liberation is unimaginable in that context. But most likely the factory farming in the enriched countries is just as unimaginable. Unimaginably cruel that is. We believe a disapproval of factory farming in the international PGA manifesto would be appropriate, even if just to exemplify the destructiveness and inhumane behaviour an almost unlimited combination of patriarchy and capitalism is capable of. Within the Netherlands we would like to extend this and plead for complete animal liberation.
According to neo-liberal ideology, the 'Free Market' and economic globalisation are inevitable. The current developments are treated like natural laws, and are even said to be something democratic: everyone could be subject to it equally. In reality these 'laws' or 'rules' of the capitalist game are valid only for the small players and for workers and consumers. Big players such as the multinationals are able to manipulate and even exceed these 'laws' by coups and international regulating institutions. Secret cartel agreements are made or government investments in new technologies are arranged. Also, unwanted developments in the market will be changed by military violence. Sometimes, markets in impoverished countries will be literally conquered after which the enriched countries divide their 'market shares' and 'spheres of influence'. Likewise, successful industrial branches in the impoverished countries will be destroyed by military force if these are becoming too influential on the market and are starting to pose a threat to Western dominance. For example, two centuries ago Great Britain completely destroyed the Indian textile industry with military violence when this industry threatened to push the British out of the market. Besides this, many action and campaigns from unions or consumer organisations are met with violence. And then there is always the 'normal' everyday violence and the threat thereof, with which everyone who does not adhere to the rules of the capitalist society is confronted.
The writers of the PGA manifesto do not pay much attention to violence 'beyond capitalist laws'. Their analysis seems to be limited to economical power relations. This is a remarkable choice because it is known that many of the member organisations are directly affected by repression on a level unthinkable for us. Murder by death quads are no exceptions. In many impoverished countries there is not even, as we have here, an illusion of a civil capitalist society, in which social problems can be solved in an open and democratic debate. Do the PGA member organisations hope to escape further escalation of violence by playing the ostrich?
We suspect that the PGA deliberately chooses the somewhat naive and reserved analysis in order to credibly push forward their concept of direct action. By putting open, massive action and civil disobedience at stake, one bases oneself on a minimal amount of trust in the opponent who does not immediately resort to serious or lethal violence. With such actions one counts on 'fair play' and some morals in the opponent, or, wiser, on the opponents' considerations that a direct, hard intervention would be tactically unwise. With the concept of direct action, the PGA members seem to try to avoid the militaristic logic in which several left-wing militant movements have fallen into: the mutual strikes in which the political struggle increasingly seems to fall to the background, especially in the experience of the remainder of the population. It is easier for 'ordinary' people to participate in direct action, theoretically even without having to fear for their life. Direct action could thus offer the possibility for building a larger, legal Radical Left movement and action culture.
It is interesting that the PGA organisations nevertheless write that they do not dissociate from 'other forms of action under certain circumstances'. We are not surprised. The Mexican Zapatistas, one of the PGA member organisations, for instance aim at the political debate and action within the realm of civil society on the one hand, and on the other hand at military self-organisation deriving from a principal and justified distrust of the authorities. At the same time, they know that a military confrontation can never be won and therefore they have placed their hopes on the unsteady balance between these two strategies.
What does this mean for political relations in the Netherlands? Not much, because illegal militant actions are virtually absent here. Nevertheless, the 'Fabel' on principle grounds will not distance itself from these actions on the basis of their 'illegality'. And as far as we are concerned, we think that a PGA-like network should never do that either. Not even when such an action would be deemed tactically unwise at a certain moment. After all, militant and illegal actions principally go hand in hand with politics that strives for fundamental changes: revolutions are illegal by definition. This is not to say we wish to place illegal militant actions on a pedestal. We think the day-to-day legal political activities are indispensable for a Radical Left movement. And the 'radicalness' of an action can of course primarily be found in its goals, not its means.
The manifesto uses the concept of 'people' mostly without a direct reference to its 'basis'. We don't know whether the PGA is using the concept of 'people' as a kind of class distinction, or in a more nationalistic sense of the word.
We do not think much of an analysis in terms of 'peoples'. With using the term 'peoples' one assumes almost always there is some kind of eternal natural unity, as if a 'people' is a matter of course. The creation of 'peoples' however is always the result of a social or political struggle. If the concept of 'people' is used by a liberation movement against colonial dominance, we can imagine that to be in a somewhat Leftwing ideology. In the enriched countries we can not give any positive value to this kind of thinking. 'The Dutch People' is a racist concept that is being used in the exclusion and repression of people from the impoverished countries. It cannot be reconciled with international solidarity.
Also, how can we feel solidarity with 'a people' with all its internal contradictions and differences? In the creation of 'a people' a great deal of violence is usually used. Often it takes many generations before everyone identifies with the cultural oneness. Thinking in terms of 'peoples' is usually promoted by the elite. Therefore, the term is conservative by definition because it forces the class struggle and battle of the sexes to the background. These would not be beneficial to the unity of the people. The 'Fabel' therefore does not want to be in solidarity with 'peoples', but with Radical Left organisations and grassroots movements all over the world.
Within the Dutch context we primarily aim our struggle for cooperation at the unfortunately small, horizontal organisations which are still active. We are primarily concerned with political movements, such as the 'Fabel' itself, which have their roots in the more radical part of the social movements of the seventies and eighties, and which distinguish themselves by their autonomy, their readiness for action and their high degree of collectivity. Although their struggle is mostly limited to one specific area, all these organisations do carry a general Radical Left worldview.
This in contrast to the organisations which we will call 'non-governmental organisations' (NGOs) for convenience now, although grassroots organisations are of course also non-governmental. NGOs are most often charities or lobby groups which aim at large numbers of loyal, financially strong donors. Seldom are these organised at the grassroots level, and they do not represent any grassroots movements, even though some claim to. It is more likely that NGOs belong to the political middle class. Precisely their seemingly independent status enables them at times to play a key role in the implementation of government policies. NGOs such as Vluchtelingenwerk (Refugee Work) in the Netherlands, often even act as an extension of the government. Nowadays, some large NGOs do not even hesitate to arrange lucrative advertising deals with multinationals. Although NGOs at times severely criticise a particular policy or company, they seldom work from a true leftwing vision. They therefore do not like to use words such as political struggle and international solidarity. Many NGOs have now begun to think in terms of markets and have therefore adjusted their message. It is thus that more and more large NGOs start to resemble commercial businesses.
In previous statements the PGA member organisations explicitly distanced themselves from the NGOs and their lobby methods. We could identify with that. Lobbying in back rooms is very undemocratic politics, which leaves the 'grassroots' powerless. Unfortunately this issue is no longer addressed in the manifesto. Maybe they wish not to burden any possible future deliberations. Most likely the PGA member organisations know that NGOs have other interests, and might turn against them at some point in time. Here in the enriched countries it is much more difficult for the majority of people to distinguish such political differences. Therefore we think that it is important to distinguish between NGOs and grassroots organisations. We have a strongly marked criticism on all vertical organisations; the state, businesses and NGOs.
This however does not mean we reject all activities of the NGOs. We should in fact keep working with them. That is a necessity as far as we are concerned. Working with them is a crucial part of the construction of our own Radical Left structures. We wish to use the dialectical tension between these two aims to become stronger. On the one hand, the construction of our own structures would not have any significance if we cannot get them to move with us sometimes. Post-war history teaches us that the Radical Left in the enriched countries never have successfully pursued their own ideas without aid of the 'progressive' parts of society's midfield. And for a long time to come the power to do so will be lacking, we guess. Without that midfield we are yet still too isolated. On the other hand, the coming together with them sometimes is pointless if we do not posses the political power to make a fist within the coalitions. Armed with clear grassroots starting points it has to be possible to coordinate temporary activities in selected campaigns with certain NGOs without the fear of being enclosed or losing our identity. We have to keep alert to aim all our activities towards fundamental changes, however small, and not towards consolidating the system. We have to remain uncompromising.
August 1998
Translation: P. Krebbers
This criticism is part of a longer contribution by "De Fabel van de illegaal" on PGA, the crisis of the Left, and the PGA manifesto, Peoples' Global Action: An Inspiring Network of Resistance (August 1998, English translation November 1998).
Peoples' Global Action PGA — Back to Manifesto discussion page / To PGA home page
PGA discussion / Contribution by "De Fabel van de illegaal", Leiden http://www.agp.org/agp/en/forum/manifesto/man-disc-Leiden.html Last modified: 98-12-04 / comments to: agpweb (AT) lists.riseup.net