From 8 to 11 November 2012, I attended the Firenze 10+10 meeting of European anti –
neo-liberal globalisation movements in Florence/Italy. Florence had partly also
been chosen as the location for this meeting in memory of the remarkable first European Social Forum held in that city
in November 2002. In this post, I will reflect on the achievements of Firenze 10+10 and analyse the situation
of the European Left more generally.
Florence 10 years after
The differences with the European Social Forum ten years ago
could not have been bigger. Back then around 32,000 to 40,000 delegates, some
even spoke of 60,000 people on the last day, from all over Europe, plus 80
further countries, had gathered in Florence. The ESF culminated in one of the
largest anti-war demonstrations ever on the afternoon of 9 November, when
500,000 protestors according to police estimates¾almost 1 million
according to the organizers¾marched peacefully through the
streets of Florence against the impending war on Iraq (Bieler
and Morton 2004). Registration in November 2002 took almost two hours due
to the large queues of participants. This time, I entered the much smaller
registration room and proceeded immediately to the registration desk. The whole
process took no longer than five minutes. Organisers of Firenze 10+10 speak about more
than 4000 delegates, 300 networks from all over Europe and beyond, but these
figures look rather optimistic to me. There was plenty of space at all events,
it was easy to get translation equipment and the Fortezza da Basso, the main
location as in 2002, was never really crowded.
Photo by Stan Jourdan |
Reform or ...?
Photo by perunaltracitta |
These issues are clearly important. And
yet, it is rather unclear how this theme on its own could provide the basis for
a more progressive strategy forward. First, because it focuses on policies of
the past in that it attempts to defend social partnership institutions
established in the 1950s and 1960s, when labour was able to balance the power
of capital. Of course, these institutions need to be defended as much as
possible, but it is necessary to realise at the same time that social
partnership arrangements have become hollowed out or even dismantled for some
time. Moreover, where they do still exist, fewer and fewer workers are actually
covered by them as the informal, precarious part of labour markets with workers
on temporary and part-time contracts is growing. Second, such a focus is not
very helpful, as the almost exclusive emphasis on workplace issues does not
provide scope for co-operation with other social movements. And finally, this
focus on defending past successes does not challenge the destructive dynamics
of capitalism more fundamentally. At the same time, however, we should not be
too critical of these trade unions either. The very fact that they were at Firenze 10+10 and prepared to expose
themselves to more radical criticism is testimony to their willingness to be
active in a wider movement of resistance. Unlike many other unions from
Germany, the UK, Scandinavian countries, etc. they were at least present.
A similar reformist tendency was noticeable in the
work of the European Progressive Economists Network (E-PEN), which met
on several occasions during Firenze 10+10
to work on a joint text as the basis for wider mobilisation. For example, in
the final
declaration it is stated that ‘the European Central Bank must act as a
lender of last resort in the government bond markets’. This reflects the idea
that a different institutional set-up may prevent crisis, overlooking the
crisis-ridden tendency of capitalist social relations of production regardless
of the particular institutional framework. The document argues that ‘the
financial system must be brought under social control’, but what social control
may mean in practice was left vague. The document, as one participant pointed
out, is clearly a post-Keynesian position. The focus is on how to make
capitalism manageable, not on how to transform it. And yet, it would be too
harsh simply to dismiss this initiative on this basis. The very fact that
economists have come to Florence and drafted a joint text over hours and were
then prepared to engage with the main process of Firenze 10+10 and the other groups involved is commendable. While
still post-Keynesian, the related process may offer the opportunity to move
towards more radical economic thinking.
Transformation?
Transformation?
These reformist tendencies present at
Firenze should not distract from the fact that more transformative initiatives
were equally engaged in the meeting. For example, the Alternative Trade Mandate
(ATM) alliance, bringing together almost 50 different organisations, organised
a workshop on Friday, 9 November 2012. The alliance has the objective of
developing a proposal for an alternative trade mandate for the EU. To date, it
has developed a set of principles including the priority of human rights and
social goals over corporate interests, the importance of self-determination, as
well as the privileging of local over global integration. Based on different
principles, such an alternative trade policy may be able to challenge the
capitalist focus on market efficiency more fundamentally. As one participant pointed
out, provided the alliance also focuses on trade imbalances within the EU, the
ATM may also provide a contribution towards a progressive way out of the
current crisis. In many respects, the process of an open democratic engagement
from below, through which the ATM is constructed, is in itself a positive step
forward, considering that trade liberalisation is normally negotiated by high
level civil servants with the input of business interests behind closed doors. The challenge will be to persuade trade unions to participate in this process. To date, especially manufacturing trade unions have often supported traditional trade liberalisation (see Trade unions, free trade and the problem of transnational solidarity).
Other transformative tendencies at Firenze 10+10 included a workshop organised
by the Corporate Europe Observatory on
how to roll back corporate power and reclaim democracy, appreciating the
importance of power in society in moves towards a more socially just order, as
well as initiatives about natural and social commons. Not only should we
reclaim commons lost to privatisation processes, it was argued, we also need to
reflect more generally on how to organise the economy beyond the capitalist
logic.
Photo by Stan Jourdan |
A
fragmented and weak European Left
When assessing the strength of the
European Left, it is not only important who was present at Firenze 10+10, but also who was not. As one Norwegian trade
unionist remarked, the people and organisations fighting austerity on the
streets in Athens, Portugal and elsewhere did not consider that it was
important for them to be present in Florence. Moreover, while many strong trade
unions had not sent delegations to Florence, many of the organisations present
would be NGOs without a clear mass basis.
And yet, as an Italian
trade unionist remarked at the final assembly, if the Left is fragmented
and weak, and this was ultimately visible to all participants, then Firenze was,
nonetheless, highly important and should be considered a positive step forward,
at least in that it presents new potential for more successful strategies of
resistance. The fact that the whole meeting was based on a broad consensus,
combining economic concerns around trade liberalisation, the attack on workers’
rights and social justice, with concerns for the environment and a strengthened
feminist network should not be underestimated.
Firenze
10+10
also witnessed the official launch of the Alter
Summit on Saturday, 10 November, i.e. the launch of a process towards
establishing a broad based alliance of social movements, unions, academics and
political personalities to challenge austerity and neo-liberal restructuring
across Europe. The fact that the first Alter Summit is scheduled to take place
in Athens, Greece in 2013 is in itself a signal of solidarity with the
oppressed and a sign of protest against austerity.
‘Alternatives
exist. What is lacking today is a balance of power to implement these
alternatives and devise political processes in order to bring back the European
project on the track of democracy, social and ecological progress. The
alternative summit we call for will be a first step towards achieving these
goals’ (Call for
an alternative summit).
Prof. Andreas Bieler
Professor of Political Economy
University of Nottingham/UK
Andreas.Bieler@nottingham.ac.uk
Personal website: http://www.andreasbieler.net
@Andreas_Bieler
@Andreas_Bieler
29 November 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!