The current historical conjuncture could not be more dramatic. Unprecedented
high temperatures and widespread drought have led to water shortages and forest
fires across Europe highlighting to everyone the dire consequences of climate
change. This is combined with heightened geo-political tensions reflected in
the ongoing war in Ukraine, including the threat of nuclear disaster, and
increasing tensions between the USA and China over Taiwan. Rampant inflation
and skyrocketing energy prices signal an ongoing, deep economic crisis of
global capitalism. Never before has it been more important to discuss and
identify alternative ways of how humans can live together with each other and
nature.
In her opening lecture, Birgit Mahnkopf identified a shift from
geo-economic competition to geo-political confrontation in the global political
economy. The war in Ukraine has not only dramatic consequences for the people
directly affected, but it also stalled the necessary socio-ecological
transformation. Instead of moving towards renewable energy, there is a renewed
reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil, including discussions about
a revival of fracking. Importantly, related new infrastructure investment implies a long-term commitment, hindering transition for years if not decades to
come. At the same time, nuclear energy is touted as a climate friendly
solution.
And yet, the energy crisis is only a crisis for some. While individual households are worried whether they will be able to heat their homes in the coming winter, large corporations are reaping record profits. Participants at the summer university agreed that the power of transnational corporations (TNCs) had to be challenged head-on. The cost of living crisis featured prominently in discussions – ‘Inflation is the new Austerity’ (Julia Eder) – and activists pointed out that we need to develop alternatives from a left perspective, if we want to prevent far-right groups soaking up mounting discontent.
Another widely debated topic was trade. The new type of trade agreements
such as CETA between the EU and Canada and the EU – Mercosur agreement have
little to do with lowering tariffs to facilitate the trading of goods. These
agreements are at the very heart of the capitalist economy in that they deal
predominantly with the harmonization of regulations, intellectual property
rights and new areas such as e-commerce. Unsurprisingly, these treaties have
undermined countries’ space to decide on the best developmental practices for
their populations. Nothing illustrates this more than the widespread Investor
State Dispute Settlement mechanisms, in which corporation can sue countries, if
they feel that specific social or environmental policies are undermining expected future profits.
Luciana Ghiotto
highlighted that the promises of this expanded trade regime around job creation
and export diversification have been rather hollow on the ground. The EU – Mercosur
trade agreement, for example, is highly likely to deepen extractivism in
Mercosur countries. While they will be able to increase the
export of primary commodities such as meat, soy and raw materials, EU members
in turn will increase exports of motors, planes, cars, pharmaceuticals and
chemicals, some of which corporations are no longer allowed to sell in the EU
because of their harmful effects. 180000 jobs in Argentine car manufacturing
alone are likely to be lost, if this treaty is signed. The treaty will, therefore,
increase the imbalance between the two blocs, locking in an uneven relationship.
Not all is lost, however. Broader alliances are already forming up in the Stop Mercosur transnational alliance. As
social movements managed to stop the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership between the EU and USA, so they can stop the EU – Mercosur treaty
from being ratified.
Struggles against the commodification of water were also discussed at the summer university. Importantly, this does not only refer to attempts at making profits with water such as the selling of bottled water – see, for example, the case of Nestlé in Vittel – or the privatization of municipal water companies. It also includes scenarios, in which the supply of drinking water is threatened through, for example, the burial of industrial waste in the galleries of former mines, as is the case in Alsace/France.
Experienced European campaigners discussed the problems of the EU Internal Market. Yet again, business organizations are demanding the completion of the Internal Market, implying further liberalization and deregulation. This would further limit the room of manoeuvre of national and local governments in pursuing social and environmental policies. Already now, cities in the EU are constrained in their efforts to limit the spread of AirB&B, for example. The idea of banning short-haul flights in France is equally challenged by the EU Commission. And this, while social rights are not enforced and the abuse of workers from outside Europe is especially rampant in transport, construction and food production. Is it perhaps time to contest the Internal Market in full instead of resisting individual Directives? Perhaps we need to speak about the ‘four chains’ instead of ‘the four freedoms’ of the Internal Market, Alexandra Strickner from Attac Austria declared.
Over twenty years, I have observed the efforts of European civil society to resist capitalist exploitation and develop alternatives. Hopes had been high when 60000 activists gathered in Florence/Italy in November 2002 for the first European Social Forum (ESF) (see Bieler and Morton 2004). The social forums, however, petered out towards the end of the 2000s, the 2012 meeting in Florence was much smaller and less ambitious (see Firenze 10 + 10), while a number of other initiatives attempted to keep the flames of resistance alive without succeeding, however, at mobilizing the same amount of people or generating the same kind of dynamic (see, for example, The First Social Conference in Europe and Bilbao European Forum). This summer university is clearly in this line and yet it also promises to be the start of something bigger. While the presence of activists from the 2002 ESF showed continuity, there were also many younger, new activists present.
Tommaso Fattori, one of the co-organizers of the 2002 ESF, concluded the summer university with a call for a revival of the forum process in Florence, 10 to 13 November 2022. Considering the economic, environmental and war related challenges, the European social movements must overcome their fragmentation and build a broad, more permanent alliance with a joint programme at least across Europe, he argued.
Where there is exploitation, there is resistance. The passage towards Florence 2022 may indicate a broader revival of social movement contestation in Europe, providing hope for ways out of current crises.
Andreas Bieler
Personal website: http://andreasbieler.net
26 August 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome!