(December,8, 1998)
It's hard to detect any visible political activity on the Left of the political spectrum in Europe these days; the traditional socialist and communist parties have abandoned even their modest social democratic aims, and are now busy supporting the new world order (NATO, international tribunals for third world dictators, etc.) or else joining the "greens" in peripheral societal issues such as feminist causes, gay rights, ecologism, etc. that pose absolutely no challenge to capitalism. The time has thus come to start thinking in a rational way about the reasons that explain the total collapse of the Left in a Europe that, in this as in many other things, seems to be on a course of acritical imitation of the American model.
We could begin by acknowledging:
- People (including the working class) enjoy a relatively high standard of living throughout the European Union, probably the highest in the world - there are of course many problems and injustices in Europe (not to mention the fact that real political and economic power is firmly in the hands of a very small elite), but they pale when compared with what is going on in the Third world; in general, we should recognize, privileged people are content with their lot and hardly provide a basis for anti-establishment political activity ;
- The international scene has undergone a crucial transformation, both political and (more important) economic in the last decade or so: we refer to it as the "new world order" (NWO, for short), surely a great development for American and European elites; for the average European (read E.U.) citizen, however, the situation is more complex: on the one hand they presently still enjoy good living standards, on the other the progress of unfettered economic liberalism through "globalisation" threatens, in theory, their once comfortable position (risk of job insecurity, falling wages, etc); but theory hardly matters in politics, and we have to admit that the peoples of Europe have not yet, for the moment, felt the painful consequences of globalization in any significant measure .
- For the Third world, of course, there is no ambiguity: the New World Order spells disaster for the masses, in the first place (low or negative economic growth, job losses, cuts in essential public programs, decline in already very low wage rates, etc.), but also, in a lesser measure, to traditional nationalist, modernizing elites. This statement is not empty "leftist" sloganeering. If one takes a closer look at the economic statistics of significant third world economies such as Brazil's, one may notice that living standards there increased five-fold from 1950 to 1980; after this date, the IMF (the great globalizer) started intervening with its programs and growth abruptly stopped - in 1998, Brazilian living standards are no higher than in 1980.
- Thus, the challenge to the few remaining dissidents (let's call them that way, for lack of a better term) of Europe is a very difficult, perhaps impossible, one: how to seize the opportunities for political intervention available and lead apathetic (and relatively privileged) masses to fight against the main opressor of 80% of the world's population: the NWO.
That would not only mean having the courage to drop old, meaningless slogans like "anti-fascism" (that threat is all but gone for the foreseeable future) and to recognize that attention to "societal issues" (feminism, anti-racism, etc), while having some merits, won't be of much use in the struggle against a NWO that is quite compatible with liberal attitudes in those domains (e.g. NIKE may one day start paying equal wages to its masculine and feminine Indonesian work force, guarantee against all types of discrimination at the workplace, etc. - and still make life miserable, only now in an equal manner, to ALL of its workers).It would also require a capacity to challenge the establishment social democratic and green organizations presently commanding some 40 to 50% of the vote across Europe - a capacity that is beyond even the wildest dreams of believers in alternative politics.
So the conclusion is inescapable: the aims of "dissident" activists in Europe have to be both modest and realistic (the modesty is imposed by the political realities of the continent). They should concentrate their efforts in denouncing the NWO in all its features, starting with the institutions and policies in which Europe plays an important role: NATO, international courts, the IMF, etc. That could be done at very low cost via the internet, with the creation, indeed the proliferation of sites that would deal with the relevant issues of the moment from an anti-establishment perspective (forget the theoretical sites - with "marxian", "anarchist" and other progressive sounding labels attached - that are of interest to no one, with the possible exception of the respective authors, and on the contrary have a tendency to automatically scare ordinary people away from them).
The aims of these sites would be modest, then; but they would also be useful, because affirming and demonstrating the illegitimate character of oppressive institutions that today benefit from practically 100% support in the intelligentsia, the media and elite opinion is a necessary first step towards challenging their rule in the future.
If, in the short term, 20 or 30 first class sites are created, with good independent analysis of the daily political issues at stake under the NWO, then we'll be able to say that an alternative perspective on events is still alive, miles apart from the ocean of mediocre, boring unanimity that characterizes the mainstream media today. Ordinary people are craving for a new perspective, they're tired of hearing the sophisticated but fundamentally unconvincing brainwashing they get daily from the mainstream media; it's only that they can't find any other outlook on events available. So here is the priority task for those who hold firm and well-founded anti-establishment views: to present the clear, hard-headed analysis that people desperately want, but have failed to get until now.
It's almost impossible to detect any differences between the "official" left and right in Europe, these days. There is virtually no political distinction between the likes of Blair and Thatcher - in a sense Blair is even more reactionary in a number of peripheral issues. In central questions, of course, it's all the same - e. g. same enthusiasm for bombing the Serbs, Irak, etc. So, if we're talking about the mainstream political forces in the European spectrum, the answer is a clear NO - there is absolutely no relevant difference between Left and Right these days.
But this statement, while true, omits the fact that there still exist "alternative" political views not subsumed under the classical left/right divide.And, at another level, millions of ordinary, apolitical, people are deeply dissatisfied with the system because they're the victims of it - polls keep telling us that the majority doesn't like the fact that corporations are allowed to fire people at will, enriching themselves while politicians preach "austerity" to the populace, nor that they are allowed to close factories after receiving billions in public grants with the purpose of creating jobs, etc.
Ordinary people - particularly in the Third World, where living conditions are so harsh that even sophisticated state propaganda has a hard time fulfilling its brainwashing mission - know perfectly well that the official ideology of the West is just the smoke screen that hides the unbridled appetite for profits of the elite (for instance, polls show most Chileans haven't swallowed the human rights discourse England has used to justify its' arrest of Pinochet - they show no "gratitude" to Britain, telling pollsters instead they think it will hardly make any difference for their lives). Yet they feel powerless to change the system - quite rightly, for the correlation of forces is biased in a brutal way against them - and so remain deeply cynical and lethargic.
Instead of the traditional and now meaningless Left/Right divide, then, we should introduce a new criteria of differentiation on the political spectrum to accomodate both the minority anti-establishment views of a small number of independent observers, on the one hand, and the general, diffuse feeling of dissatisfaction prevalent among a large number of normally apolitical people, on the other (recent example: those who voted for Chavez in Venezuela).
The criteria to use would result from the answers to the following questions: are you for or against the new world order - meaning an U.S. controlled (with Europe as junior partner) international system run for extracting profits regardless of social cost, supported by a plethora of financial, military, judicial and ideological institutions - IMF, NATO, corporate-controlled media, international tribunals, etc. - invested with a mission to "defend" it from ordinary people? Those "for" these items should be subsumed under the broad definition of "pro-establishment"; those "against" are the dissidents, an insignificant minority in the present.
Indeed, so few of today's intellectuals, politicians and public personalities in general correspond to the "anti-establisment" description above, that one may wonder whether that position is not actually defunct, in political terms. For, if ordinary people can't see their opinions reflected by those who "count" in society they are, for all practical purposes, mute.
Today, under a very effective system of totalitarian thought control that has managed to coopt most of the traditional social democratic and "progressive forces", as well as the intellectuals, the dissident view has been effectively ignored by the people. Only time will tell whether "abnormal" phenomenons such as the Chavez election signal the beginning of a new trend or just a last hurrah from the disaffected masses of the world.
(Answers to a reader who raised many interesting points).
Question: Democracy is not as ideal as some would want to believe. Example: a neighbourhood votes. If 70 people in the neighbourhood of a hundred are drug pushers, pimps, thieves and killers andthe remainder 'honest taxpayers, the party/candidate of the 70% prevails. Wouldn't there be some horrified people around to step in and prevent theimpending disaster? Or should we consider the criminals equal in this scenario to someone who studied and worked hard all their life?
In this hypothetical case, the moral imperative would require the minority to take power in a coup and put the majority of thieves, etc, in prison. If they resisted the coup, force would be used against them; anyway, they should all end up in prison, since their activities in almost all societies are penalised and punished.
The point raised here is very interesting and goes to heart of the issue. Of course, we could say no such societies with a majority of criminals have existed in practice (with a few exceptions, of course - islands that served as permanent refuge for pirates come to mind). In real, large scale societies, the problem arises when a majority holds views that the minority (usually, the elite) finds abhorrent and impossible to accept (e.g., "communism", nazism or islamism). In that case, the minority - even if she admires in theory the western democratic model - is impelled to use force against the majority, preventing it from acceding to power in democratic elections.
That's precisely what Pinochet did; my point is, that does not prove he is anti-democratic in principle - he did what the present leaders of our democracies would do if the majority, one day, voted the radical left into power. But, there is no escaping the logical consequence of this: 1. that practice of crimes and human rights violations (and Pinochet DID commit horrible crimes, that is not disputed even by his supporters) are, in certain circumstances, compatible with the principles of western "democracy". 2. that there are limits to western democracy, since it only allows voters a limited choice (for instance, I have no doubt that socialism - meaning abolition of private ownership of means of production - could never be introduced as a result of voter choice, since the elite would surely react and overrule that choice by force - savage force, if necessary).
Question: Let's look at Hitler and what the West did then. Gave him Czekoslovakia,abandoned Poland. Wouldn't it have been better to have intervened?
Well, Hitler was the leader of a great power, and could threaten and occupy other countries. Pinochet, Milosevic, etc. were or are (briefly) leader of weak powers, incapable of threatening anybody abroad. So the parallel does not, in my opinion, apply.
Question: If a convicted serial rapist/pedophile moves into a neighbourhood we should just sit back and watch, hoping nobody gets killed. When a woman finally does get brutally murdered we just say 'oops.' Or do we say why hadn't someone done something?
We should have done something - prevention. The problem in international politics is, how do you prove in advance whether the politician in question is a criminal aggressor or just a normal leader? Hitler, of course, had no such qualms - he prevently invaded the USSR and claimed it was merely preventive defense against a putative attack by Stalin!
Question: If a neighbouring country invites KGB in and wants to make its citizens happy by imposing communism, America/the West should just sit back and watch the citizens persecuted and impoverished.
Does the West have a right to dictate what other countries should do in their INTERNAL matters? If we think that it does, we should have the courage of taking our position to its logical conclusion and ask for the American President to be formally nominated emperor of the World.
Question: However politically incorrect that may be, some people are barbarians.Those who value a life of a killer more than a life of a child, those who think that women are only half human, unclean, or that their genitals should be cut, etc.
Sometimes the distinction between "barbarism" and legitimate political, social or religious views is very difficult to make. For instance, I consider the death penalty to be an instance of first rate barbarism. Yet America enthusiastically applies it. So if I were the leader of a first rate superpower (Planet Mars, perhaps) I'd be entitled to use my feelings of disgust towards US "barbarism" as a pretext to invade America and abolish the death penalty. I'm sure Mr. Clinton would have to admit my justification sounded very much like the one his predecessor Bush used to invade Panama (or Bosnia) - and have the grace to appeal to the American people to bow in to my demands and gracefully accept Martian occupation.
Question:Should Indian girls be sent into the to run wild and make money from prostitution. That appears to be better than making footballs.
Some might answer that it's probably better to earn, say, 1,000 dollars a month on freelance prostitution than 50 miserable bucks a month working like a slave, 12 hours a day, for the likes of NIKE.
Question: Are those shaping public opinion on Pinochet or Kosovo or communism today persons who do not know history or circumstances, have never known an enemy on their land, have seen a dictator only on TV and were never imprisoned for thinking against the government? Maybe it is all too easy to be a freedom lover, to criticise the US, to glorify Cuba while living comfortably in a democratic Western country.
One should be able to criticize the US, while at the same time not "glorifying" Cuba. Cuba is a harsh, illegitimate dictatorship and there is no reason to glorify it. It's only that the US rules the world and Cuba doesn't - and since American actions affect all of us infinitely more than Cuban actions do, it's simple good sense to concentrate our critical faculties on those actions.
ALSO ON THIS SITE:
Pinochet: dictator or closet democrat?
since November 21, 1998
© 1998 Send me your comments
Get your own Free Home Page