13 October 2004
“Future challenges for global movements”
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
Good morning and thank you very much for inviting me to speak here with you.
There is a scene in the 1970s espionage thriller “Three Days of the Condor” (which starred Robert Redford) where two CIA agents are in conversation. The noted actor John Houseman playing an older, ranking CIA operative is in conversation with a younger operative played by the actor Cliff Robertson. Houseman describes his early days in espionage prior to and during World War II. Robertson asks him whether he misses those days. Houseman replies, to the effect, that he does not miss those days; what he misses is the clarity of those times, specifically, knowing who was friend and who was foe.
We are, today, in a period of great unclarity. To borrow from theorist Samir Amin, there is a crisis in the national liberation paradigm. The post-World War II efforts at national sovereignty in the global South have run into a wall, or perhaps more accurately, have exhausted themselves. This does not mean that national liberation is no longer necessary. It means that the framework that existed, particularly during the Cold War, has unraveled.
There were three approaches to what can broadly be described as national liberation: (1)the formal granting of independence after some level of struggle. (2)a protracted national liberation struggle led by forces of the national petty bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie in alliance with other popular classes. This may or may not involve armed struggle. (3)national liberation struggles led by socialist or pro-socialist forces where there was a stated commitment to directly connect the struggle for national liberation to a more fundamental transformation of society (with the same qualification regarding armed struggle). Of the 3 courses, the first two represented the majority of the cases.
National liberation movements were by definition multi-class movements, generally tying together different ethnic groups, and in some cases, different political parties. In many cases the actual movements for national liberation took the form of explicitly revolutionary fronts frequently using socialist or quasi-socialist language (and certainly socialists were often in the leadership of such movements even if the movements were not necessarily socialist-led). One can see this in the Algerian FLN, which launched an insurrection in 1954, FRELIMO in Mozambique, on through to the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania. The hostility of the West to movements for liberation, unless these movements represented solely the transfer of power to a pro-imperialist elite, pushed many of these movements in the direction of the USSR, China and Cuba for support. This did not necessarily mean that the leaderships of these movements embraced socialism or other transformative politics. It often did mean, however, that movements would emulate the trappings of their sponsors, including organizational forms, language and style. This is not true in each case, but patterns did develop which helps one understand aspects of the crises as they unfolded in the 1980s and 1990s.
The national liberation projects, generally embracing a sort of an anti-imperialist nationalist populism (again borrowing from Amin), were able to exist in an historically specific space in large part due to the existence of the Cold War. In each case, the efforts at national sovereignty were constantly under threat from one of the superpowers, generally from the USA and its allies, however.
The 1970s oil crisis and the corresponding economic crisis severely undermined the efforts at national liberation. Governments that had borrowed from global Northern states or international financial institutions quickly found themselves in very deep debt, and the escalating price of oil further complicated matters by destabilizing efforts at economic development. In this context, and with the turn of the global North toward what we have come to know as neo-liberalism as its solution to problems of economic stagnation, the national liberation projects faced a major set back.
One of the profound weaknesses of most national liberation efforts is that they failed to embark on a fully transformative project. This fact was something that many of us missed when we looked from the outside. Particularly in periods of armed struggle, many of the national liberation movements appeared to be introducing new forms of organization and operation. This was only partially the case, and sometimes overly exaggerated by the propaganda. What we did not necessarily see was the unevenness of these struggles and movements. While the leaders could often articulate a political message in high-sounding revolutionary rhetoric, this did not necessarily mean that a process was unfolding that secured power for traditionally disenfranchised groups, such as women, workers and farmers. Instead a politics of the samurai, so to speak, seemed to all too often emerge where a leadership team saw itself as doing FOR the masses rather than doing WITH the masses. Some would call this a paternalist politics.
The crisis of national liberation in many respects, then, comes down to the incomplete nature of the projects themselves. In other words, they began a process of transformation, but were stalled or were frustrated, depending on one’s point of view.
In many respects this reality stands like an apparition around South Africa. The victory of political democracy and the defeat of apartheid ushered in a transition to a new stage of what is often referenced as the national democratic revolution. The question is what is the ultimate objective of the national democratic revolution and, to what is it connected, if anything? That is, is it connected to an anti-capitalist transformative project or has it become an end in and of itself?
A national democratic revolution does not assume the elimination of capitalism, though that is one possible option. There are, however, different approaches toward a capitalist project. In other words, national democratic tasks are not equivalent to the creation of a native or national bourgeoisie, or the prioritization of the creation of a native or national bourgeoisie, though that certainly might be the outcome of such a project. In fact, many of the national populist projects have resulted in the creation of native bourgeoisies that have varying degrees of independence from the global capitalists. This new class has had an interest in frustrating the completion of a national democratic revolution, national populist project, or national liberation project, call it what you wish. National democratic tasks more broadly would include gender equality, significant land redistribution, wealth redistribution, the construction of an economy that services the internal needs of the people, the building of the public infrastructure, the rule of law, the right of dissent and public expression, and the addressing of inter-ethnic disparities. In order to accomplish any of this, and with the anticipation of considerable resistance from the propertied groups, there must be a massive political mobilization of the people in order to have a mandate to introduce the substantive changes that this list suggests. Voting and elections, while critical, are insufficient. In addition to these vehicles, one must identify means and mechanisms through which the traditionally disenfranchised populations—the dispossessed—seize control of their own destinies. In the absence of this, there is no national democratic revolution. This is precisely the problem that has overcome many progressive experiments in social justice in the global South.
The incomplete nature of the national liberation projects also showed itself in the support movements in the global North. After the victory for democracy in South Africa, for instance, the forces in the USA that had constituted the anti-apartheid support movement fragmented. Part of the problem is that many US-based forces felt abandoned by the ANC, and to lesser extent the PAC, in favor of the ANC apparently attempting to cultivate relations with the US government and business. But part of the problem was the nature of the anti-apartheid support movement in the USA. It was a very diverse movement that had a common interest in ending apartheid. It was not united in a common vision around a post-apartheid South Africa, or for that matter, a post-colonial global South.
The new strategic situation that followed the end of apartheid and the end of the Cold War resulted in an unraveling of alliances and the potential, but only the potential, to build new ones. The stalling or frustration of the national liberation projects froze in place governments and political leaderships that had emerged, to varying degrees, from the national liberation struggle (or the struggle for national independence) but were now accepting the precepts of the international financial institutions, or the global North more generally. Thus, populations found themselves watching what often felt to be the theatre of the absurd as former revolutionaries defended, advanced or apologized for draconian, structural adjustment measures being taken against the masses, often in the name of economic realism.
The situation in which we find ourselves internationally is dominated by what is generally referenced as globalization, which we should understand to be not a global economy, but the reconstruction and reorganization of global capitalism in a manner which advantages an emerging transnational capitalist class led by the USA. The overwhelming dominance of the USA makes it especially difficult for smaller countries to advance nationally sovereign projects. International ‘common sense,’ for lack of a better term, has drifted in favor of neo-liberalism. The dangers of challenging neo-liberalism range from the fear of economic isolation to the possibility of military intervention. The fear of the outrage of one’s own people does not seem to loom very large for many governments.
It is in this moment that we are challenged to think through the direction for progressive social movements. In the interest of time, let me suggest a few possibilities for your consideration:
In some respects the biggest challenge for global movements is to recognize that the strategic situation has changed in its fundamentals. This does not mean that what we have learned and held to should be thrown out. Rather, we must be cognizant of the new realities. Placing contemporary contradictions into an old paradigm derived from the Cold War and pre-neo-liberal era runs us into significant problems.
Let me make this a little clearer. What is demanded of all progressive social movements is a concrete and accurate assessment of our actual conditions. This assessment must be based upon an historical analysis, but it must equally realize that we are operating in new and uncertain territory. I found myself thinking about this recently in light of the crisis in the Darfur region of the Sudan. In the face of demonstrated, on the ground facts about the criminal ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sudanese government and their Arab militia allies, there were some anti-imperialists—some genuine, others charlatans—who, instead of looking at the actual situation, concluded that if the US hates the Sudanese government, the Sudanese government, particularly with its selective and vocal use of anti-imperialist rhetoric, must be on the progressive side of things. In other words, these anti-imperialists were attempting to frame the situation by looking backwards, using a fractured paradigm, failing to account for the new world situation. Such an approach leads not only to bad rhetoric, but as well to disastrous practice.
Thank you.