Hi everybody. I came back from Mexico two days ago where I have
attended, like Fred, the Zapatista's "encuentro".
This is my version of a brief report on the First Intergalactic
Meeting against Neoliberalism and for Humanity, held in Chiapas 27
july- 3 august. Fred has already given you his version, with which I
mostly agree. So I want to emphasise few points.
1. Fred has forgotten a very important element of the meeting, one
aspect among others that made it indeed a *meeting* and not a
conference. That is that him and I, among many others, participated
within the respective national delegations in show performances for
the amusement of foreign guests and indigenous population. (Fred, I
hope I got you in a picture)
2. I think there were more academics than Fred seems to suggest. At
least many non economists (anthropologists, political scientists,
sociologists, etc.). Perhaps it was difficult to recognise them, as
the harsh conditions of living we all shared (the mud, the rain, the
long process to get to the toilet, the attempt to safeguard a living
space under the roofs built by the communities in the middle of the
jungle) tended to be visible on our clothes and faces, thus erasing
any sign of "professional" distinction. Once I found myself talking to
a knee-twisted guy in a bus about a general impression of the meeting,
and ended up with receiving an improvised detailed lecture on
capital's strategy in Central America by a California's researcher.
Also newspapers reported the presence of several academics.
3. But yes, militants from all over the world were the majority. And
yes, it was good that "people were amazingly patient and tolerant
under sometimes very difficult conditions". I believe that the
incredible political heterogeneity of the meeting (revolutionaries and
reformists, nationalists and internationalists, Trotskists and
anarchists, autonomists and party-promoters, etc.) was in itself a
success. Despite our differences, the overall respect for the
Zapatistas helped to keep at bay the most usual big-bang effect that a
melt pot of this kind would have resulted into.
4. About the economic subgroup Fred and I participated. I disagree
with Fred's description. Sure, we both agreed that the falling rate of
profit is at the basis of neoliberal strategies. The difference is on
the interpretation of the reason of this decline. For him was that it
was "the objective dynamics of capitalism, e.g. mainly technological
change with increased the composition of capital and the ratio of
unproductive labour to productive labour". For me it was that these
are not objective, external and lifeless dynamics, and therefore there
is no POLITICAL USE in interpreting them as such. These dynamics must
be interpreted as the end results of struggles and capital's counter
strategies. Both struggles and capital's reaction occur in given
circumstances and contexts. We should study these to be of any help to
the political activity of emancipation. Thus for example, "workers'
struggles for higher wages and less work" - which Fred says I have
indicated as the cause of the falling rate of profit, is exactly what
was at the basis of the process of restructuring of the late 1970s and
1980s, that is, what Fred's calls "technological change". These
struggles occurred necessarily within given conditions of the division
of labour, that workers were able to turn from an instrument of
oppression into an organisational weapon (take for example wild cut
strikes which strength derived from the Fordist organisation of work).
It is clear that one of the main targets of capital's restructuring
was the disruption of the Fordist factory in many areas. My main
objection to Fred's interpretation was therefore this: what is the
role of people in his interpretation of the falling rate of profit?
The other CRUCIAL question is this: What is the political implication
of an objectivist analysis such as Fred's? He gave us an indication in
his conclusion which I hope I can summarise correctly: the problem is
capitalism (with its objective dynamics), the solution is socialism.
Yes but, Fred, two points. 1. how do we get to "socialism" if not
through the activity of real human beings. And if this is the case,
wouldn't be of central importance to understand the material
conditions in which people work for capital and the limits and
strength of their struggles against it? Isn't this the central human
element of the "falling rate of profit"? Shouldn't we offer an
analysis of these strengths and weaknesses in relation to given
conditions of production and social organisations? 2. What is the
future "socialism" if not something that we start to create in the
present? And if this is the case, what does the statement "the problem
is capitalism, the solution is socialism" tells us about the human and
social CONTENT of "socialism". What does it tell to the indigenous
populations which were hosting us? What does it tell to the self
organised Italian workers present in our subgroups, etc. I DON'T MEAN
here to say that Fred should have provided a detailed analysis of an
alternative social organisation. Of course not. What I mean to say is
that the human content of the future "socialism" is here and now in
form both of a problem and an opportunity. As a problem it must be
discussed in terms of the problems we face vis-a-vis capital, as
mentioned in 1. and in this case, the "falling rate of profit" need to
be interpreted in a way to include real people. As an opportunity we
need to discuss forms of alternative social organisation with all
sectors of the working class. And here, sine the aim is to transcend
capitalism, the falling rate of profit has no role to play.
5. About the definition of the real enemy. I think Fred expressed a
common concern stating that "too often . . . the enemy was seen as
neoliberalism rather than capitalism". Personally, I don't think this
is, at this stage, a big deal. Neoliberalism is the current dominant
capital's strategy. Its aims are the classical aims of any of
capital's strategy. The word neoliberalism allows to provide a
discourse which enable a wide variety of people to talk about real
issues, the question of needs, the question of freedom, etc.
#####################################################
DESIRE IS PRODUCTION OF REALITY
#####################################################
Massimo De Angelis
Department of Economics
University of East London
Longbridge Road
Dagenham Essex RM8 2AS
U.K.
work 0181 5907722 x2254
home 0181 9616067
fax 0181 8493549
e-mail massimo@uel.ac.uk
#########################################################