FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

From New York to Porto Alegre

The second month of the second year of the new century began with the two ways open to us set, as it were, side by side. In New York the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM met privately and secretly, an elite collection of big business leaders, government officials, and their intellectual bodyguards — surrounded by a real bodyguard of thousands of police.

Meanwhile, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, thousands of representatives of popular organizations from more than 110 countries convened publicly in the second annual WORLD SOCIAL FORUM. In New York, the Bill of Rights was suspended in the ways that have become typical for US and other police forces at these businessmen’s meetings; in Brazil, something of the spirit of carnival pervaded the sessions.

The WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM brought together those whom the financial press have called — half in jest, all in earnest — “the Masters of the Universe.” There were roughly four cops for every participant, and attempts to demonstrate against them were harshly controlled. In contrast, the WORLD SOCIAL FORUM opened with a colorful parade under the banner “Another World Is Possible”; thousands of people marched through the center of Porto Alegre, a Brazilian city that has had a labor-based social democratic government for a dozen years, to open a discussion of practical alternatives to the “neoliberal” privatization being cried up in New York.

There were a thousand “masters” in New York and perhaps 70,000 attendees in Porto Alegre, but the disproportion between the world economic elite and the rest of us is much greater. Those who control the disposition of the world’s wealth — and hence the possibilities for the rest of us to employ the talents of our heads and hands — are a tiny group: try as they might (and as the media demonstrate, they do try hard — there was little coverage of the Brazilian meeting in the US press), they cannot keep up the fiction that their interests coincide with those of the rest of us.

More than a hundred and fifty years ago, a now largely forgotten German student of the Greek and Latin classics described the “globalization” that had already come upon the world: “The masters of the universe [not his phrase, but a reasonable translation of it] have, through their exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, they have drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it had stood … They compel all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt their mode of production; they compel them to introduce what they call ‘liberalization’ into their midst, i.e., to become like themselves. In one word, the masters of the universe create a world after their own image.”

And that world is one of sharp and increasing inequality. Noam Chomsky, one of the principal speakers at the WORLD SOCIAL FORUM, points to US government studies (from the Clinton years) showing that neoliberal economic integration will continue and enlarge the gap between “haves” and “have-nots.” The Pentagon stated their simple conclusion: that will produce “turmoil among growing numbers of impoverished people throughout the world, who will have to be controlled by force.” As Chomsky comments, “Apart from the horrendous consequences for the victims, that is also a prescription for global disaster.”

The German student of a century and a half ago was of course Karl Marx, and he concluded his description of actually-existing globalization with a call for more, but of a different sort: “The working people of the world have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of all countries, unite!”

The question is not whether there will be globalization — as Marx noted, it has been around for centuries — but what form it will take. Will world-wide economic integration be under the control of those who met in New York and the people they work for — and therefore continue the subjection of the world’s majority to the authoritarian institutions in which we carry on our working lives — or will it take the forms pioneered in thought and action by the popular organizations meeting in Porto Alegre?

The former are adamant that, in Margaret Thatcher’s favorite phrase, “There is no alternative” — because they own all the important productive property, so decisions about how the world’s wealth is to be invested are in their hands. The latter insist that another world — a human and humane world — is possible. These are “sharply different programs of globalization,” Chomsky concludes. “Apart from whatever else one might think about it, the [New York] version really does threaten the survival of the species. One reason is that the underlying principles, if taken seriously, lead to the conclusion that it is quite rational to destroy the environment for our grandchildren….”

The Hebrew bible — the basis for all modern Christianity, Judaism, and Islam — includes the following exhortation: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.”

Life was on display in Brazil last week; in New York, death.

Carl Estabrook teaches at the University of Illinois and is the host of News From Neptune, a weekly radio show on politics and the media. He writes a regular column for CounterPunch.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail