Topics
The mesas at the First Encuentro in 1996 were devoted, respectively, to the themes of politics, economy, culture and media, "civil society," and diversity under capitalism ("many worlds fit into the world"). The "bloques" of mesas this year in the Spanish state continued most of these themes and emphasized some of the more concrete proposals from last year, such as that for a "network of struggles." (See "Strategies" below.) However, they were structured differently. This year they were entitled "the neoliberal economy against humanity [and] ourlives beyond the economy"; "our world and their world" (including cultural diversity, identity politics, war, and migration, among other subjects); "struggles for culture, education, and information"; "the struggle against patriarchy"; "struggles for the land and ecology"; and "against all forms of marginalization." We all seem to recognize the pervasiveness of global capitalism in every aspect of our lives.
I was pleased to see that women's issues had been separated from the problematic theme of civil society and treated in their own bloque. Perhaps next year the widespread and persistent problem of racism can be dealt with at a separate mesa, or treated as a "cross-sectoral theme," rather than being thrown into the "whatever's left" category of "marginalization," which included age-ism, incarceration, species-ism, GLB issues, etc. (There were not a few outstanding instances of racism at the Encuentro.) Also, I've been an activist for prisoners for some years, and I'd like to see--at least--the issues of political and social prisoners discussed in a separate workshop. Mass incarceration (with its attendant excuses), the diminution of the political rights of prisoners, and the exploitation of prison labor are major neo-liberal strategies.
Because of the great interest in the topics at the First Encuentro, it had been agreed that the struggles of women against patriarchy and the building of a network of struggles were to be cross-sectoral themes at the Second. Unfortunately, this decision was not emphasized at the start of many of this year's mesas. While some mesas made them central to their discussion, others dealt with them almost as an afterthought. For example, mesa 3 of bloque 3 came to a tentative agreement on what "networks" they would use to diffuse information, be they electronic or hard copy. On the other hand, at mesas 1A & B, the discussion never seem to get beyond rhetoric, and there seemed to be some genuine confusion about what a "network" meant anyway: The Internet? a plurality of media of communication? shared material resources? the elaboration of a global structure for regional struggles? and so on.
Finally, I was concerned, even from the day that I received the preparatory "document on contents and methodology" for the Second Encuentro, that there was no explicit mention of capitalism or class conflict. Now, certainly most of the people at the economics mesas, and I suspect the majority at the others, have these concepts in their theoretical armature. But I also saw, and have seen elsewhere, a tendency to fetishize "neo-liberalism," sometimes to regard it apocalyptically, as if it were the dawn of a new world, or a new mode of oppression without deep historical roots in capitalism, and subsisting outside of concrete socio-economic circumstances. My point is that we should keep in mind the discussions of mesa 2 of the First Encuentro ("the economic question: horror stories"), in which the development neo-liberalism was traced the collapse of the Fordist-Keynesian model, the monetary crisis of c. 1973, the crisis of Third World debt, the struggle over control of basic materials, the quest for new markets, etc.
I think we should distinguish ourselves from such groups as the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), a clique of NGOs based primarily in the states, which, while some of its members have made valuable contributions to confronting global capitalism, makes a fetish of "globalization" (or "globaloney," as some have tagged it) and can hardly bring itself to utter "capitalism." While the scholarship of this group is very often quite thorough and good--and provides ammunition for more radical groups which aren't always so meticulous--its recommendations are sometimes hard to distinguish from those rightwing populists, if it weren't for the absence of racist and reactionary oratory: bolstering of national economies through protectionist measures, reinstatement of welfare subsidies (for whom?), and dreams of considerate and "eco-friendly" bosses and content "eco-consuming" workers. (Just like the good old days before "globalization"--right? Snork) Marx noticed long ago that one of the "cardinal facts of capitalism" is "the world market." I think that we're all grown up enough to accept that the welfare state is dead and isn't coming back. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Recommendations:
