In order to suggest that international meetings like the one held at the UNO from 22^nd to 26^th May 2000 are more than an occasion to speak about the rejects of poor and rich countries, -- to say once again that the world suffers from submission to a system full of injustices or further, to allow some to be immortalised in numerous photographs at the United Nations, -- we must, in the manner of David and Goliath's fight - show ingenuity in countering the brutal force allowed by absolutely fantastic and legal concentration of wealth and property in the coffers of a few individuals and corporations. Efforts must be directed not only towards identifying the real reasons of the global morass but defining actions that can bring about real changes.

Some have already dealt with this question: the opening speech of Martin Khor (Third World Network) for instance. Some elements have been incorporated in the final declaration. But no strong criticism of the capitalist system and nothing to highlight alternative modes of organisation that can counter the hold of international corporations.

There is an urgent need to propose a way of thinking material organisation of our lives which is well beyond the limited framework of economic science. There is an urgent need to go beyond a defensive way of thinking - which limits itself to imposing signals concerning human rights, establishing compensatory measures and restricting ways of the dominant production system.

The proposed vision in the final declaration is noble and worthy (see "The vision of the Millenum Forum"), it shows hope shared by a large number of individuals and their determination to construct a different world. All the same, proposed solutions - in spite of the interest they represent - show the profound inability to rethink the foundations of the capitalist system. Ever since its first manifestations, this system never aimed at eradicating poverty, satisfying human needs or the development of individuals, cultures and traditions in their diversity.

I was involved in a working group on globalisation and I noticed that there was a refusal to question the foundations of neo-liberalism, including individualism. I observed that people were hesitant to question liberalisation of financial markets beyond the imposition of the Tobin Tax. There was complete silence on private appropriation of resources on the planet with the exception of genes, water, etc. All along these discussions, there was complete silence regarding the concentration of wealth in the hands of big corporations.

The only solution put forth was to impose a code of conduct ensuring implementation of human rights and respect for various international conventions on the protection of environment.

No evaluation was undertaken regarding the real impact of these measures on the power of corporations in shaping cultures and communities, in defining what has value and what does not, in deciding who would be heard and who would not, in determining those who would be working in what conditions and with which technology, in choosing those who would have the right to survive and finally in imposing a model of thought.

Critical discourse mainly articulates human rights and one must try to spread its application and scope. Following the destruction of values, genocide of populations, enslavement of human beings and the destruction of our environment, many organisations demand the application of recognised rights and ask for new rights, the right to water, air, economic development, food and life. There is an urgent need to realise there was a demand for new rights whenever human life was shaped by productive economic logic and fragmented in "economic and private wealth". "For the good of humanity. Progress asks for it, we are told". What new rights can we demand if the very foundation of the capitalist system remains unshaken?

If we are cornered to demand the right to live, this would mean that the kind of economic development rooted in our patriarchal societies has infringed upon the integrity of the living, by trying to extract resources without bothering about the devastating effects of technology and modes of production.

Bernard Maris, the rebellious economist thinks that people are clouded by excessively formalised and abstract discourse of economics whose foundation is purely ideological.

"Economic instils fear in people... The strength of economics is the high level of formalisation comparable to that of physics - sometimes even more abstract - but without any possible verification, without experimenting: it is purely scholastic. One can rant just about anything."

This ideological discourse and its promises prevent those who hear it from revealing pseudo-truths conveyed by it. To pretend that the present globalisation is a phenomenon that cannot be evaded, that it is to the advantage of all and that its profits are redistributed among everyone, is to rant about just anything. This globalisation that is first of all economic, shapes the lives of everyone and their thoughts since it has a hold on all the dimensions of human life.

It is a firm belief that the present capitalist system can, - if governed by "We, the peoples" - bring about the eradication of poverty, equal distribution of wealth, production that is respectful to the environment and respect for cultural diversity. But it is in fact a manifestation of the imprisonment of our spirits, which prevents us from seeing the current "recolonisation" of the world on an essentially economic base and whose profits are reserved for a few people.

Solutions that are most often put forth are already conditioned by this general framework of analysis which is now integrated in our daily thoughts. It is a framework that prevents us from imagining that the world can be otherwise, that other solutions can exist, that generalised marketing, till date, is still under the road roller of economic thought, of its managers and beneficiaries. Virginia Rasmussen says in this regard¹:

"Since we have grown up in a subordinate relationship to corporations, we have trouble even imagining how a citizenry in charge would analyse our reality, what langage would we use, how we could act to bring change. Our colonized minds make it difficult to cut through our experience and envision real democracy. We've got a cop in our head and the cop comes from corporate headquarters."

This criticism is specially not aimed at denying the short term importance of efforts presently deployed to ensure respect for rights, or to develop new ones following the misdeeds of globalisation. But it is important to realise that the legal channel will only have a determining influence if economic and political foundations are modified. I will leave the political angle aside and concentrate on two avenues that must be explored in the economic field so as to construct alternatives to the present system.

An initial effort must be made to identify and understand new experiences of material organisation which prioritise respect for all forms of life, their diversity, co-operation between them as well as recognition and protection of a heritage common to humanity. Many of these initiatives are the fruit of culturally hybrid forms which are sometimes a result of internationalisation or reactions to the misdeeds of internationalisation in order to ensure survival of a population left to themselves. There are myriad forms of social organisation, collective experiences that are manifestations of the potential human creator and of the determination of numerous groups to live in ways other than what is offered by the present system. This will, to live differently is increasingly seen in so called developed societies, where these people make concrete statements to cultivate a way of life that is healthier, to counter the race of consumption and waste, to "earn their living differently" rather than submit to the present style of "forced labour".

It is not enough to gather information on these alternative experiences. From these experiences, we must develop a framework of "alternative" analysis which can allow us to think of material organisation in terms of sustainability and respect for differences and life. I am deliberately not speaking of economics to point at the fact that the framework of analysis should be thought out within diversity of cultures and human projects rather than a framework within which human enterprises need to adapt in order to exist. Five hundred years of capitalism is enough! We must take this opportunity because the present system is very vulnerable, and numerous efforts are now on, to renew its structures. We must not stick to only demanding signals and rights for a bigger number but suggest new long term avenues that will subvert the present system and use knowledge and experience to transform it for the benefit of all.

¹ Virginia Rasmussen, Globalization and capitalism, Women's International league for Peace and Freedom, http://www.wilpf.int.ch~wilpf/globalization/paper4.htm

Return to Top