Manifesto Discussion
reactions by Olivier to the suggestions for the manifesto made by Kishen Pattnayak
at the PGA conference in Bangalore
Kishen Pattnayak,
139, Type-2, C R P Camp, Bhubaneshwar, 751 011, India.
September 10,1999
Dear Mr. Pattnayak,
(...)
I wanted to make a few small suggestions and remarks about your proposals, which I find generally speaking excellent. I have put my proposals in block letters with explanation in double parentheses (( )) and a few deletions in brackets []. (Some are just typing errors.)
*MANIFESTO SUGGESTIONS*
[To be placed at the head of the manifesto]
Celebration
PGA celebrates life and the continuation of life on earth. PGA celebratesthe myriad diversities of nature that support life; and it celebrates the traditions which teach us how to live in harmony with nature. PGAcelebrates THE PLURALITY OF CULTURAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL ADAPTATIONS BY WHICH HUMANS HAVE RESPONDED TO THEIR HISTORY ANDTHEIR SURROUNDINGS, JUST AS IT CELEBRATES the pluralities ofskin-colour, language, dress and architecture. PGA celebrates the radicalaspirations of the peoples in all countries for [societies] based onequality. PGA upholds equality as the supreme value.
((I think that your intention goes further than language or dress: torecognise the necessity to conserve all human social diversity that is consonant with equality and justice. The capitalist onslaught must be theoccasion to eliminate injustices (such as with respect to women) in traditional societies, but its "modernity" is no model of equality or culture, and we can hope that we don't all have to be reduced to oneidentical proletarian shape in order to construct socialism! For the samereasons, I propose to put "society" in the plural at the end of thisparagraph. This idea of plural utopias is also central to the Zapatistaideal of "a world that can contain many worlds" and has a great resonancein Europe where activists are extremely receptive to the growing strugglesof all sorts of indigenous peoples. A paradoxical development for thesetimes, this year there were 2000 delegates to the sub-committee on therights of indigenous peoples in Geneva!))
It is from the above point of view that PGA enumerates the main obstacles to human progress, and PGA also lays down the principles of reconstructing human society.
[next section to be placed after the second paragraph or another suiteable place - if necessary it can be split and put in two separate places. ]
More than three hundred years of global capitalism has divided humanity into two economic hemispheres North and South. One is characterised by artificial and unsustainable prosperity, the other is characterised by forcible deprivation and dependence. It is only partially true that there is a north in the south, and a south in the north. But the situations are sodifferent that the marginalised individuals of the north resemble the uppermiddle class of the south. And two different sets of mental attiTuDes havedeveloped in the two parts of the world. Even the good men of the south areimitative and suFFer from an inferiority complex which turns intoxenophobia at the slightest provocation. TheIR counterPartS in the north arepaternalistic in their attitude and advise the south to make use of the same tools for [c]overcoming the present state of deprivation. They take forgranted that the prosperity of the north is permanent and THAT the south can approximate it by followiNG their model.
The members of PGA reject both these attitudes. They realise that the prosperity of the North can be sustained only by continuing and deepening the deprivations of the South. FOR ONE THING, THIS PROSPERITY IMPLIES THE USE OF A TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE WORLD'S RENEWABLE AND NON-RENEWABLE RESSOURCES. IT IS ALSO THE PRODUCT OF A CAPITALIST ECONOMY WHICH CAN ONLY SURVIVE THROUGH UNLIMITED, CANCEROUS GROWTH, AND WHICH WILL NECESSARILY CRUSH THE SOUTH IN ITS RELENTLESS SEARCH FOR NEW MARKETS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVESTMENT. It cannot continue if the peoples of the South become assertive and decide to pursue an autonomous path of development on the basis self-reliance, REJECTING THE ILLUSORY PROMISES OF THE ultra modern, CAPITAL INTENSIVE technologies OF the multi-nationalcompanies WHICH SIMULTANEOUSLY DESTROY EMPLOYMENT AND INDEBT THE SOUTH. This will give rise to an entirely new mode of development and a new definition of prosperity. The new idea of prosperity will be devoid of luxury, consumerism and wastage. At the same time, it will eliminate the cramping effects of subsistence living.
((I want to add these perhaps slightly too technical remarks in order to be very clear and hence unattackable on the economics of the issue. As I understand them: 1) the North industrialised in very great part by looting the South 2) it has now reached an output and level of productivity which makes it (on the strict level of the production of goods) relatively independent of the South. As I understand it, the annual drain on theSouth's riches is huge for the south, but relatively small with respect tothe overall production of the north - even if for the capitalist economy itis an essential plus. Its prosperity is indefensible (apart from itshistorical origin and its essential vanity) above all for the two reasons I propose: it's not sustainable and it partakes of an economic system that will destroy the huge majority of the inhabitants of the south before it ever gets round to (maybe) "developing" some.
I prefer to put the accent on the illusory nature of MNC "development" rather than on the "begging". ))
The bond between North and South will be forged Neither by paternalism, nor by imitation nor because of the existence of a South in the North. The bond arises out of deep dissatisfaction with the state of things in the world as a whole, the hollowness of liFe both in the north and the south. Thepassion for changing [the] human life binds the rebels of the north with the radicals of the south. ((I like this very much! I can vouch that its true in the North.))
[The following can be put after the paragraph on agriculture or any other suitable place.]
Agriculture and Farmers
Around more than half of the people in the developing countries are traditional cultivators, fishermen and the like. Their control over [the]natural resources have been endangered by the processes of green revolution. The WTO regime is clearing the way for evicting millions of small farmers in order to transfer that control to the hands of the multinationals. It is being expedited by promoting modernisation andmechanisation of agriculture in such a way that small farmers will becompelled to leave or sell out their land, but will be unable to findlivelihood in any other way. Particularly in south Asia, a large chunk ofthe rural population is on their way to pauperisation. Those who want toprevent this catastrophe will have to campaign for the following principles.
1. Ownership of agricultural land must belong [to] either to the community, COOPERATIVES or to small peasants who use indigenous and low cost technology. Communal ownership will PROBABLY be viable only in egalitarian communities which are still existing in some places. SUCH DECISIONS MUST BE TAKEN AT LOCAL LEVELS.
2. National farming methods must be given priority so that agriculture [in these countries] is free from the control of multinationals. STEPS MUST BE TAKEN TO ENSURE THAT THESE DO NOT BECOME, THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL INPUTS AND OUTPUTS, THE REAL LANDLORDS, REDUCING THE NOMINAL OWNERS TO THE STATUS OF BONDED LABOR.
3. Countries with favourable conditions must stick to the goals of self-sufficiency in basic food crops, rejecting the WTO pressure for food imports from developed countries. Disparity in the prices of traditional crops and the so-called cash crops and exporta[n]ble crops has [to be checked,because this disparity is discouraging food production in poor countries. 4. The bulk of iRRigration and power generation must take place in adecentralised manner, taking recourse to small dAMs and traditional methodsfor irrigation, and non-conventional small scale techniques for powergeneration.
5. Wherever the villages exist as socio-economic units, these should be preserved and must not be allowed to be engulfed by the craze for urbanisation. The villages should be made prosperous by making small-scale farming profitable and by promoting small scale and village industries which should be the main supplier of basic non-agricultural goods for the local population. Orginary articles of daily consumption like edible oiland soap must not come from big factories located far away. Awareness aboutthe horrors of megacities will motivate all sensibLE persons to desire newforms of human habitation that will resembLe the village rather than the city.
[The following may be put at the end of the paragraph on knowledge and technoloy]
Technology
It will be the task of the PGA to undertake a critical evaluation of the predominant technologies of today in order to judge whether these will beat all useful in the building of a decentralised, egalitarian society.[Atthe first glance, it seems that computers are not production oriented, they are management tools designed to handle transNational busniess.] COMPUTERS,WHICH WERE VERY CLEARLY DEVELOPED IN ORDER TO CENTRALISE MILITARY, SOCIALAND ECONOMIC CONTROL, HAVE SEEMINGLY DEVELOPED A CONTRARY ASPECT SINCETHEIR DIFFUSION HAS (FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACCESS TO THEM) GIVEN THEM NEWCAPACITIES TO ACCESS AND DISTRIBUTE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF INFORMATION. BUTTHE GIFTS OF CAPITAL SHOULD BE EXAMINED WITH PRUDENCE. WHAT KINDS ANDSOURCES OF INFORMATION TEND TO COME WITH THE COMPUTER? WHAT FORMS OFTHOUGHT, SOCIAL ORGANISATION AND EXPRESSION? CAN REVOLUTIONS (AT LEAST INSOME PLACES) REALLY BE ORGANISED USING A DATA-BASE? OR JUST GOOD LOBBYING?HOW DOES THEIR USE TEND TO CUT US OFF FROM THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS? Similarly, the internet might end up destroying the pluralistic approach to compiling and [... one word not legible ...] knowledge.
WHAT DEPENDS FROM THE USE ONE PUTS A TOOL TO (BE IT A ROCK OR A COMPUTER), AND WHAT IS INHERENT TO ITS NATURE? SOME WOULD SAY THAT COMPUTERS AREESSENTIALLY MULTIFORM, WITH NO INHERENT NATURE, BUT IS THIS REALLY TRUE?DEEPER ANALYSIS WILL BE NEEDED TO VERIFY [THE TRUTH OF THESE STATEMENTS] THE PERTINENCE OF THESE QUESTIONS.
In any case, economic and political decentralisation will necessitate new technological inventions, and new directions in theoretical science. A scientific revolution is called for.
Our conviction about the exploitative nature of certain technologies should also make us careful about making use of these technologies unquestioningly in our personal activities.
((My remarks are no doubt too long. Its more the start of a discussion.))
[If the following is controversial, it can be dropped for the time being and not circulated.]
Gender
A statement of prostitution is already there in the manifesto. We can add a sentence to point out that the international labour organisatoin (ILO) has launched a programme of legitimising prosititution and *on the situation of* millions of marginalised women who are facing unemployment and pauperisation.
((I'm not at all competent here, but having only read a little of the horrors concerning tourism in general that the ILO proposes for the South,I'm sure that there is a criticism to be made! The delicate points concern1) how to help women (or men) already in that situation to live (AIDSprevention, freedom from racketeering, etc.), which implies legalisation ornon-prosecution of a phenomenon that has in any case defied all legalregimes through history. Some kind of legalisation can also actually makeit easier for people to leave this profession if they want to (a decisionthat some feminists also think should be an individual one). 2) but at the same time not encourage its propagation at a time when sex-tourism seems tobe exploding.
There should certainly be at a minimum an engagement to counter the economic developments that push people into such a choice. ILO's uncriticalendorsement of multinational, capital intensive, high-tech touristinvestment in the South certainly goes in the wrong direction on thatcount. Their vision of the tourist trade would leave very few jobs thereother than prostitution.))
That's all for now! I would be very happy if this were the start of a long and multi-lateral dialogue.
Thank you!
Olivier
email: red-red2@span.ch
(*slightly altered by web editors)