Peoples' Global Action PGA — Back to PGA discussion page / To PGA home page
Contents:
Compared to the original mailing, this version of the letter and paper has been slightly edited for grammatical and spelling mistakes and, with the approval of the authors, removal of any mention of "membership" in PGA — since according to the organizational principles, there is membership only in the Convenors' Committee (and, more informally, in the support group that helps the Convenors' Committee in its task of keeping the network running on a daily basis).
There has been considerable debate on this letter, whose contents and style have turned out to be controversial. Those interested in knowing more about this debate please write to the authors or to: agpweb (AT) lists.riseup.net. The controversy was about the introductory letter, not so much about the paper that follows it.
Leiden, 8 November 1998
Dear friends,
Since a few months a joined activist tour around Western Europe, ironically called the "Totally Crazy Project" (TCP) [the name of the tour has by now been decided to be ICC99 / Inter-Continental Caravan; the web team], is being prepared within the network of the Peoples' Global Action. This project will probably cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars and will involve participation of thousands of activists from Europe, India and many other countries. In our experiences within the Peoples' Global Action network so far, we have come across some problems. These problems concern the relation between international activism and grassroots activism with respect to communication, decision-making processes and finances. Still in the early stages of this enormous project, we think it's important to have an open discussion about these issues.
First a short introduction into our experiences. In September 1998 we organised a seminar called "Globalisation of Poverty" in Leiden in the Netherlands for which we invited activists from abroad. One of the aims of the seminar was to introduce the Peoples' Global Action in the Dutch extra-parliamentarian Radical-Left movement. So we invited members of the PGA Convenors' Committee, who had a meeting in Helsinki in Finland around that same time. Unfortunately, one of them couldn't come to Leiden, because of problems with her visa. We had promised to cover her travel costs from Helsinki to Leiden, and had paid part of her ticket beforehand through the organisers of the PGA Convenors' Committee meeting. But, although the money for the ticket was returned to the PGA Convenors' Committee by the travel agency, we never got it back. When we asked where the money was, the answer was that the Convenors' Committee meeting had caused some debts, and that our money was used to cover those debts. This had happened without asking or even informing us. Moreover, we were instantly asked for more money to cover the rest of the debt. In less than one year we have had several of this type of experiences within the PGA network. This is surely not the way of working together that we had in mind, when entering the network. Raising money for political work is something which is often neglected. To get some money, even from foundations, takes a lot of consideration, time and energy. Let's face it, travelling abroad costs lots and lots of money, and most political groups are already short of money to finance their own grassroots work. Travelling abroad should not abuse the resources of grassroots groups.
One of the PGA principles, that we found very inspiring about the network, was the high appreciation of grassroots activism and direct democracy. The explicit choice for an organisational philosophy based on decentralisation and autonomy should prevent the PGA from creating just another disempowering hierarchy. Yet, at least in Europe, there appears to be a growing group of activists who spend most of their time travelling around to organise and attend international activist meetings. It seems to us that they are not anymore rooted in political groups working on the grassroots level. Travelling and attending lots of international meetings is only possible for a very limited group of people, and it is therefore incompatible with the call for direct democracy, which was one of the founding principles of the PGA. When discussions on international cooperation within the network are mainly held in this kind of settings, the efforts to create a democratic structure for the PGA have surely failed. We think it is very important for grassroots groups to be able to discuss the principles and the aims of our politics in an international forum of activists. To achieve this, alternative ways will have to be developed to organise our politics, to exchange and to communicate our opinions and ideas, to discuss and to coordinate our activities. In our opinion three conditions would have to be met to overcome the problems which the PGA network is facing today. First of all, we need to create communication structures for discussions independent of international meetings, for instance through e-mail and postal mail. Secondly, we need to make sure that decision-making processes are clear and accessible for all participants. And thirdly, we need to make sure that all activists attending international meetings are sent by grassroots organisations, and mandated and recallable by those same organisations.
During the founding conference of the PGA in February 1997 in Geneva in Switzerland, a manifesto was written by the activists attending the conference. Next year in 1999, there will be a second PGA conference in Bangalore in India. Surely there will be further discussion on this manifesto. But again, only a few hundred people will be able to attend this conference to take part in the discussion. In the meantime, serious efforts should be made to democratise the discussion and to create the possibility for groups from all over the world to take part in it. All this can and will not happen by itself. Most groups do not have all the contacts. Therefore this discussion will have to be facilitated by organising the translation and distribution of the contributions from around the world. We had expected that the initiative to do this would be taken by the Convenors' Committee of the PGA. It is clear that for the next eight months lots of time, energy and resources will be spend on the Totally Crazy Project. Still, we hope that developing democratic communication structures and decision-making processes for the PGA network will be taken on very soon. Because we think that giving higher priority to a megalomaniac project like the TCP would mean seriously neglecting the founding principles of the Peoples' Global Action.
Together with this letter we send you a discussion paper we wrote about the manifesto, and we hope to receive similar articles from other participating groups around the world. We hope that the discussion on the manifesto can be started after all.
Merijn Schoenmaker and Eric Krebbers,
"De Fabel van de illegaal" from Leiden in the Netherlands (e-mail:lokabaal@dsl.nl)
by: "De Fabel van de illegaal"
(This article was written to start a discussion in the Netherlands on internationalism and the PGA manifesto. Readers are advised to first go through the PGA manifesto. Non-Dutch readers might want skip the part 2 of this article, which consists of an analysis of the crisis of the Dutch Radical-Left. Part 3 is a discussion of the PGA manifesto.)
'If you come only to help me, you can go back home. But if you consider my struggle as part of your struggle for survival, then maybe we can work together'. The Peoples' Global Action manifesto starts with this quotation by an Aboriginal woman. The 'Fabel van de Illegaal' (The Fable of the Illegal), an organisation based in Leiden, The Netherlands, apprehends this quotation as an explicit invitation to mutual international solidarity. We are one of the founding organisations of 'MAI niet gezien!' ('MAI, didn't see it / MAI, not for me', the Anti-MAI campaign) and the Grassroots Network (GN) in the Netherlands, both of which elaborate on the starting points of the PGA. The 'Fabel' has translated the PGA manifesto into Dutch, in order to use it as a basis for a discussion, within the extra-parliamentary Left, on the perspectives of our common struggle. With this article we wish to start that discussion, and we invite everyone with affinity towards this, to join in. We hope a constructive and fertile discussion will develop.
We believe the PGA manifesto is a sharp, clear and consistent analysis of the international developments involving 'free trade'. The authors, the participants in the PGA conference, do not spare authorities and do not attempt to palliate or deny the disastrous consequences of neo-liberalism. Capitalism is rightly recognised as a deliberate and wanted organisation of the economy and society by certain groups of people, and not as a historically inevitable development or even a natural phenomenon. With this, the PGA clearly presents itself as different from the prevailing conservative and liberal, and remaining social-democratic ideologies. Very consciously, PGA steps into the ranks of the Radical Left, the Anti-Imperialists and other Revolutionaries.
We feel a profound affinity with the organisations taking part in the PGA process. Their struggle is our struggle. The origin of the 'Fabel van de illegaal' lies in the anti-imperialist ideology. International solidarity is our priority. We strive for a socialist and feminist society and we consider a fundamental overturning of the social and material relations a necessity to achieve this. For a long time a majority of the Dutch solidarity movement had set its hopes on revolutions in the 'peripheral' countries. General opinion was that it all had to start there, because in 'the West' it was thought that not much was possible anymore. Now, years later, the long reach of imperialism and the economic stranglehold of globalisation have proven too strong. True fundamental changes can no longer occur in isolation in one area or one country. Certain radical tendencies within the 'Western' solidarity movement had always stressed that a major part of the misery in the impoverished countries is being organised and caused by the elite here in the enriched countries. Therefore if we truly wish to show solidarity with the people in the impoverished countries, the Radical-Left movements in the enriched countries had to take on their struggle at home.
Building on that analysis, the 'Fabel' chose to fight against illegalisation of migrants and refugees in the Netherlands. In Dutch alien policy, the contrast between the countries which have become rich and the impoverished countries manifests itself very clearly. People who are made illegal are exposed to exploitation by businesses and are literally smoked out of the country. They are subjected to raids by the police, to detention and deportation organised by the state. We fight for open borders and human rights and a right to stay for everyone. We are therefore opponents on principle grounds against the state selection of refugees and migrants from the impoverished countries. To that end, the Fable organises campaigns and rallies, publishes an anti-racist paper and is trying to set up a national cooperation structure. We also fight for the collective provisions, such as healthcare, to be open to illegal people and we organise personal support for refugees and migrants who are made illegal. By cooperating with refugee and migrants self-organisations, we want to make our international solidarity tangible.
Nevertheless, the Fabel has always had difficulties connecting this struggle with and for refugees and migrants with other left political struggles. The Aboriginal woman accurately puts her finger on the sore spot; how can the struggle for our own 'survival', for example for our social benefits, our environment and more democracy , coincide with the solidarity with refugees? With our participation in the Anti-MAI campaign and a discussion on the PGA manifesto, we also want to fight against the walls between the different struggle areas and action committees. We are looking for increased mutual discussion and cooperation in order to create a stronger Radical-Left movement.
The lack of such a Radical-Left movement is connected to the global 'crisis of the Left', which has prevailed since the late eighties. In previous years the Radical Left movement in the Netherlands was much larger and much more enclosed into the then thriving social movements. Ever since, the Radical Left movement has collapsed rapidly and ended up in a marginal position. Fewer people participated in demonstrations and rallies, many groups fell apart and papers and magazines were no longer published. The ideas and ideals were watered down, and being 'Left' was no longer a thing to be. Ever since the establishment of the 'Fabel' in 1990 this has been the political climate with which we were faced in the Netherlands.
The crisis of the Left is also caused by the increasingly deteriorating global and political reality, as also described in the PGA manifesto. In the Netherlands, social security is being demolished, the countryside converted into a gigantic traffic lane, our food genetically manipulated, Apartheid introduced via the 'Koppelingswet' (a brand new law which allows data from different state sources to be coupled, in order to exclude illegalised people), and protest is made into a criminal offense. Virtually nowhere in the world, the Left still has a grip on developments, and certainly not here. A lack of vision is certainly one of the reasons. We do not seem to be able to actualise our ideas and ideals through mutual discussions. Strictly speaking, the Radical Left only responds to the hundredth worsening and then mainly with volatile actions and powerless campaigns.
In the meantime a political smear campaign is being propagated by the leader of the Right-wing party VVD against all and everyone that is or has been Left. Left-wing ideas are being labelled as 'politically correct' (meaning they are coming from dogmatic political ideologies and are not to be taken seriously), 'unrealistic' or even 'criminal'. Right-wing opinion leaders claim that history has reached its end. Former social democrats argue for a 'no-nonsense' policy and want us all to start thinking in the terms of 'the market'. Those who still dare to utter fundamental criticism are either laughed at or ignored. More and more people cannot even imagine such ideas any more. The Radical Left is almost completely absent in the political arena, and therefore lacks any appeal.
Our powerlessness as Radical Left also has to do with our lack of unity. We all come from different Radical-Left movements. We also differ in our choice of struggles: from anti-racism to the struggle for a basic income for everyone, from ecology to feminism. And on top of that we also all specialise in a diversity of political activities: for example the one specialises in lobbying, others in direct action or research. All of us work on our own actions and discussions. We all invest energy in building on our supporters network or subscribers. And every group makes their own choices. Fortunately there are many people who are active in more than one group; that provides at least some contact. The powerlessness of these small groups increases the chance of them trying to focus on 'realistic' and 'attainable' goals. The basics of the Radical Left are then easily lost.
The crisis of the Left is no longer even mentioned in our magazines or discussions. Many seem to have accepted our marginalised position. The remainder of the groups persist in their activities, but have severely adjusted their goals. We still think that things have to change fundamentally, but many people seemed to have lost the belief that this is really possible. Still there have been some attempts in the nineties to break out of this crisis.
Early in 1991 Radical Left circles launched the magazine 'Konfrontatie' ('Confrontation'). Most of the activists involved still had the experience of a relatively strong and large Radical Left movement. Many things had seemed possible back then, but their high expectations had been shattered. The realisation that the Left was experiencing a crisis was still fresh and was felt sincerely. Many people felt defeated and lost. In this situation, Konfrontatie tried to organise a discussion on the 'analysis of the struggles in society and how those connect and relate, on ways of organising, on alliances, on the formation of power, on strategies and on the different ways of struggle'. The editorial board saw that the struggles of the remainder of groups 'limited themselves to parts of the problems, and were more aimed at the effects caused by the system than at the forces behind it. The idea of mutual solidarity, of fighting together, had been pushed away'. The editorial board of Konfrontatie considered the magazine 'an agent, not a goal' to 'open up the stalled relations'. 'For us this is not a discussion without commitments, we will have to develop an active consciousness, and political and organisational consequences will have to be drawn from these discussions', was written in the pilot issue.
Starting from the same basis, a year previously we started with our local political information centre 'De Invalshoek' (meaning both 'The Political Point of View' and 'The Political Open House'), and the magazine 'De Peueraar'. Through our reading group we participated in the Konfrontatie project. 'We think that the crisis of the Left cannot solely be blamed on the lack of an unequivocal, all-embracing analysis of the structure of the world, but should also be blamed on the lack of exchange between practice and analysis. Up to this moment, Konfrontatie had not lived up to that', we wrote in the summer of 1992. We think that this, besides the rapidly changing political climate, is one of the reasons for the failure of Konfrontatie. When Konfrontatie was dissolved in 1995, the editors wondered if 'the aims had been set too high from the start, but had that made them unreal?' We don't think that is the case.
By the middle of 1994 the 'Derde Kamer' project ('Third Chamber' was a people's platform next to and against the two parliamentary chambers of the Dutch state) again tried to stop the deepening crisis from the Left. The Derde Kamer wanted to be a 'renewing' and broad 'grassroots movement' which would 'unite people who really wanted to work on social problems'. Priority was the 'coordination of leftwing activists within one movement, and the development of an alternative democratic system within the Derde Kamer. Second came the elaboration of a political program.' In Leiden we took the initiative for the establishment of a local Derde Kamer. Political vagueness in combination with a lack of support killed the initiative prematurely. On a national level it has also not appeared to be possible to create a 'rejuvenated Left' through the Derde Kamer.
Leading up to the Eurotop in Amsterdam in the spring of 1997, practical cooperation between groups suddenly appeared possible. This was something that had seemed unthinkable for a long time. During the Euromarches towards Amsterdam, in which we participated locally, and also in the 'Top van Onderop' (Grass-roots Summit), and the demonstrations, rallies and campaigns on the streets, many groups found each other. After the Eurotop the connections disappeared, only informal contacts remained. Almost one year later, many groups participate in the campaign against the MAI. Unfortunately there is, apart from a small group, no real solid cooperation and discussion. Many activists come and go. With our local organisation the 'Fabel' have decided to start working more on a national level and we intend to continue the Anti-MAI campaign and build the Grassroots Network (GN).
We find the Anti-MAI campaign and the possible GN very important. Both of these offer new opportunities to conquer the crisis and we wish to grasp those opportunities with both hands. There are new people, there is new energy. We will not sit and wait until the political tide changes by itself. We will have to regain our leftwing self-confidence and must create chances to enforce changes. With the Anti-MAI campaign a large group of people assembled within a short period of time. Apparently this combination of fundamental criticism, a campaign on a specific target and a real chance for success, made this possible.
At the moment, the MAI-treaty is the most encompassing project in the globalisation framework. We therefore wish to strengthen the campaign against the MAI on a national, regional and local level. But also the IMF, the WTO and multinationals pose a serious worldwide threat. The basis for their power is rooted here, in the enriched countries. The PGA therefore emitted a strong appeal to us, as citizens of the enriched countries, to fight with a 'confrontational approach' and direct action. We want to respond to their appeal by means of this campaign. We also want to give publicity to this appeal and to the struggle of the PGA movements in the impoverished countries.
To us, it seems a good idea to link the campaign to other running campaigns and activities. In this context, we are thinking about
There must be possibilities within these campaigns for further cooperation on a broad basis. These campaigns connect many struggles such as ecology, international solidarity, women's rights, work and income, anti-racism and anti-fascism and 'critical' consumption. It would be good to investigate how different campaigns could complement the other and reenforce others in order to strive for fundamental changes. We have had some good experiences with the Anti-MAI campaign. A strong cooperation with ecology organisations was achieved effortlessly. Before this had never seemed possible. But now we discovered a mutual goal: to fight against economic globalisation which produces both refugees and environmental destruction.
Besides the Anti-MAI campaign we think it is very important that there is a continued effort to work for a GN, a supportive infrastructure which ensures more cooperation and continuity within the Radical Left movement. We want to emphasise that the goal is not to organise a campaign on one topic, but to bring together different groups and individuals who share a number of views. The initiators have set up the following goals:
The idea is that the participants will use the network as a basis for discussion and will reach a mutual analysis. The PGA manifesto could be used as a starting point of this discussion. The idea of a network was based on the PGA. As far as we are concerned, we would like to become, in time, a Dutch component of that same PGA. We would like to continue this article with a first initiative for that discussion. We hope the participants of the network will also start connecting their actions and campaigns as regards content, start discussing their strategies and experience actions together. In that sense this initiative differs from previous attempts such as Konfrontatie and the 'Derde Kamer'. We believe a new Left vision should emanate from a strong interaction between theory and practice. Rejuvenation of the Left vision should go hand in hand with the construction of a new action culture. We also have to develop new strategies and break through the strict and disempowering division between action and lobby. Different action methods can fill out and enforce the other in order to construct a political opposition. This way it will appeal to many people to participate and we can break through the stigma of the rebellious and 'violent' activists. We had positive experiences in this area with the Anti-MAI campaigns. We have, for example, honoured the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs with an occupation, with public rallies and an open letter.
Might the initiative for the BN be successful, it will be a long process. All groups and movements have their background, visions and experiences. They all have their own methods and political culture, their own specialties and qualities, but also their own pet subjects and blinds spots. But participating in a world-wide process of coordinating struggles could give the network the confidence that problems can be overcome. And this was definitely lacking in previous attempts to fight the crisis.
<<< PART 3 >>>
The writers of the manifesto have made a successful attempt to analyse racism, sexism, homophobia and nationalism in connection with capitalism. But also ecological destruction, culture and education are set in a broader view. It is remarkable that ecological destruction is one of the recurring subjects in the manifesto. This is important progress compared to the more traditional anti-capitalist analyses. Likewise, the specific consequences of the 'Free Trade' for women is mentioned, in a separate paragraph. We tentatively agree with the contents of that paragraph, but unfortunately there is no real anti-patriarchal analysis. This would not limit itself to a single paragraph, but should be the basis of the complete view on globalisation.
We believe that patriarchy is a form of society which is based on the power of men over women. This power and violence relation coincides with an ideology in which the so-called 'male/spiritual' is placed above the 'female/natural'. Therefore, anything and anyone connected to the 'female/natural' sphere ends up on the bottom end of the social scale and will be subject to exploitation, repression and destruction: women, non-white people, the poor, children, those with physical and or mental disabilities, animals and nature itself. These groups will easily be transformed to natural 'objects', on which all kinds of interventions will be justified. All patriarchal societies are drenched in this kind of contrast thinking, be it in historically different forms.
Although patriarchy primarily refers to the relationships between men and women, it is not limited to that. One can analyse all areas of society from an anti-patriarchal point of view. A combined anti-capitalist and anti-patriarchal analysis offers a wider range of concepts and frameworks to understand the processes of power involved with the 'Free Trade', than a pure anti-capitalist vision. More so because not all political and economical decisions are based on pure capitalist considerations. Even patriarchal power processes and simple machismo could play a part. In contrast with the anti-capitalist analysis, the general anti-patriarchal analysis is much less elaborated upon. A true combined analysis is rare. We think that the development of such an analysis is an absolute necessity in order to create a political perspective and to give the Left new inspiration. Such a new point of view will thus lead to new strategies, action forms and organisational structures.
As an example we wish to elaborate on two very distinct subjects that remain undiscussed in the mainly anti-capitalist analysis such as that of the PGA: population politics and animal liberation. We do not aim to give an elaborate analysis at this point, but we wish to show where an anti-patriarchal extension of the PGA analysis could lead.
First, we would like to mention a few issues on population politics. A more combined anti-patriarchal and anti-capitalist vision could visualise for us what keeps capitalism afloat: subsistence economics. This takes place outside the reach of capital, in the reproduction area and on a local level. This informal economic system constitutes an unpaid safety net for those workers who do not earn enough to survive. They are dependent on what their own small fields produce for them. The food preparation and the care for children and elders are part of this 'shadow' or informal economy. The PGA text rightly mentions that this is in particular the work of women. Without all this mostly female 'shadow' work, underpaid and unemployed workers would not be able to survive and would therefore not be exploitable. Thus, without this subsistence economy capitalism cannot exist. In the official economic statistics this does not play a significant role, and the Leftist economists often tend not to deviate from this in their theory development.
Yet, the state intervenes substantially in this subsistence sphere and in the lives of the women concerned. This happens, among other things, through the population programs which always coincide with 'Structural Adjustment Programs' (SAPs), which are conducted in the impoverished countries under supervision of the IMF and the World Bank. In these population programs a majority of those who survive in the subsistence economy are declared to be 'over-population'. They are not deemed necessary for the capitalist economy. The makers of the policy will then try to reduce the 'over-population' by, for instance, the forced sterilisation of women. The fact that within these population programs the primary targets are women's bodies, cannot be understood from a pure anti-capitalist analysis. Sterilisation operations take a lot less time and are much cheaper when performed on men. However, whenever a 'natural' thing such as reproduction is the issue, male policy makers can only think of women. Moreover, these men were raised to believe women are only objects anyway. Although more than one hundred million women in the impoverished countries have been sterilised the last 20 years, many of them either forced or under false claims, the issue of population policy is not mentioned in the manifesto.
One can also use an anti-patriarchal analysis to look at a completely other area: the treatment of animals. The collective authors of the PGA manifesto incidentally claim that animals are 'not a commodity, but our livelihoods' and 'natural resources'. We on the other hand think that animals are not things, but living creatures that can suffer and which have their own self worth. The animal liberation movement has given thorough impulses towards a combined anti-capitalist/anti-patriarchal analysis of the relation between man/woman and animal. Many members of the 'Fabel' support animal liberation and are vegan. Within the Radical Left movements of a number of enriched countries the view on man/woman and animal relations has changed significantly. In many countries, however, today animal liberators and vegans are still considered crazy. We don't think it is a good idea to try to convert the rest of the world to veganism. In many impoverished countries many people are completely dependent on the sales and consumption of animal products. Animal liberation is unimaginable in that context. But most likely the factory farming in the enriched countries is just as unimaginable. Unimaginably cruel that is. We believe a disapproval of factory farming in the international PGA manifesto would be appropriate, even if just to exemplify the destructiveness and inhumane behaviour an almost unlimited combination of patriarchy and capitalism is capable of. Within the Netherlands we would like to extend this and plead for complete animal liberation.
According to neo-liberal ideology, the 'Free Market' and economic globalisation are inevitable. The current developments are treated like natural laws, and are even said to be something democratic: everyone could be subject to it equally. In reality these 'laws' or 'rules' of the capitalist game are valid only for the small players and for workers and consumers. Big players such as the multinationals are able to manipulate and even exceed these 'laws' by coups and international regulating institutions. Secret cartel agreements are made or government investments in new technologies are arranged. Also, unwanted developments in the market will be changed by military violence. Sometimes, markets in impoverished countries will be literally conquered after which the enriched countries divide their 'market shares' and 'spheres of influence'. Likewise, successful industrial branches in the impoverished countries will be destroyed by military force if these are becoming too influential on the market and are starting to pose a threat to Western dominance. For example, two centuries ago Great Britain completely destroyed the Indian textile industry with military violence when this industry threatened to push the British out of the market. Besides this, many action and campaigns from unions or consumer organisations are met with violence. And then there is always the 'normal' everyday violence and the threat thereof, with which everyone who does not adhere to the rules of the capitalist society is confronted.
The writers of the PGA manifesto do not pay much attention to violence 'beyond capitalist laws'. Their analysis seems to be limited to economical power relations. This is a remarkable choice because it is known that many of the organisations participating in the PGA process are directly affected by repression on a level unthinkable for us. Murder by death quads are no exceptions. In many impoverished countries there is not even, as we have here, an illusion of a civil capitalist society, in which social problems can be solved in an open and democratic debate. Do the organization linked up through PGA hope to escape further escalation of violence by burying their head in the sand?
We suspect that the PGA deliberately chooses the somewhat naive and reserved analysis in order to credibly push forward their concept of direct action. By putting open, massive action and civil disobedience at stake, one bases oneself on a minimal amount of trust in the opponent who does not immediately resort to serious or lethal violence. With such actions one counts on 'fair play' and some morals in the opponent, or, wiser, on the opponents' considerations that a direct, hard intervention would be tactically unwise. With the concept of direct action, the PGA seems to try to avoid the militaristic logic in which several left-wing militant movements have fallen into: the mutual strikes in which the political struggle increasingly seems to fall to the background, especially in the experience of the remainder of the population. It is easier for 'ordinary' people to participate in direct action, theoretically even without having to fear for their life. Direct action could thus offer the possibility for building a larger, legal Radical Left movement and action culture.
It is interesting that the organisations involved in the PGA process nevertheless write that they do not dissociate from 'other forms of action under certain circumstances'. We are not surprised. The Mexican Zapatistas, one of the organisations represented in the first PGA Convenors' Committee, for instance aim at the political debate and action within the realm of civil society on the one hand, and on the other hand at military self-organisation deriving from a principal and justified distrust of the authorities. At the same time, they know that a military confrontation can never be won and therefore they have placed their hopes on the unsteady balance between these two strategies.
What does this mean for political relations in the Netherlands? Not much, because illegal militant actions are virtually absent here. Nevertheless, the 'Fabel' on principle grounds will not distance itself from these actions on the basis of their 'illegality'. And as far as we are concerned, we think that a PGA-like network should never do that either. Not even when such an action would be deemed tactically unwise at a certain moment. After all, militant and illegal actions principally go hand in hand with politics that strives for fundamental changes: revolutions are illegal by definition. This is not to say we wish to place illegal militant actions on a pedestal. We think the day-to-day legal political activities are indispensable for a Radical Left movement. And the 'radicalness' of an action can of course primarily be found in its goals, not its means.
The manifesto uses the concept of 'people' mostly without a direct reference to its 'basis'. We don't know whether the PGA is using the concept of 'people' as a kind of class distinction, or in a more nationalistic sense of the word.
We do not think much of an analysis in terms of 'peoples'. With using the term 'peoples' one assumes almost always there is some kind of eternal natural unity, as if a 'people' is a matter of course. The creation of 'peoples' however is always the result of a social or political struggle. If the concept of 'people' is used by a liberation movement against colonial dominance, we can imagine that to be in a somewhat Leftwing ideology. In the enriched countries we can not give any positive value to this kind of thinking. 'The Dutch People' is a racist concept that is being used in the exclusion and repression of people from the impoverished countries. It cannot be reconciled with international solidarity.
Also, how can we feel solidarity with 'a people' with all its internal contradictions and differences? In the creation of 'a people' a great deal of violence is usually used. Often it takes many generations before everyone identifies with the cultural oneness. Thinking in terms of 'peoples' is usually promoted by the elite. Therefore, the term is conservative by definition because it forces the class struggle and battle of the sexes to the background. These would not be beneficial to the unity of the people. The 'Fabel' therefore does not want to be in solidarity with 'peoples', but with Radical Left organisations and grassroots movements all over the world.
Within the Dutch context we primarily aim our struggle for cooperation at the unfortunately small, horizontal organisations which are still active. We are primarily concerned with political movements, such as the 'Fabel' itself, which have their roots in the more radical part of the social movements of the seventies and eighties, and which distinguish themselves by their autonomy, their readiness for action and their high degree of collectivity. Although their struggle is mostly limited to one specific area, all these organisations do carry a general Radical Left worldview.
This in contrast to the organisations which we will call 'non-governmental organisations' (NGOs) for convenience now, although grassroots organisations are of course also non-governmental. NGOs are most often charities or lobby groups which aim at large numbers of loyal, financially strong donors. Seldom are these organised at the grassroots level, and they do not represent any grassroots movements, even though some claim to. It is more likely that NGOs belong to the political middle class. Precisely their seemingly independent status enables them at times to play a key role in the implementation of government policies. NGOs such as Vluchtelingenwerk (Refugee Work) in the Netherlands, often even act as an extension of the government. Nowadays, some large NGOs do not even hesitate to arrange lucrative advertising deals with multinationals. Although NGOs at times severely criticise a particular policy or company, they seldom work from a true leftwing vision. They therefore do not like to use words such as political struggle and international solidarity. Many NGOs have now begun to think in terms of markets and have therefore adjusted their message. It is thus that more and more large NGOs start to resemble commercial businesses.
In previous statements the PGA explicitly distanced itself from the NGOs and their lobby methods. We could identify with that. Lobbying in back rooms is very undemocratic politics, which leaves the 'grassroots' powerless. Unfortunately this issue is no longer addressed in the manifesto. Maybe they wish not to burden any possible future deliberations. Most likely the organisations involved in PGA know that NGOs have other interests, and might turn against them at some point in time. Here in the enriched countries it is much more difficult for the majority of people to distinguish such political differences. Therefore we think that it is important to distinguish between NGOs and grassroots organisations. We have a strongly marked criticism on all vertical organisations; the state, businesses and NGOs.
This however does not mean we reject all activities of the NGOs. We should in fact keep working with them. That is a necessity as far as we are concerned. Working with them is a crucial part of the construction of our own Radical Left structures. We wish to use the dialectical tension between these two aims to become stronger. On the one hand, the construction of our own structures would not have any significance if we cannot get them to move with us sometimes. Post-war history teaches us that the Radical Left in the enriched countries never have successfully pursued their own ideas without aid of the “progressive” parts of society's midfield. And for a long time to come the power to do so will be lacking, we guess. Without that midfield we are yet still too isolated. On the other hand, the coming together with them sometimes is pointless if we do not posses the political power to make a fist within the coalitions. Armed with clear grassroots starting points it has to be possible to coordinate temporary activities in selected campaigns with certain NGOs without the fear of being enclosed or losing our identity. We have to keep alert to aim all our activities towards fundamental changes, however small, and not towards consolidating the system. We have to remain uncompromising.
August 1998
Translation: P. Krebbers
Peoples' Global Action PGA — Back to PGA discussion page / To PGA home page
PGA discussion / Contribution by "De Fabel van de illegaal", Leiden http://www.agp.org/agp/en/forum/pga/pga-disc-Fabel.html Last modified: 98-12-09 / comments to: agpweb (AT) lists.riseup.net