By Julio C. Gambina
The last quarter of the 20th century was characterized by a major offensive by capital that resulted in regressive variations in capitalist social relations (1), within the framework of a period climate that had generalized the absence of global alternatives in the popular imagination.
However, in recent times there has been a change in the social climate, particularly since the battle of Seattle in November 1999. Since then there have been important popular demonstrations that reject the existing order and that incorporate proposals, such as the meeting Porto Alegre in January 2001. Thus, one can think of the beginning of a process of constitution of a global alternative project. The point to be emphasized is not so much about the supported program, but about the possibility of carrying it out. Of subjects that make it viable. The statement is linked to the existence of programmatic proposals that, being old since their initial formulation, did not have the social and political force to make them a reality. The new is given by subjects who act in the conflictive scenario of street resistance and raising an expanded arc of demands, quite far from homogeneity and, however, coinciding in pointing out the common obstacle that affects workers, environmentalists, representatives of the rights of women, youth, sexual minorities and other actors. In some cases the claim is exhausted in reform proposals and in others it assumes an anti-capitalist character.
Capitalist restructuring had its epicenter in financial valuation, as capital's response to the capitalist crisis expressed in the deterioration of the profit rate, especially between the last years of the 1960s and the early 1970s. that same period the existence of the rise of resistance of workers and peoples on a global scale. The result of this exercise of the power of the people could be measured by the installation in society as a whole of a global agenda favorable to the demands for improvements in the quality of life of the majority of the population.
The daily journalistic chronicle, in the wake of the new century, returns a reality of the opposite sign. Global unemployment and underemployment involves one third of the economically active population worldwide. According to ILO data, there are an estimated one billion unemployed on the planet. The same source denounces that half of the population lives on less than two dollars a day. These are alarming figures and they contrast with the data provided for 1997 by the UNDP, which assigns 225 individual fortunes the same capacity for appropriation of wealth as 47 percent of the world's population, that is, 2.5 billion people.
At the end of the 1960s the fall in the rate of profit of the most concentrated capitals in the world order became evident. The Chilean economist Orlando Caputo (2) highlights the phenomenon in the United States: “In the nineties the North American economy continued with a growth of the mass and of the profit rate, inaugurating a period in which capitalist accumulation occurs under conditions of a relatively high rate of profit. Situation that is very different from that of the 1970s and much of the 1980s in which the North American economy operated with a relatively low rate of profit ”. The situation in other developed capitalist countries will not be different and both in Europe and in Japan, important transformations are underway in the last two decades to try to reestablish an expansive cycle of the profit rate. It is a process that is beyond the current North American crisis.
Crisis and changes
One of the responses of highly concentrated capitals to the profitability crisis in the 60s / 70s was the refuge in monetary forms of accumulation, fueling a cycle of speculative businesses never seen before, due to its extension and speed of circulation. It is that the phenomenon would be accompanied by a rapid transformation operated in the field of science and technology and its applications by the capital market institutions. The sum of both issues (capital market and technological development) resulted in the final stretch of the last century in important changes in the forms of economic organization of society. They are variations that are processed in capitalism, keeping the exploitation of the labor force intact and incorporating new forms of its manifestation. The regressive impact on the whole of society becomes visible as unemployment, poverty and exclusion of millions of people. At the same time, the large profits of transnational corporations, together with the mergers and takeovers of capital that concentrate and centralize property, define the other side of the beneficiaries of the order that emerged from the crisis of the 60s / 70s.
In those years, the American economist James Tobin (3) proposed to hinder the new phenomenon by placing "a grain of sand in the gear" of the new accumulation regime that was emerging. The proposal is known as Tax Tobin and it tried to establish a tax on foreign currency purchase and sale operations, to be administered by international financial organizations and that could intervene in a market that was beginning a volatility path and that currently assumes unusual characteristics . Indeed, it is estimated that a figure close to 2 trillion dollars per day circulates around the world (4). They are resources that include external indebtedness, money laundering, arms sales, human and drug trafficking, corruption and multiple forms that financial speculation takes. In the 1980s and later, the economic policies that were imposed on a global scale were called “neoliberals”, although they were neither new nor liberal. The old liberal ideology served as an ideological argument to reduce salaries and public spending, as a way of rebuilding the profitability of capital and they had the full weight of the State for their implementation, even applying repressive strategies, supported by ideological initiatives to manipulate the government. consensus through, among others, the mass media.
They were policies implemented in Chile from 1973 and in Argentina from 1976 onwards, during the respective dictatorial processes, they fulfilled the role of "dress rehearsal" that allowed them to be applied later in Great Britain and the United States with Thatcher and Reagan in 1979/1980. and later generalized in much of the world (5). Tobin's proposal to curb the development of financial speculation had failed. The expansion of capital markets became a reality. External indebtedness was one of the privileged mechanisms for this purpose in the 1970s and later supplemented with pension funds.
According to data from the Third World Debt Cancellation Committee (6), the North American debt exceeds 5 trillion and a similar amount accuses the debt of Europe and Japan, with that of the rest of the countries being close to 2.5 trillion. The sum of 17.5 trillion accounts for the phenomenon of debt expansion in all countries and, at the same time, relativizes the importance of the debt burden of the “emerging” countries (euphemism to hide the dependent character) and weakens the grandiloquent arguments about the global consequences that the "default" (cessation of payments) of some or all of the dependent capitalist countries, for example, Argentina, Brazil or Mexico would bring. A study by Sevares (7) indicates that, “according to IMF estimates, between 300,000 and 500,000 million dirty money enters the international capital market each year. The United Nations estimates, in turn, that each year 600,000 million are laundered, a sum equivalent to 2 percent of the world GDP, twice the Argentine GDP, once the Spanish and almost a year of US exports. The Sevares report goes on to point out that “the annual profits from drug trafficking are estimated at 300 to 500 billion dollars, that is, 8 to 10 percent of world trade; the "turnover" of computer piracy, 200,000 million; counterfeits 100,000 million ”.
Since the formulation of the Tobin initiative, more than obstacles, the economic policy that became hegemonic in almost all the countries of the world has favored “neoliberal globalization”. In this way, the use of terms such as "opening", "deregulation", "privatizations" became general. The common denominator was the regressive structural reforms, with an epicenter in the encouragement of "private initiative and markets" and the development of new functions of the nation states. The ruling social democracy in the 80s in Europe ended up applying “neoliberal” policies, which became general in Eastern Europe in the 90s with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the USSR. In the 1990s, Latin America would promote “neoliberal” experiments inspired by the Washington Consensus (8). With the Asian crisis, these policies landed in the area of influence of the yen (9). The reformist aims of the North American economist had failed and “casino capitalism” (10) had ended up imposing itself in the passage from the 20th to the 21st century.
Variations in capitalist relations of production
Along with the growth of capitalist and exchange relations, there is an informal wage process in all the countries. This brings with it a trend towards the de-unionization of the workforce and defines new social, economic and political problems that need to be addressed. These are changes in the forms that work assumes today, which extends in flexibility and affects the ways of living of the majority of the population. Currently part-time and informal work is the norm and permanent and registered employment is a minority. The impact is regressive on the wage bill and acts on the recomposition of the profit rate.
These are changes that affect the working class and that have hampered processes of recomposition in their ability to successfully face resistance to the new framework of existing capitalist social relations. We aim for local and global reflection, that is, for responses from workers in their places of employment or economic activity and at the regional and global level. In other words, a strategy of those who continue to be the majority of the population, even though a part is in a growing situation of unemployment, exclusion or marginalization. These are all forms that capitalist exploitation assumes at the beginning of the third millennium.
The current capitalist regime cannot be thought without considering the changes that have occurred in the capitalist state. Transformation processes have taken place in all countries under the common denominator of state reforms. The phenomenon of privatizations, deregulations and administrative reforms stands out among all. Together they are a battery of actions that, with nuances in each country, aim at strengthening private initiative. The language focuses on the efficiency of private activity above that of the state, on the benefits of the free market against state regulations and on a greater efficiency of state agents based on the new demands of the social block in power.
Everything is, in short, a strategy to improve the businesses of the most concentrated capitals on a global scale. Thus, transnational capital negotiates with the nation states the establishment of their investments based on the advantages offered. This reduces the role of each nation-state to a simple competitor for the receipt of capital eager for profit. The difference has to do with the different degrees of sovereignty with which national governments exercise their functions. This determines a group of countries with a greater degree of autonomy and exercise of their imperial power: the US, United Europe and Japan. Of course, with disputes for world hegemony among them, but contained in the unstable agreement implied by the Group of 8 (G8) that brings together the main capitalist countries, the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain. and Japan, plus recently joined Russia; and the different forums and areas for discussion and policy making on the international scene, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and others.
What has been said defines a triad of exercise of world power: transnational companies, the governments of the most developed capitalist countries and international organizations. Of course, this power is not possible without the mediation of the most concentrated capitals acting at the local and regional level, the governments of the nation-states that dispute the attraction of these international capitals and a set of organizations and individuals that act in lubrication. of a systemic set that favors the modus operandi of the capitalist reality. A symbolic place of importance in that sense is defined every year at the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland.
That is another of the features of capitalist relations of this time: the tendency to break down economic and political borders in the global sphere. Commonly called "globalization", it is the new form assumed by the expansion of capitalist relations in times of transnationalization of capital, internationalization of production and the privilege of financial valorization. Even with the simplification that it represents, it is good to quote Henry Kissinger when he pointed out that “the so-called globalization is nothing other than the dominant role of the US (11)”. Quote that highlights the trend towards the recomposition of North American hegemony and that is expressed economically, militarily and culturally. The breakdown of bipolarity in the 90s is a central fact of the new scenario in the process of the class struggle.
The set of restructuring of capitalism at the world level demanded the adaptation of the supranational coordination structures of transnational capital and the more developed countries. Thus was born the G7, then the G8. This body intends to assume itself as the direction of accumulation processes on a global scale. Its next summit will be held in Genoa, Italy, in the current month and it intends to discuss ways to deepen the deregulation process. It is an agenda that the most concentrated capitals tried to install, first, in the discussions frustrated by a Multilateral Investment Agreement (MAI) secretly negotiated in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and second, in the also aborted Round of Millennium of the WTO. Both negotiations upheld the need to grant legal security to international investments and encourage a new round of deregulation, as is also held in the secret negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
In short, these are variations in capitalist relations that are defined in the capital-labor relationship, in the sphere of state power and in the new dynamics of international relations in favor of the transnationalization process. It represents the affirmation of a global power that sits in a phase of parasitic expansion of the global economy sustained by the decrease in the wage bill and social public spending. They are two sides of the fight to reduce production costs and improve the competitiveness of capitals and even countries on the world stage. The intended objective is to increase the rate of profit.
Tendencies of a Counteroffensive: From Chiapas to Seattle
Looking at reality from those harmed by the variations in capitalist relations, we find a multiplicity of phenomena. There are those that clearly express a loss of economic income and represent a deterioration in the quality of life. Also those that affect people for reasons of gender, age, race or territory of residence. The impact on the environment and working and living conditions regressively discriminate against sectors with lower income or without them. The impact on health and education is notorious, especially in a time where continuous training is an imperative. But attention must also be paid to those phenomena derived from the social, political and cultural fragmentation generated.
The result is the lack of a comprehensive response to capital's offensive. Of course, it is not an absolute aspect and in that sense, various experiences of resistance can be recorded, many of which can be considered successful.In Latin America it is not a minor fact to verify the survival of Cuba and a diverse political struggle sustained in a A range that includes the Colombian insurgency, electoral potential and even governmental experiences of popular and left forces. Due to the importance they assume and the nature of this article, we will only take those developed in recent years and that in our opinion contribute to the change in the world social and political situation, generating trends of transformation of the climate of the time since their explicit manifestation against the "Neoliberal globalization".
Among them, and due to their international knowledge, it is worth highlighting the Zapatista struggle in Chiapas (12) that put in the first level of visibility, since 1994, old claims of the aboriginal populations of southern Mexico and that promoted in 1996 the “First Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism ”, where hundreds of activists and political and social leaders from 40 countries participated. Also that carried out by the railway workers in Paris at the end of 1995 and which ended with the withdrawal of the right-wing government and its regressive restructuring program in France and with an impact on the world scene, since in Paris, the activism of 30 countries, organized in entities of global resistance to hegemonic policies, they protest before the OECD meeting and lead to the suspension of the MAI (13). They are notorious experiences that are added to others of equal magnitude and knowledge and to many unknown by the world press and therefore with little socialization. All of them express local and / or national struggles with international repercussions, to the point that they can be considered as initiators of a global protest and that years later it would become visible to the whole of world society, particularly since the “battle of Seattle”, a city headquarters of the much-touted Millennium Round of the WTO (14), until the current “counter-summit” organized by global protest movements in Genoa, Italy.
I think they are key events to understand the capitalist crisis in the last five years of the 20th century. It is that the Mexican manifestation of the crisis in 1994/95 (devaluation of the Mexican currency in December 1994), the European devaluations in the period, or the difficulties to install the Maastricht Treaty throughout Europe, or the expressions the crisis in Asia in 1997, Russia in 1998 and the most recent in Brazil in 1999, and now Turkey and Argentina at the end of 2000 and the beginning of 2001, without considering the social dynamics in confrontation in that period at the local and global level . It is a crisis that takes place between Stock Exchanges, maneuvers on currencies and capital markets, but which has as a background the regressive reorganization of capitalism and, therefore, the responses of the different social and political actors. They are old and new subordinate social actors trying to articulate a global response to capital's offensive.
From Seattle to Porto Alegre
A new phenomenon of resistance to capitalism comes from the global protests that took place between the events in Seattle in November 1999, the much-touted Millennium Round of the WTO and the World Social Forum meeting in Porto Alegre in January 2001. Before Seattle Chiapas and Paris existed, as we said, but the series of global struggles were many: on June 14, 1997, in Amsterdam (Holland) 50,000 protesters gathered against unemployment, precariousness and social exclusions derived from neoliberal policies; At the end of February 1998 in Geneva (Switzerland) the first World Conference of Global Action of the peoples (AGP) is convened, trying to coordinate the global resistance and that would call for successive simultaneous protests in several cities, which were called "day of global action ”, in 1998 against the G8 meeting in Birmingham (England) and the WTO in Geneva and in 1999 against the G7 meeting in Cologne (Germany) and in Millau (France) against the trial of José Bové for the action dismantling of a McDonald's promoted by the French Peasant Confederation. In June 1999, the international meeting "Against the dictatorship of the markets" convened by ATTAC, CADTM and other organizations of global resistance, which, among other things, calls for the cancellation of the external debt of the Third World and where 1000 participate representatives from 80 countries, culminating in a street demonstration on the Paris Stock Exchange.
After Seattle the movement accelerates and acquires greater dimensions. In January 2000 the global protest against the World Economic Forum in Davos (Switzerland) was held; in March of that year the world march of women was held, which ended in October in a mobilization in front of the UN world headquarters; In April 2000, 30,000 protesters met in Washington (USA) to protest against the joint meeting of the IMF and the World Bank and for the cancellation of the Third World debt, and it was accompanied by mobilizations in several cities, including Argentina. ; May 1 will be a day of global action and London becomes the epicenter of massive protests and repression; There are actions with thousands of protesters in Windsor (Canada), Bologna (Italy), Okinawa (Japan), Philadelphia, Los Angeles and New York (USA), Melbourne (Australia), Bangkok and Chiang Mai (Thailand), Bethlehem, Brasilia, Bangalore (India), Brussels (Belgium), Nice (France), Dakar (Senegal). The counter-summit of the IMF and the WB in Prague (Czech Republic) stands out, where 15,000 activists protest and are repressed, anticipating the end of the meeting. It was also a day of global action and mobilizations were registered in 40 cities around the world. In Argentina the streets were won and the actions of a group that in Plaza de Mayo stood in a column to lower pants and show in what situation the policies of international financial organizations leave the people.
Perhaps at the time of greatest accumulation of resistance to neoliberal globalization, the WSF meeting was held at the end of January in Porto Alegre (Brazil) (15), also called the anti-Davos, to be held simultaneously and with alternative objectives. With a great presence in the world press, 20,000 people staged an experience of protest and proposal to the neoliberal global order. Task carried out in 20 mass conferences and more than 400 workshops, inaugurated with an endless street march and artistic festival; It included a forum of parliamentarians that included among its proposals the establishment of the Tax Tobin and the cancellation of the external debt of Third World countries and another forum of cities that encouraged experiences of popular protagonism, such as that of the participatory budget experienced by the administration of the host city. It was a meeting that balanced the new phenomenon of global resistance and relaunched with program perspectives the constitution of an international movement with its own strategy.
We are talking about an experience starring old fighters with a militant history from "another era" and who converge with new generations and incorporate new meanings into the confrontation. Many of the new militants of the global protest are unemployed with a history in the labor movement, in the left parties and the anti-capitalist struggle, and who articulate their experience under new identities of social movements with the trade union movement and political parties. We must insist on the category “articulation”, since new movements appear that globally assume the anti-capitalist struggle (it is not a problem of anti-globalization or “globaphobic” as some maintain, but of resistance to capitalist globalization) and also the classic trade union movement that resumes perspective of international confrontation. It should be noted that the “battle of Seattle”, or the recent counter-summits of Buenos Aires or Québec against the FTAA would not have been possible without the convocation of the trade union movement, particularly the Central de Trabajadores Argentinos (CTA) in our country. Together with the CTA, a broad block of personalities and social and political organizations is articulated on the way to formulate an alternative project that has an axis in the conjuncture in the struggle to hold a popular consultation to resolve the issue of poverty in Argentina ( 16).
In December 1999, the first trade union summit of Mercosur was held with 400 leaders, in parallel to the summit of presidents. There, the integration strategy promoted by the governments in the region and the negotiations with the US were questioned, deciding on actions that converge with the global protest. In August 2000, an alternative meeting of union leaders was held in Brasilia against the meeting of Latin American presidents, and in December of that year in Florianópolis (17), 700 leaders participated, also paralleling the Mercosur presidents' summit, a meeting convened by the Coordinator of Trade Union Centrals of the Southern Cone (CCSCS) which among other resolutions promoted the global protest against the FTAA in Buenos Aires and Québec. The Québec authorities set up a fence three meters high and more than 4 km long to isolate the protest from the venue of the III Summit of Presidents called by the OAS. As activists tore down part of the retaining wall after throwing rolls of toilet paper, the response of the security forces materialized with gases. The demonstration in Buenos Aires on April 6 was attended by protesters from various countries in the American continent (mostly from the trade union movement) and even Europeans and was convened regionally by the CCSCS and also by the WSF. The global struggles had landed in Argentina.
It is not risky to think of a new generation of international fighters. It is that during half a century, the journey between the crises of the 30s (even previously) and the 70s, capitalism sent the organization of society to the privileged development of local markets. Borders tended to close and a capitalism centered on the internal market spread and spread, with nuances between countries, the characteristic of the welfare state. Not only did the world wars close the borders to trade in goods and services. Also the political and ideological confrontation between nations limited the spheres of mercantile circulation between actors from different countries. The Cold War is an expression of the division of the world into commercial blocks, without access for all the alleged actors in the international market. Strictly speaking, at the end of the century and with the transnational restructuring that we alluded to, we see a recovery in international flows of merchandise and money, which had been stopped in much of the 20th century. As a return to the past, the world dimension is installed again in the protest of subordinate actors. In effect, the slogan "Proletarians of the world, unite", gave an account of the type of organization required for the successful confrontation of existing capitalism at the time of the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The reality of the organization for the confrontation in much of the century XX was given by national-type organizations that proposed a program of demands with national impact. What is new today is given by the appearance of global actors, of a new dimension of the international struggle against the hegemony of capital.
This statement forces us to incorporate new questions to the daily resistance that raises a protest program and a set of actions and measures that are “resolved” at the local level. Can we think of overcoming the capitalist offensive in restructuring capital-labor relations, restricting the struggles to the sphere of a company, or even a country? Or does this require the articulation of claims in regional spheres (Mercosur, Latin America, for example) or even international? The hegemonic employers in countries like Argentina refer their decisions to central houses located abroad, particularly Europe and the United States, and from there they exercise a combined lobbying action on local governments, taking advantage of the weight of the governments of developed capitalist countries. in world organizations. Por otra parte, el accionar de los movimientos reivindicativos, e incluso políticos, estuvieron orientados durante años a demandar al Estado-nación. Con las nuevas funciones de los Estados asumidos con las sucesivas reformas estatales, se pone en discusión la efectividad de la absolutización en la demanda a satisfacer necesidades mediante el accionar del Estado. La “autonomía” en la organización de la respuesta popular para satisfacer necesidades se inscribe como parte importante del carácter que asumen nuevas experiencias del movimiento social.
Es necesario entonces tener en cuenta los nuevos fenómenos que se presentan en la lucha de clases global, tanto por los cambios hacia adentro de las empresas y el nuevo contenido de la categoría trabajadores, que se extiende en el conjunto de la sociedad con independencia del carácter de empleado o no; como por la nueva función estatal, y además por el proceso de internacionalización en curso. Ello exige pensar en sujetos sociales que confronten local y globalmente la estrategia del capital más concentrado y que hoy se expresa como “globalización neoliberal”.
Pensando en alternativas
¿Se puede confrontar el parasitismo de la economía capitalista actual? ¿Es posible poner freno a la exclusión propia de este modelo de acumulación de capitales? ¿Es dable pensar en reorganizar la sociedad a pesar del autoritarismo de las clases sociales dominantes en el poder? Son interrogantes que podrían cerrar nuestra reflexión.
Sin embargo vale la pena intentar un esbozo de propuestas
Se trata de pensar en respuestas globales que, por lo menos, obstaculicen la estrategia del capital. En ese sentido destaco la “iniciativa Tobin”, asumida por la red ATTAC (18) en todo el mundo y que apunta a limitar el movimiento internacional del capital especulativo. Contra aquellos que minimizan el impacto económico y/o político de la medida en cuestión, deberían prestar atención a la negativa que pronuncian en los centros mundiales de poder económico ante tamaña pretensión por restringir el “libre movimiento de los capitales”. Se trata de una propuesta que tiene sentido de aplicación global y que no es operativa en forma aislada. Puede ser un punto de partida para enfrentar el centro estratégico de la propuesta de variación de las relaciones capitalistas que se sustentan en ese eufemismo llamado “libertad de los mercados”, particularmente de los movimientos de capitales. Recordemos que estamos transitando una época con eje en la acumulación hegemonizada por la forma dinero del capital.
En ese sentido adquiere relevancia la necesidad de discutir el orden económico mundial y las instituciones que lo conforman. El sistema de gobierno transnacional que definen los organismos multilaterales y las cumbres de jefes de gobierno de las principales potencias capitalistas debe ser puesto en discusión. Ello implica poner fin a la injerencia de los ajustes y las políticas de reestructuración de primera y segunda generación que impulsan el FMI y el BM. Del mismo modo que obstaculizar la recreación de la agenda sustentada por la Ronda del Milenio en el marco de la OMC y para generalizar la liberalización favorable a la seguridad jurídica. Una agenda internacional para discutir el problema del endeudamiento externo es fundamental.
El programa podría completarse con demandas que acentúen las reivindicaciones de los trabajadores por el pleno empleo, la elevación de los salarios, las jubilaciones o los ingresos de los sectores populares, la reducción de la jornada laboral, las condiciones de trabajo, la educación y salud para todos, por la cuestión de género, medioambientales, etc. Siempre nos interrogan si hay recursos para tantas demandas y nos cansamos de reiterar que una redistribución progresiva del ingreso (19) y aún más, la eliminación de la explotación, son escenarios posibles. Sin embargo, debe ponerse énfasis en la capacidad que se logre para organizar social y políticamente a los actores populares. Organizarlos en la perspectiva de generalizar sus propuestas en el ámbito social y lograr la masividad de la movilización para la transformación de la realidad. Una transformación que muchos seguimos identificando con el socialismo. Se trata de pensar en otra sociedad, tal como sostiene el FSM cuando nos convoca a pensar que otro mundo es posible.
Alguna vez sostuvimos que el mayor éxito de los impulsores de las políticas neoliberales radicaba en la destrucción de sujetos resistentes. Es el efecto logrado luego de aplicar mecanismos de violencia explícita, como las dictaduras militares, o implícita, mediante la transferencia de ingresos desde los más empobrecidos a los más enriquecidos. Redes sociales como ATTAC, Jubileo Sur y muchas otras son parte de un proceso que incluye a antiguos militantes sociales y políticos, junto a nuevas camadas de jóvenes, hombres y mujeres que buscan un lugar para construir un nuevo tiempo que privilegie las aspiraciones, necesidades y deseos de la humanidad.
(1) La aceleración de las relaciones de intercambio en el ámbito mundial ha privilegiado el ciclo de circulación de la forma dinero del capital, superando por varias veces la circulación de mercancías. Incluso, debe consignarse un retraso relativo en la evolución de la forma productiva en relación con el proceso de valorización financiera.
(2) Orlando Caputo, La economía de EE.UU. y de América Latina en las últimas décadas. Ponencia presentada por O.C. en la reunión del Foro Social Mundial, realizado en Porto Alegre en enero de 2001 y en el Encuentro de Economistas sobre la Globalización, en La Habana, Cuba, en enero de 2001.
(3) James Tobin, 1978, A proposal for international monetary reform (Propuesta para una reforma monetaria internacional), Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 4 (julio-octubre), págs. 153-159. Tomado de la sección documentos del Sitio de ATTAC en Internet: www.attac.org/argentina
(4) El Banco de Basilea estimaba en 1998 que la circulación diaria de capitales superaba los 1,8 billones de dólares. Ib.
(5) Perry Anderson, La trama del neoliberalismo. Mercado, crisis y exclusión social, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 1998.
(6) Eric Toussaint. Sitio de ATTAC en Internet. Serie documentos.
(7) Julio Sevares, Documento presentado al Consejo Académico de ATTAC-Argentina. Puede leerse en el sitio en Internet mencionado.
(8) Emir Sader, compilador. El ajuste estructural en América latina. Costos sociales y alternativas, Ediciones Clacso (Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales), marzo de 2001.
(9) Ponencia coordinada por el autor en el Seminario Internacional organizado conjuntamente por Clacso ATTAC-Argentina: El impacto social del movimiento internacional de capitales. De próxima aparición como libro editado por Clacso y compilado por el autor.
(10) Denominación impuesta por Susan Strange.
(11) Citado por Kim Moody en Against the current: “What is called globalization is really another name for the dominant role of the United States”, Henry Kissinger, 1999.
(12) El zapatismo demostraba que era necesario y posible la confrontación y en un momento muy especial: se iniciaba el Nafta o Tratado de Libre Comercio (T.L.C.) entre EE.UU., Canadá y México. TLC que expresó el inicio de una estrategia que EE.UU. intenta extender con el ALCA a todo el continente en 2005, con excepción de Cuba. Justo cuando EE.UU. mostraba su intención hegemónica en territorio considerado propio, uno de los pueblos más afectados por la explotación capitalista, señalaba el carácter contradictorio de las relaciones sociales y la existencia de “otredad” que se expresa en todo escenario social. La lucha de clases se hacía visible y daba por tierra con las concepciones finalistas de las ideologías, o de la historia.
(13) El Observatorio de la Mundialización, con sede en París y conformado por destacadas personalidades y presidido por Susan George, jugó un gran papel en la difusión de una crítica documentada sobre las implicancias del AMI en sus pretensiones por asegurar derechos excepcionales a las inversiones de las corporaciones transnacionales.
(14) La Ronda había sido convocada para noviembre de 1999 en Seattle. La contracumbre o “batalla de Seattle” ha hecho imposible hasta ahora su discusión. Se anuncia que en noviembre de 2001 y en Qatar se podrán iniciar los debates, ya que se trata de uno de los pocos lugares del mundo que podría impedir la realización de una contracumbre.
(15) Folleto de ATTAC-Argentina “En el Foro Social Mundial”. Editado por ATTAC-Argentina. Puede leerse en Internet: www.attac.org/argentina
(16) La consulta popular trata de un Seguro de Empleo y Formación de $380 mensuales para cada jefe/a de hogar desempleado/a y $60 por mes de asignación universal para los menores de 18 años, posibilitando para una familia tipo un ingreso superior a los montos que establece la línea de pobreza en el país.
(17) Reunión donde participó la CTA como miembro de la Coordinadora de Centrales Sindicales del Cono Sur.
(18) Es un movimiento que resignifica la propuesta de Tobin, ya que agrega como destino de la potencial recaudación, unos 100.000 millones anuales, a satisfacer necesidades insatisfechas de carácter alimentario, sanitario o educativo a escala planetaria. Se presenta como una organización de estudio sobre el funcionamiento del capitalismo actual y de organización social para contribuir a resolver la fragmentación social imperante. En ATTAC-Argentina se sostiene, a diferencia de la propuesta original de Tobin, que la administración de los recursos podría realizarla el FSM.
(19) Para el caso argentino, la sola eliminación del pago de intereses de la deuda externa eliminaría el déficit fiscal que justifica los ajustes actuales. El logro de la demanda del movimiento por la consulta popular eleva el piso de los ingresos de los trabajadores y, aunque parcial, contribuye a superar los actuales niveles de pobreza. Lo mismo vale en relación con la implementación de la tax Tobin en el ámbito internacional. El solo hecho de las campañas de movilización impulsadas son parte de la lucha por constituir sujetos e incidir en la lucha por la distribución del ingreso e incluso la perspectiva de transformación social.
* Profesor de Economía Política de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Miembro del Consejo Académico y del Comité de Coordinación de ATTAC en la Argentina. Director del Instituto de la Cooperación. Director del Centro de Estudios de la Federación Judicial Argentina (CTA). Profesor de la Universidad Popular Madres de Plaza de Mayo.