If the unbridled neoliberalism which imposed after the collapse of the Communist bloc has not been welcomed without reservation, the discredit which then fell upon left-wing political options contributed shutting or marginalizing oppositional voices for a long time to come. Heterogeneous groups and scattered actions gathered under the banner of altermondialism stood as the sole tribunes on which these voices could hope to be heard.
Since this movement tends to put forward interests associated with specific groups rather than broader social and political demands, the forces which unite themselves for a while within it have few chances to merge into a united front. Altermondialism’s lack of direction and cohesion makes it powerless against capitalism which, in the meanwhile, steadily increased its grip on all areas of social, economic, and political life.
Since capitalist domination goes unnoticed by most people, whose lives are nevertheless conditioned by its sideeffects, it tends to meet resistance only in times of crisis and catastrophes, when the suffering it causes suddenly intensifies and appears in broad daylight. This happened in the midst of the financial earthquake of 2008. Dissidents then stepped out of the shadows, invaded the streets, while bookshelves were suddenly flooded by anti-capitalist books.
As to Marx, he got out of the “dustbins of history” for good, and many analysts and scholars gave him back his status as a great prophet of capitalism’s collapse. If implementing a sustainable alternative to capitalism has not been seriously considered then, regulating and reforming capitalism were minimalist requests made even in conservative milieus. Pleading for the status quo almost looked suspect. However, the years went by and neoliberalism got through the crisis without too much damage, so that the hopes awaken by the open protests of 2008 and mere reformist demands faded away. But this moving back does not amount to a new impasse.
The consequences of 2008 still make themselves feel, to the extent that the consensus on which neoliberalism relies has been undermined from various sides, while critics of neoliberalism did not lose their legitimacy. Outbursts of political and social unrest throughout the world have become common. The rise of extremist parties and groups is without doubt the most obvious (and worrying) symptom of a profound discontent with existing conditions, and of deep political and social fractures, whose origins are diverse. Protests against neoliberalism and its order all around the world exhibits increasingly striking similarities, so that they may appear as various expressions of a single antagonistic current, even if the latter is still diffuse and lacks unity. Its contours become more perceptible when actors coming from different horizons gather together.
“The Great Transition” Conference held in May in Montréal has been one of these privileged moments. No fewer than 200 speakers from academic milieus, political parties, activist groups, and unions coming from different countries, offered critical assessments of different aspects of neoliberalism and capitalism from theoretical and practical viewpoints, and sketched avenues of reflection and action for the present and the future. This “global” mosaic was perfectly in tune with our era of globalism. Only an equally “global”rejoinder, in sociological and geographical terms, could have any chance to shake neoliberalism.
The public was highly interested and enthusiastic, thus creating a strong and stimulating synergy. Under the same roof, the attendee had the opportunity of being initiated to Marxist theories and critical theory broadly understood, of getting informed about the most recent academic work related to neoliberalism and capitalism in fields like political science, economy, sociology, history, psychology, gender studies, education and ecology, and of taking the pulse of oppositional activism and left-wing action. The conference program was most impressive and exciting, but because too many panels were running at the same time, the attendees have not had the opportunity to make the most of it. One had to make difficult choices between equally interesting topics. So, the following comment can only underline a couple of the interesting or provocative ideas which have been expressed during this exciting event.
Presentations on economics underlined capitalism’s structural changes since World War II. Since then, capitalism became a process, put forward the dogma “everything is open”, and increasingly went with non-governance, held Robert Latham (York University, Toronto, Canada). These tendencies worsened since the year 2008, which also initiated a new approach for capitalism that the speaker called “hyperfabrication”. Transgression of norms and customs became much common.
Paul Kellog (Athabasca University, Canada) put into question concepts and paradigms widely used to analyze capitalism in economic and political sciences. One should not think in terms of unipolarity, but of multipolarity, he held, underlining that the United States had to face serious competition by West Germany and Japan since the end of the 1960s, a situation which is not alien to the decline of the American dollar which started then. Also, the pattern of North-South diffusion, which underlies the belief that the development of the proletariat in the “South” (he gives the example of China) would be the immediate consequence of the expansion of capitalism in the North would be oversimplistic, and should be revised through careful analyzes of local conditions. In addition, Kellog refuted the idea of a neoliberal ideological counterrevolution: he seems to believe that neoliberalism is a powerful autonomous force which the ruling class is unable to control.
A panel dedicated to the relationships between technic and capitalism opened fruitful avenues of reflection on the economic and psychological sides of the problem. Stéphane Chalmeau (PhD student, HEC, Montréal, Canada) reminded us how much the dynamism of technic, whether broadly understood as a set of means to attain certain goals or restricted to digital technologies, plays the game of capitalism. Relying on insights from famous thinkers of the 20th century, he pointed out that under the reign of technic, society focuses on means rather than ends, while human beings are severed from their own needs through their subservience to a production dedicated to maximal performance and profit. If it’s true that the wide distance between producers and consumers makes the latter indifferent to the former’s predicament, it has become almost impossible to understand fully the consequences of our acts, and to feel that even the most banal ones could be harmful. Technic and technology, rather than serve the motto of maximization, must be aligned to the norm of the sufficient. Only in this way could they be beneficial to individual and social life. This drastic shift would require workers’ self-management.
Sharry Taylor (PhD student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Canada) explored the (too often) overlooked relationships between labour’s double process of “intensification” and “extensification” under neoliberalism, and psychological and psychiatric disorders. Ever-increasing psychic and emotional pressure at work cause physical reactions and distress, which are too often explained by subjective factors. They are considered asmerely individual disorders and routinely treated with drugs. In fact, psychological distress often has its roots in capitalism.Thus, psychiatry would be an accomplice of capitalism by acting as a device of social control.
A series of three plenary talks tackled with the issues of the current situation of the Left and the prospects for social and political change from a theoretical perspective. The scholar and activist David McNally (York University, Toronto, Canada) held that in spite of the failures of the Left, there exists a “dialectic of defeat”, so that no defeat is definitive. “Our time is not completed,”he said, one must reclaim the “not yet”. Affirming the enduring pertinence of Marx’s thought, McNally commented a public address in which the famous philosopher, reflecting on the failure of the revolutions of 1848, claimed that the “greatest revolutions still lay ahead”. Against a long tradition of interpretation, the speaker believes that Marx’s conception of history was multilinear rather than unilinear. This implies that the milieus where class struggle can unleash and the potential paths of emancipation are multiple.
As to Bruno Bosteels (Cornell University, Ithaca, United States), he explained how various philosophical currents since the 1960s, heideggerian in particular, have nourished the defeatism of the Left. We are “in need of a postmetaphysical Left”, the speaker claimed. The reassessment of radical philosophy is one of the crucial challenges of the 21st century. Frank Fischbach (Université de Strasbourg, France) explained that whereas demands for autonomy and cooperation in workplaces were traditionally tied to emancipatory ideals, just as the “values of 1968”, they have been captured by the management. This observation forces the disturbing conclusion that liberating ideas and strategies can be harmonized with democratic regressions, a situation which the Left has much pain understanding. The current situation characterizes itself by the convergence of neoliberalism, cultural neoconservatism, and populism. While the socialist bloc dissolved itself, neoliberalism constituted itself into a hegemonic bloc, which must be undone. This is a very hard task, but it should start from the “reinvestment” of the content of “the popular”, the “cultivation of an ethic”, and the ending of all compromises which are harmful to workers. Then a real experience of cooperative work would open the path toward emancipation.
Several panels gave the attendees a glimpse of the concrete situation of the Left and the challenges pending over it in various areas of the world. The so-called Pink tide, a name which refers to a set of more or less leftist governments which rose to power in countries of Latin America, is now seriously receding, underlined René Rojas (Hobart and William Smith Colleges, New York). While it can count on powerful mobilization, the Pink tide has been unable to lay on a social basis which would have been strong enough to defeat neoliberalism. The fact that the Pink tide is perceived as a threat to capitalism is closely tied to its weakening.
Taliria Petrone from the Partido Socialismo e Liberdade, from Janeiro, Brasil, denounced in a passionate speech the routine violations of human rights and the violence committed against the people in her country. She called for an offensive attitude rather than a defensive one, and said that there is no other viable choice than socialism. Hendrik Davi, from France insoumise, presented the main goals of the anti-liberal program of his formation, which includes emancipatory measures for workers, ecological actions and the constitution of a 6th Republic, which would be based upon improved citizen representation and participation. Activism must invest the level of ideas no less than action, while all actors, parties, unions, and civil society, must gather and support themselves in order to ensure winning conditions.
Lorenz Gösta Beutin, from the left party Die Linke, from Hamburg, Germany, gave the attendees the political pulse of his country a couple of months after the entry of the AfD, an extreme right party, in the Bundestag. In the current situation, the Left must endorse the important task of proving that there are alternatives based on solidarity rather than division, on hope rather than hatred. The deputy also emphasized that governmental action must be sustained by social movements. Besides, he noted that Die Linke has been attracting new members recently, whose major concerns are labour and social justice, and climatic changes.
In sum, the vitality of intellectual and practical action whose “The Great Transition” Conference testifies is most promising. Strong convergences emerged on the level of ideas, like the acknowledgment that ideas are no less important than action, and that change can only occur through the mutual support of political and social action. Nonetheless, one may have the feeling that there is not yet a sufficient dialog between various actors and perspectives. In addition, the ideological disparities between them are a considerable obstacle. While some advocate a kind of reformism which would be possible inside the existing system, others plea for a more drastic change, but refrain from promoting models like socialism, which stands as the only solution for other actors. These ideological discrepancies run the risk of obstructing the great synergy of forces which is needed in order to fight against neoliberalism’s hegemony.
The differences could surely be set aside during this first, “negative phase”, but the obstacles to overcome would be more formidable in the “positive phase” of change, when it would be time to decide on a common political and social project. Many bridges remain to be crossed, but one has to acknowledge that the first step, which implies increasing unity in opposition, has been taken.