Why we need a new manifesto - call for a new vision of society beyond capitalism

We need a new manifesto. Not a blueprint, not a detailed program. But a project, the vision of a different society, the proof that history has not come to an end, that there is a future beyond capitalism. We need it badly because its absence is the main weapon of our enemies. The nickname of Maggie Thatcher, TINA (There Is No Alternative) is the foundation on which their mighty propaganda machine rests. I shall illustrate this by an analogy.

Thirty years ago, 1968 was the year of youth rebellion from Berkeley to Tokyo, highlighted by the French students and workers rising in the merry month of May (a reminder, incidentally, that everything was far from perfect in the so-called "golden age of capitalism"). Still, the system did survive, and it is amusing to remember that, at the time, it was not defended on the ground that there is no alternative. Capitalism, it was argued, had found the secret of eternal growth. Why abolish a society which has managed to get rid of its worst calamities, in which the harsh laws of the market have been replaced by Keynesian fine-tuning and the long lines of the jobless by the social protection of the state? How strange it all sounds. Today nobody is trying to talk about "capitalism with a human face." We are plainly back to the laws of the jungle, which we must just accept because, allegedly, there is no way out. And this is why it is crucial to resurrect a project, a vision, an alternative.

I will not have the cheek, the chutzpah, to pretend to produce the solutions. But I will dare to venture, inevitably in shorthand, the issues that, in my opinion, the western left must tackle and solve if it wants to be, once again, historically relevant.

First we must deal with the problem of the allegedly vanishing work. We are living in a society in which our technological genius, translated into higher productivity means either bigger unemployment or greater polarization with the so-called working poor. Marx's suggestion that "the theft of somebody else's labor time" is a miserable foundation to calculate our wealth - which we should measure by disposable time not by labor time - is so much truer today than it was 150 years ago. We have the technological means to live differently. If output were determined not by exchange value, or the weight of your purse, but by social need democratically decided by the people, we could keep growth within ecologically tolerable limits, eliminate unemployment and reduce the working week. Indeed, in the advanced capitalist countries, we could start reducing heavy, dangerous and dreary work, thus gradually removing the frontier between labor and leisure.

Globalization is the second item and here we have a double task. On one side, globalization is being used as a substitute for TINA to convince people of the vanity of their struggle. We must therefore remind them that the nation state is still the terrain on which the struggle for the radical transformation of society must begin. Or, if you prefer to put it in the terms of the Manifesto, "the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie." But this is only half the story. Socialism, like capitalism, tends to be universal, and internationalism is the only genuine reply to globalization. It is an immediate categorical imperative for the labor movements of the different countries of the European Union. But it must be revived all over. The final confrontation will take place throughout the planet, from Paris to Peking and from Seoul to Seattle.

The third issue is equality. We are living in a world, in which the wealth of its 447 dollar billionaires exceeded in 1996 the income of half of the world's population. These fantastic discrepancies are not only international. A currency speculator living in New York earned in a few weeks what it would have taken an American in a minimum wage job 150 thousand years. And the polarization is increasing. In such a society egalitarianism-not charity, not equity - but a genuine search for equality must figure at the heart of any progressive project.

Such a search implies a great deal. It implies the end of exploitation. It means that we cannot live at the expense of the so-called Third World. It means that we have to attack the very roots of one of the oldest exploitations - that of woman by man. Egalitarianism is not - as they tell you - leveling, uniformity, but it is an attempt to eliminate the social roots of inequality. As such it will involve profound changes in property and power relations. Which brings us to the fourth item - democracy.

Last but not least. Democracy is crucial not only because of the crimes committed in the name of socialism which make it imperative to prevent any repetition. It is also crucial because, for us, it is not just using your ballot every four years to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. It means people gaining mastery over their work and their fate in the factory and in the office, in the shops, labs, and campuses. It must mean power flowing from below and yet decisions being taken not only at the local level. We must reinvent democracy if we want socialism to spell the self-management of society.

If the movement goes in that direction, it will be on its way to what I call realistic utopia. Realistic because it has its roots in the real social and political struggles of today. Utopian, because our enemies call utopian any effort to move beyond the confines of capitalism and we shall take their insult for a compliment and a challenge.

In even shorter shorthand, let me make three final points. Firstly, if we are talking about a fundamentally different society, we are not suggesting that we shall get there overnight This is not a recipe for instant socialism. We know that we have a long march ahead, but we can only get going if we have the vision of a radically different society, a vision that will be changed and elaborated as the movement learns, one which becomes more conscious as it advances.

Secondly, the fact that it will take a long time does not mean that we have plenty of time to start moving. With popular discontent rising, if we don't provide rational, progressive solutions, there are plenty of people waiting in the wings with irrational and reactionary solutions. From France, where I live, and where the xenophobic National Front of Jean-Marie Le Pen has gained another percentage point, I bring you the warning that the ghosts of the past are not buried forever.

Finally, all this is not some particularly Parisian, European preoccupation. Even if we may seem somewhat ahead, this is part of our common struggle. And this is why I shall end with the slogan of the French winter of 1995, that winter of discontent that has given a new impetus to the movement: ouais, ouais, tous ensemble, tous ensemble.... All together, all together, let us get going as soon as we can, on both sides of the ocean.

COPYRIGHT 1998 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group