Al
A gradual transition from
neoliberalism?
By Raúl Zibecchi
An Argenpress.info service
Never before had there
coexisted in South America so many governments that at one time had proclaimed
the intention of distancing themselves from, or severing their ties with, the
neoliberal model. Nevertheless, their steps in that direction, but for
exceptions, never went past their statements.
Present presidents of Ecuador,
Peru, Venezuela, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia were swept into power
by popular movements and were elected because they distanced themselves – some
in a clear cut manner and others in a lukewarm way – from the neoliberal model
that has been a scourge to the region for at least fifteen years.
Among them, only Venezuelan
president Hugo Chávez has taken sure steps to break away from the model.
Ecuador’s Lucio Gutiérrez went over to the neoliberal side; Peru’s Alejandro
Toledo went along the same way; while Bolivia’s Carlos Mesa is caught between
pressure from the imperial interests and the local elites on one side, and the
threats of the popular movement of going back to the barricades on the other.
The region’s most important
governments – José Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Néstor Kirchner in
Argentina – inaugurated their administrations in a general climate of hope.
Even critical intellectuals foretold a “gradual transition away from neoliberal
logic,” which seemed possible and imminent. Nevertheless, until now they haven’t
taken any serious steps in that direction, although it would be fair to say that
Kirchner struggles to place national interests above those of international
banks, perhaps because he is faced with the need to recuperate credibility for
Argentina, on the brink of bankruptcy and in the middle of a crisis of
legitimacy.
In early 2003, the correlation
of power in the subcontinent allowed hopes of a change in direction. By the end
of the first quarter in 2004, those expectations had evaporated and the
Venezuelan government is once more isolated (together with Cuba) in its lone
struggle to break away from a model that has destroyed societies and has brought
countries to its knees before international financial organizations.
Undoubtedly, it’s a lost opportunity that will not be repeated for a long time.
It would be untimely to accuse
so many groups and parties in government (some of them like the Brazilian
Workers’ Party have a long history of struggles) of having betrayed popular
causes. There are cases of opportunism, such as Ecuador’s Gutiérrez, but it’s
not the case for all of them, and undoubtedly not the case of Lula and Kirchner.
What has gone wrong? Why did
they not break away from neoliberalism? The answer is that nobody likes to
steer a ship towards very risky seas, and all are trying not to. That is,
transition from neoliberalism cannot be made without profound social, political,
cultural and economic crises. This is not only due to outside expected reasons
(the inevitable imperial harassment), but for the changes in our societies in
the last two decades.
A torn social fabric
It’s no secret that the
neoliberal model destroyed traditional societies; weakened national states when
it made of the market the regulating compass of all aspects of life; destroyed
industries focused on local markets that had grown since the 1930s; polarized
societies creating a nouveau rich sector, legions of marginalized and
unemployed, and impoverished sectors of the middle class.
Our societies lost the
physiognomy that they had acquired in decades of powerful struggles which shaped
them and gave birth to imperfect social states.
But not all were losers in
neoliberalism. The model is not only beneficial to the elites of each country;
if it were not so, it couldn’t have lasted this long with its promoters winning
elections one after another with ample popular backing. This is one of the
strongest and saddest social changes that we face in Latin America. The world
of labor was split down the middle: a significant minority kept its labor and
social rights, while most workers and an increasing portion of the middle class
were cast out into marginality.
The figure of the unemployed
or informally employed in the subcontinent ranges from 45% to 70% of the active
population, and its living conditions have worsened in an alarming manner in the
past decade. The group that still has steady jobs in the private sector – even
though it receives low wages – hangs on for dear life. Workers, executives and
technical posts in the dynamic branches of the private sector, the “formal”
workers, are the ones who still have a capacity for consumption, usually live in
the “consolidated” neighborhoods of large cities, have access to health care and
education, and have private transportation, computers and Internet. Those
social changes leads us to consider that the elite and the social sectors that
benefited with the system have experienced important growth, from perhaps 5% to
an average of 10 to 20% of the population of each country – all in a different
way.
In Argentina, where the
percentage of the salaried population was among the highest in the continent,
raises – which is the main motivation of labor union action – benefit 19% of the
active population, which means only 8% of the total. Changes caused by
neoliberalism excluded most of the active population from formal salaried
employment and its benefits. Indeed, if you subtract from the total active
population those who are unemployed (22% in 2002), non registered salaried
workers (22%), the informally employed (17%) and those employed in the public
sector (15%) who receive ridiculous raises well below the inflation rate, we
find that only 19% of workers (those pertaining to the private sector and
registered, that is, working in big business) are the true beneficiaries of
salary raises.
While over half the population
was sunk into poverty, things have gone well or relatively well for this sector
in the last two decades. Those social groups, which often are the social base
of neoliberalism, are usually represented in labor unions and are the ones that
steer the course of unionism.
A passion for stability
One of the perverse effects of
the present model is that those who most need to break away from it have
enormous difficulties organizing and making themselves heard; while those who
can do it are interested in climbing the ladder within the system. This
fracture did not exist in the period of the national industry for the
substitution of imports, when all popular sectors had – by and large – a minimum
of common interests. In other words, up to the 1970s it could be said that
unionism, where all categories of workers were grouped, tended to represent the
“general interest” of the working class. This has suffered a radical change
with the neoliberal model. In the words of a leader of the Central of
Argentinean Workers (CTA), speaking of a unionism that only organizes those who
have formal employment: “A unionist model that only organizes that sector is
betting on the weakness of the working class and is partial to the system.”
It’s no coincidence that the
most important struggles of the last decade were led by Brazilian and Paraguayan
landless peasants; natives from Bolivia, Ecuador and Chiapas (Mexico); the slum
dwellers in the outskirts of large cities; as well as Argentinean picketers and
neighbors in El Alto, Bolivia.
There were unions and workers
who waged important struggles, but they were the exception. The norm was that
those who struggled were the unemployed and partially employed, that is, those
marginalized by neoliberalism.
The Secretary of the
Organization of the Brazilian Workers’ Central Union (CUT), Rafael Freire, in a
transparent manner expresses the existence of two options for the oppressed. He
says that in the wide movement against neoliberal globalization two options
coexist: one that promotes its “abolition” and one (the CUT and the world’s big
labor unions) that “works to ‘reform’ those organizations” and are in favor of
“measures that grant a social dimension to the present globalization.” In any
case, both alternatives (the ‘antisystem’ and the one that favors the insertion
within the system) shouldn’t be seen as ideological options, but as the result
of the interests of social sectors that are inserted in a different and
contradictory manner: those that are marginalized, on one side, and those with a
steady job and expectations of climbing the social ladder, on the other.
Even more, a good part of
unionized workers usually fear the unemployed when the latter take to the
streets. In that sense, sectors with a steady job, whether they are workers,
executives or technicians, keep cultural attitudes closer to those of the middle
class they increasingly relate more to. What happened in Argentina at the peak
of the crisis – the confluence in the streets of the marginalized and the middle
sectors – is not the usual thing. The wish to ascend within neoliberalism on
the part of those who have not sunk into poverty is expressed politically as
betting to break away from the model in a gradual manner. They tend to reject
the political roads that may cause social upheavals, and they particularly
distrust the fact that the marginalized might play a relevant role in the
political, economic and social stages.
Breaking off with the
model and social crisis
In some countries the large
labor unions for a long time have not represented the “general interests” of
workers, but hardly the corporate interests of small sectors. That’s the case
of the so called “corporate unionism” promoted by the Argentinean CGT, whose
many unions participated in the privatizing process linking to big international
capitals, whether in privatized businesses or in the retiring funds created by
former President Menem when in power. But that’s also the case of Brazilian
unions, whose leaders have been fingered as part of a “new social class” that
sprang from the management of pension funds originating in the former public
companies. By different roads (mafia-like in the case of Argentine,
constitutionally in Brazil), traditional unionism is living a profound mutation:
its higher echelons are very far away from that “working aristocracy” born in
the early 20th century, formed by well paid, educated, qualified workers and
with a different way of life than the rest of workers, who put their money on
the big reformist parties. Now we are facing a fusion of interests between the
bourgeoisie and a sector of workers, precisely those that play a determining
role in the labor movement, at least in a number of Latin American countries.
It explains, among other
things, why the Worker’s Confederation of Venezuela (CTV) mobilized to oust the
Chávez government and battles the inhabitants of popular neighborhoods. Workers
at PDVSA, the public oil company, often guided by the company’s management, have
spearheaded the imperial interests. Indeed, the Venezuelan case is exceptional
because of the clearness of corporate interests represented by the labor union,
but not an isolated case at all. A good part of the continent’s labor unions
have given up a policy of “equal rights for all,” a characteristic of the
welfare state, and just support policies focused on poverty forwarded by the
World Bank and applied by the region’s governments, with the exception of
Venezuela and Cuba.
The great problem presented by
breaking away from neoliberalism in Latin America is that the main social
subject of change is no longer the working class as a whole, but the poorest
sector, the marginalized ones. A government that pretends to break away from
the model will have to privilege that sector, economically as well as
politically and culturally. On the contrary, the corporate interests of the
workers’ sector that has benefited from the model will suffer in all aspects.
It seems impossible to benefit the one without affecting the other, which
presumes a high level of confrontation, even more if the marginalized (Indians,
landless peasants, picketers and others have begun to forge ahead with demands
of their own that are never part of a “gradual” breaking away from neoliberalism,
but with simple breaking away. Even if this means a deep crisis.
Raúl Zibecchi, an
Argentinean journalist, has won prestigious awards by Latin American
organizations.
|
