譯自<Uniundercurrent>
按：有人認為，自西雅圖反世貿示威而在全球掀起的 “反全球化運動” ，是世界左翼運動復興的重要轉折。但是，這一篇發表於九九年六月十八日全球行動日(Global Actions Day)(西雅圖大示威的前奏)之前的文章，卻認為 “反全球化運動” 暴露的是更多的問題，而不是樂觀的新形勢。這篇無署名的文章由英國南方的Sussex大學一份社運及無政府主義刊物Uniundercurrent發表，對這篇文章的回應和討論，持續到西雅圖示威之後。譯文之後附上一篇全球行動日的組織者的回應，以及原文作者的進一步回應。原文作者的辭鋒和論點都十分尖銳，而反駁者亦不示弱，針鋒相對，不玩 “俾面派對”，折射出英國社運界圍繞新千禧的運動新形勢，激烈的思想交鋒正在進行中。路線與方向的辯論，無論在西雅圖之前或之後都在發展。暫不論各自觀點如何，如此認真的反思和辯論文化，可正是香港異見份子們一向所欠呢
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The longer the list, the better the action"
六月十八日，世界八大經濟的首腦在德國科隆會面，討論世界經濟的未來。一如既往，這次會議將會成為抗議的對象。一個遍及全世界的[反抗]聯盟正在形成，而按英國社運積極分子所說，這聯盟的出現，是因為人們認識到，全球資本主義體制，正是世界各種社會及生態問題的始作甬者。但這個聽起來像是批判分析的起點，卻不幸地竟是整個運動就它的立場所說的一切。它沒有超出僅僅說出了 “一個全球反抗運動正在興起” 這類常識。讀過至今一些宣傳單張，你就知道所有事情都是關於數量的事。我們被告知去年有很多人走到街上 (“….在印度有二十萬人…”)，製作了很多宣傳品 (二萬張可愛的可摺單張)，有很多人參與(包括例如工會、和平團體、掃貧運動的教會組織、全國學聯等)，以及，運動充滿著各種有趣的行動意念： “免費食物供應….有很多吉士餡餅…..充滿歡樂地走到銀行區…. 音響系統掛上的氣球飄浮在金融中心區！”
我們與他們
運動大肆宣傳 “我們做的比他們所能想像得到的更多”。然而，這種他們相對我們的邏輯，在很多方面都是挺奇怪的。被當成是打擊對象的全球資本主義，說不上是一個簡單的 ‘他們’。再者，那個常被談及的集體的 ‘我們’------ “社會及環境運動的聯盟”-------也是全然的含糊空泛。所有這些團體所共通的，其實就是他們都是以這樣或那樣的方式，受全球資本主義影響。但是，這也只是一種常識而已，除了在象徵層次上，令大家在幾個小時之內，一齊高聲抗議在科隆聚首的那幾個小丑，它絕不足以形成一個高於這個象徵層次的集體反抗基礎。
但是，這遠非六一八運動的無心之失，因為對這場運動的社會內容的冷漠，卻正是它的本質所在。用他們的話說： “更長的參加者名單，行動就更勁。”它按照媒體報導的要求，希望聚集大量的群眾。結果就是純粹的神話化。一方面，我們有一種末日景象------“經濟危機、千年蟲、環境危機、戰爭、饑荒、貧困”------但它們卻是由全世界無數的運動，以及那種可喜可賀的多樣性所抵抗著。這種假設就是，在現存社會秩序底下受害的人，都按照其本性，支持推翻這個制度。不過事實上，大部份榜上有名的團體和運動，都只是反對資本主義制度的某些特定方面或後果而已。將所有那些單議題運動進行第二級的編織整合，也不會導向否定社會的整個體制。剛好相反，它只不過是將人們胡亂地拼湊在一起：至少有一天，他們可齊集聯歡，或者索性互擲糕餅一番。
“全球資本主義”……
一心只是列出很多團體，以及構想有創意的行動，以致整個運動都忘記了批判分析。而這正是它要把目的訂得盡量寬鬆的直接後果：任何想理清關於六一八運動的政治目的的做法，都會立即展露出，例如在Zapatistas和NUS之間，在工會和自治主義的團體之間，其實不存在政治共識的事實。這類短視的搞運動操作，基於我們欠缺一種適合所有人的，清晰的 “全球資本主義” 批判。所宣稱的反資本主義，也就只餘下一堆口號而已。
一方面，甚至在那些看來要以行動反對它的人中間，對資本的基進批判也欠奉。另一方面，面對當前處境的某些方面，不斷產生和滋長出各種不同的怨恨之情。在這情況下， ‘全球化’ 變成第一風行的詞彙。運動中沒有清晰定義何謂全球資本主義，這情況和當今主流媒體對全球化的不斷炒作，卻是若合符節的。這包括在面對全球資本那種無限際的流動性時，齊齊抱怨民族國家的力量正日趨薄弱。現在差不多所有人都對 ‘全球化’ 有所不滿：左翼份子關心民主的前途，因為那些今日被看成將變得沒有權力的政客，至少還是經民主選出，但跨國公司惡毒的頭頭所做的決定，公民就沒有置喙的餘地。萬人迷的墨西哥Zapatistas運動發言人Marcos ，也看到全球金融資本的邪惡力量，正威脅各個民族的有機文化。但法國國民陣線的法西斯主義者也反對全球化，因為它削了民族國家的主權、威脅了國族文化。最近，反對多邊投資協定(MAI)的運動，在很多方面都和六一八運動相像，引用同一套意識形態：因為MAI要給予外資一個較有利的條件，去抵擋一國的法規，那些反對MAI的力量，有時就宣揚極端的民族主義，甚至照搬某些國家政權的宣傳口徑。對全球化的共同反應，就是呼籲國家對經濟重新規管。另一個風行術語新自由主義，基本上被當作[全球化]的同義詞使用。為了反對新自由主義，反對者往往要求一種凱恩斯政策以作抗衡，這在不少社會民主派及工會份子中間，都十分普遍。凱恩斯明白到，要防止危機的話，國家就要透過直接創造職位，去積極的介入市場 (按凱恩斯的說法，這意味著叫人去挖一些洞，然後叫另一些人去填好這些洞)，以及提高需求 (以補足資本趨於生產過剩的趨向)。在當前的情勢下，我們毫不奇怪地見到，左派知識份子，例如Eric Hobsbawm等，宣稱要 “終結新自由主義” 而乞求新工党採納更凱恩斯式的稅收和再分配政策，而目前也廣泛地存在著，希望當前歐洲的社會民主主義政府所享有的強勢地位，可以找到新自由主義之外的出路。六一八的運動，雖然並非為社會民主主義而抗議，但它所散播的那種含含糊糊的反對 “全球資本主義” 立場，卻完全和這一種看法暗合，也即是將國家看成以為是和市場相反的另一枝旗幟。而事實上，這場抗爭所樂意招攬進來的運動，其實一直都在這一路子上操作。
經濟的心臟
運動當中對資本主義那種毫不具批判性的態度，從他們集中注意力在資本的金融部門就很容易看到：這些全球行動在金融中心地帶發生，那些地方被視為 “全球經濟的心臟”。生產好像變成只是一個純技術性的過程，製造有用的物品，同時，貨幣和金融機構，則被看成是資本主義的核心。但是，雖然資本主義不可能不具備一個高度發達的銀行體系，但它本質上仍要透過剝削僱傭勞動來生產剩餘價值。在銀行區流通的大量價值，代表著這些過程的結果，如果不是的話，下一場金融崩潰就指日可待。因此，如果真的有一種叫 “經濟心臟” 的話，那去佔領一些工廠要比起佔領Barclay銀行更有意思，因為 “經濟心臟” 就在那裡。這個好像是毫不相干的註腳，但我們要留意，在金融部門最近的危機當中，很多人產生了厭棄金融資本的情緒，並大力呼籲對世界經濟作重新管理。時代周刊去年夏天說過，自國際貨幣基金(IMF)於1944年成立而來，它的聲譽已降至新的低點。社會改良派提出了向 “沒有生產性的” 投機資本徵稅的建議 (因而國家可以為全民利益著想，把錢再分配去創造更多的職位……)。運動集中於金融機構，因而無法使自己和那些以生產 [鬥爭] 為中心的人，以及那些有民粹主義傾向的人區分開來。
針對金融資本的執著，好像可以由轉向運動的第二目標，即跨國財團所糾正。可是，為甚麼要厚待跨國資本呢？難道本國財團就沒有那麼資本主義嗎？小企業比起 “大企業” 真的更好嗎？運動的很多重要的部份，好像都信靠一些想法：社區為本的街角小舖對抗Somerfield的大集團；小農反抗巨型果品企業。 “小的就是美麗的” 的口號，無疑在生態運動積極分子之間十分流行。這種對資本的看法，透過諸如財團監察(Corporate Watch)的組織，以及很多羅列出大量那些財團的罪行的行動，變成一種相當專業的操作。這些活動往往要搞杯葛產業的行動，並散播關於 “消費者權利” 的觀念。所以，我們會因為Shell在尼日利亞的某些措施而反對它；我們也會為雀巢公司做了一些甚麼，而[主張]不應吃某些朱古力。但對資本邏輯的根本批判，就這樣地被一種實證主義的，及道德主義的做法所取代。所有這些做法都忽視了，所有形式的資本其實都應廢除的深刻看法，以及家庭擁有的血汗工廠，其工場不會比諸如AT&T的那些不那麼令人不安。
混亂和虛假的實踐
說了這麼多，都不是要說六一八的運動支持血汗工廠和國家管理、民族主義或社會民主主義。它全不是這些，不過，它亦同時對分析今日那些令各種社會不安交相糾纏的死胡同狀態，毫無興趣。與此相反，它採用了一種幼稚的即時策略：全球資本主義被當成是由銀行和財團所組成的， “他們” 那些無良經理和優皮士，主持了大局，而另外那些 “把欲望取代現實” ，想像力極為豐富的稀皮士，則被描繪為對全球資本主義的終極回應。每一件事情都好像是一清二楚，不證自明的，無需繼續反思------因此，雖然反抗力量 (如非像加入運動的大多數組織一樣，一開始就是和資本共謀的話)，就是不斷被中立化，但對有關的思想和行為，卻沒有反省的態度。那些號稱 ‘全球的抗爭’ ，其具體的社會目標卻非常混亂。呼籲大規模的行動，結果最終只能指向一種虛假的實踐，也就是白忙一輪之後，只是令那些投身在其中的人產生幻想，以為已經為社會政治的真正改革打好了基礎而已。
The Longer the List, the Better the Action
[反思西雅圖後的社運譯寫系列三]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
回應：
CRITIQUES AND CARICATURES: A RESPONSE TO UNIUNDERCURRENT
Critiques of the June 18th action, it's aims, organisation and general relevance, are important and to be welcomed. Theory, critical or otherwise, is too often rejected in favour of action when we need to combine theory and action, fostering, articulating and inhabiting the tension between them. Lest this response be taken as saying all is fine with the aims and focus of the action let me emphasise it isn’t. There are fault line running through it - many of which the critique from Uniundercurrent identifies. If the critique helps to bring out and transcend the problems and contradictions of the June 18th action then it will have been worthwhile but if it elevates one position while parodying all others then it amounts to little more then theoretical point scoring
The long list campaign against the economic summit
The lack of theoretical flesh on the bones of the June 18th action has been pointed out by the Sussex University zine 'Uniundercurrent'. In an article entitled "The longer the list, the better the action" they argue that, on the strength of the first few propaganda leaflets, the organisers of June 18th are more interested in numbers then analysis; in how many groups they can get involved then in the commonality between them; and that this in turn leads to lowest common denominator theory and a spectacular practice. Such criticisms are well-placed and ultimately helpful, food for thought for those involved, but the article repeatedly falls more into caricature then critique - tending, in turn, to critique it's own caricature rather then what the leaflets said or what might actually be happening.
The quote the article takes for it's title - "the longer the list, the better the action,” is part of a sentence from a leaflet encouraging involvement in the June 18th action. True enough, it' s not true - a list that included the likes of, to use their example, the French Front National, would make for a longer list but a scarily incoherent action. To use this snippet though, as the writer does, to confirm the "campaigns" "essence" as "indifference towards the social content of movements" and to suggest that June 18th is all about masses and quantities is indicative of the writers disingenuous selective reading. The first part of the sentence reads: "We will only realise our collective visions by taking action together" then lists some likely suspect sectors - unwaged, students, workers, etc, before finishing "the longer...”. You could be forgiven for assuming this meant that the listees should share some collective content but, fair enough, the ‘visions’ referred to could do with some focus.
With the articles subheading though, "the campaign against the economic summit" we are immediately in the realms of caricature. Nowhere in the leaflets produced or organising meetings held has it been suggested that June 18th is a campaign against the economic summit. The June 18th action can at most be called a co-ordination, not a campaign, and is, at best, precisely the rejection of the totality of the present social order that the article calls for, not an event opposing economic summits.
From this unpromising start the article goes on to contend that "the campaign" posits a incoherent, vague, them and us logic; has dispensed with any critique of capital and critical analysis generally; is fixated on financial institutions and multinationals; has a positivistic and moralistic approach; all amounting to confusion and mere pseudo-practise. Such insight after reading a "few propaganda leaflets" is surely commendable but leaves little room to practise what you preach and do more than scratch the surface of a subject.
To expect critical analysis from an A5 leaflet is possibly asking too much. While to conclude the rejection of radical critique (read as our radical critique) from such a leaflet is going too far. Tell the many people on the J18 email discussion list an international forum for interested groups and individuals set up at the start - that, “further reflection has been dispensed with.” They have been analysing and reflecting on capital, state, resistance and the like, for some time now. There are also groups around the UK organising meetings to discuss the plan where no doubt, some reflection may slip in occasionally. Then there is the London networks ‘What is Capitalism?’ conference - organised precisely for “further reflection.” The writer of the article may not have known all this but then if “the essence” of “the campaign” has already been revealed there is no need to find out.
In fact the lack of a critical analysis of capitalism in the direct action movement and its almost complete mystification in social life generally, is part of the point of organising the action. If a “recognition that the global capitalist system is at the root of our social and ecological troubles” was “commonplace” we might be in more encouraging times. The commonplace, in this instance, is for most people an obscurity.
Us and them
Juxtapositions for the sake of a propaganda leaflet such as, “We are more possible then they can powerfully imagine” are hardly to be taken as conclusive evidence of something’s “logic” or “essence”. Propaganda at least that which aims to get people active - often involves simplifications of a subject. By definition it aims to persuade or convince people and, yes, those working on J18 would like people to get involved and may initially be less concerned to ask to see the groups theoretical credentials; or to check whether or not they are “complicit with capital.” Furthermore the assumptions made in the text that our/their collective resistance is basically “raving for a few hours” or “throw(ing) some custard pies” might ring hollow for participants in ‘the south’ where doing either is not exactly top of the agenda.
Far from positing a crude them and us the claim is that our problems are systemic, inherent within the socio-economic order. Interpretations as to the fundamentals of this order may differ, as may the methods for its disposal, but the need to act collectively is clear. Who knows, action may even affect their/our interpretations. Maybe even, a way into an understanding of capitalism is through the ‘globalisation’ debate that the article sneers at.. To denounce those who haven’t reached your understanding yet is akin to the vegans who attack potential vegetarians for not going far enough thus sending them straight back to the meat counter. That there are, within the June 18th network, conflicting views, simplifications, confusions and hopes of getting a diversity of groups involved, is undeniable. Such are the concerns of practise. The luxury of everyone acceding to your understanding or agreeing with your ideas and practises is often unavailable in small unified groups let alone large diverse movements. This is, of course, where analysis, argument, dialogue and discussion comes in.
The heart of the global capitalist economy
If June 18th is just a few leaflets then a few thousand people occupying the City for a day then it might well be exhilarating reason enough maybe - but it wont add up to abolishing capitalism. That will require a more consistent praxis. Then again, to be so sure of where a “weaving together of all the single issue movements” leads, that it is “simply an incoherent patchwork ”, is to forget that the outcomes that result from a practise are not always the ones intended. That the secondary effects may be wholly unexpected. This of course cuts both ways and is no reason to dispense with analysis or intention but just maybe, looking for the potential and possibilities of a situation is as useful as dismissing it in advance The coinciding of J18 with the G8 summit is not to put pressure on bad corporations via nation-states but to show the collusion between state and capital and the necessity to overthrow both; to contend that exploitation is also a political matter not just an economic one. That this is not bluntly said and arguably it should be - owes more to a desire to open a debate before concluding it, and to the perceived role of a propaganda leaflet, then any rejection of critical analysis. Starting from a recognition of the multiplicity of positions and interests irreducible to a single analysis and tentatively endorsing this divergence, the unity is then aimed at precisely the recognition of exploitation by capital from different but complementary experiences. It doesn’t presuppose that unity but attempts to open a space for critique that is available to all.
To claim, as the writer does, that “if there is such a thing as “the heart of the global economy”” it “would rather make sense to occupy some factories” - makes no sense at all. Besides the literalism of its interpretation of a slogan, the autonomist insight that all of social life under capitalism tends to become a factory for the exploitation of surplus value not only wage-labour but the free work of students and housewives etc means that June 18th is an occupation of “some factories”: the social factories of the city streets and squares.
And while June 18th may well be “in many regards similar” to the campaign against the MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investments) - although the similarities are unspecified - there is at least one huge difference. The campaign against the MAI was mainly a lobbyist, letter writing opposition to one re-regulatory element of capital, the June 18th co-ordination is rooted in a direct actionist opposition to capitalism, full stop.
Practising pseudo-confusion
A call for mass action might indeed “amount to confusion”, if that was what was being called for. It isn’t. On the contrary, autonomous actions co-ordinated and focused - are being called for. Hopefully by those who have thought about what they are doing and why. One of the main organising principles of J18 is autonomy for the groups and movements involved. Meaning in practise encouraging self-activity and being less quick to dismiss other approaches. Not to build "a mass" but to make connections, encourage debate, open dialogues. Whether such confusing activity is leading “ultimately (to) mere pseudo-practise” is to be decided by those who know the true practise presumably we await their instructions…
The article ends with a summation of “the campaigns” strategy as naïve, using a slogan from the leaflet as illustration, but while “imagine taking your desires for reality” is on the leaflet it is hardly "depicted as the ultimate response to global capitalism” . The June 18th action may well be naïve but it is not just a “strategy of immediacy” by “hippy-individuals” against the evil “them”. That this is just clear-cut misrepresentation is self-evident. There are other “slogans” on the leaflet, which the writer does not mention, such as “imagine a society based on mutual aid, sharing and respect for nature” and “imagine a world where people have control of their lives and communities”. A less condemnatory reading may have suggested that those involved do feel creating a different world will require thought, collective action and an ongoing process and have presented some constructive ideas to pepper the criticisms.
If the June 18th action is not the activity of a "significant movement that at least claims to be revolutionary" it is at least significant for revolutionaries; and if its participants, like the theorists at 'Uniundercurrent', are "remote from advancing a coherent line of argumentation" they are, at least, advancing arguments. As an attempt to put capitalism back on the agenda of resistance at a time when its logic is further cloaked in mystification; as a contribution to the rebuilding of international solidarity at a time of rekindled nationalism and as a forwarding of informed imagination at a time when radical visions are seen as withering away, the June 18th action deserves, not caricatures, but the sharpest of critical engagements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
回應的回應：CARICATURES OF CAPITAL
While claiming that critique of J18 is much needed, the author to the reply dismissed ours as a caricature. We would be the last ones to deny that there has been a lot of caricaturing going on. But the only reason why our text might give that impression, is that its object - the information we have about J18 - is itself caricaturing the world of capital.
Our critique of J18 consisted of a number of related points: the fixation on finance capital and evil multinational corporations, the participation in the hype about “globalisation”, accompanied by a problematic localism, to name but the most important ones. The response evades these issues and instead repeatedly claims that the meagre basis on which we wrote our critique led us to distort the issue. However, we criticised precisely that there is nothing further than this “meagre basis” - that is a few leaflets - on which the J18 campaign/co-ordination (whatever difference that makes) is based. It is not our fault that a few small leaflets are so far all the co-ordination has published - it is the very problem. Fair enough, there have been e-mail and other discussion groups, but they are very private discussions. It is the publications made publicly available that represent a certain underlying consensus, and as such are to be taken as expressing the gist of a campaign. Otherwise, what would their purpose be? That to the present day not a single pamphlet bringing together “the multiplicity of positions and interests” has been put out underscores our claim that crucial questions are being neglected in order to keep up a superficial unity of action.
Instead of engaging with our critique, the writer explains to us the thorny path of bringing together the various movements around the globe. This obviously requires not asking for “groups’ theoretical credentials”. Yet while it is apparently too arrogant “to check whether or not groups are complicit with capital”, this political indifference does not prevent the writer from claiming that ”June 18th...is rooted in a direct actionist opposition to capitalism.” This contradiction remains a mystery to us, but our main point was something else: that a mobilisation of this type avoids a critical theory of capital and consequently reproduces ideology.
Of course, we are not in any way questioning the necessity of practice and we consider many of the actions planned for the day worthwhile. However, the reply to our previous article, as well as J18 generally, considers theory at most a secondary issue. The main focus is in the ‘action’, and any critical reflection is postponed indefinitely. Even more flagrantly, the author bets on the idea that “the outcomes that result from a practice are not always the ones intended” and that “the secondary effects may be wholly unexpected”... In other words, never mind if we reproduce social-democratic ideology, it might accidentally still end in a social revolution.
Not only do we find in the response to our article no refutation of the points we make, but unfortunately they seem more relevant now than before: the latest agit-leaflet is worth quoting at length to illustrate this. It claims: “Our planet is actually run by the financial markets - a giant video game in which people buy and sell blips on electronic screens, trading life for money in their search for higher profits. Yet the consequences of this frenzied game are very real: human lives, ecosystems, jobs and even entire economies [!!sic!!] are at the mercy of this reckless global system”. In reality the world is, of course, not run by the financial markets. Capital is a system of relations of production of which the financial markets are but a (necessary) offspring. To fixate the attack on them is to turn the world upon its head, resulting in such absurdities as complaining about the damages made to “jobs” and even “entire economies” which are apparently just as innocent as “ecosystems and human lives”. Since of course these “entire economies” are capitalist, this J18 statement affirms what it pretends to attack1. This feels like stating the obvious.
Although no one can deny the importance of financial markets, this passage simply reasserts a view of capitalism we tried to refute in the last article. Is this the further reflection resulting from the “what is capitalism?” conference?
This misconception of finance capital was one of the points we tried to raise, and not, as the writer claims, that nothing matters except the factories. We mentioned the factories in order to attack J18’s fixation on the financial centres; a fixation that is an obstacle for a critique of production. Of course, capital forms all of social life and not just production in the factories, and reclaiming the streets is one adequate response to this.
The J18 co-ordination is undeniably one between many different groups with radically opposing views. This on the one hand shows a serious lack of consensus, and a blurry amalgam of groups that don’t even necessarily have the same basic aims. On the other hand, and paradoxically, it is also the expression of a consensus: anything will do, as long as it fits with the vague anti-globalisation attitude. That, as we noted, this resentment can also be found on the political Right, e.g. the French Front National, does not seem to bother the author - instead, he claims that we suggested that J18 would like to include the Front National in its long list. Obviously, we never did, but the co-ordination is already, even without any Fascists, “scarily incoherent”.
Since the author dismissed our article as mere caricature and did not engage with the points we raised, there is nothing new we can say. Except maybe that “Economies versus Financial Markets” - this latest caricature of anti-capitalism - is even worse than the stuff we had referred to in the last undercurrent. It seems our critique was not a caricature, but an understatement.
P.S. We refuse to be compared to vegans (see ‘Hitler was a Vegetarian’, uniundercurrent #6)
(1) For an analysis of how capital presents itself in such a way as to facilitate the emergence of an “anti-capitalism” that is a one-sided attack on the abstract side of capital (e.g. finance capital) while affirming the “concreteness” of labour and production, and how furthermore this “anti-capitalism” relates to anti-Semitism, see Moishe Postone, ‘Anti-Semitism and National Socialism’, in Germans and Jews since the Holocaust: the changing situation in West Germany, ed. Anson Rabinach/Jack Zipes, New York and London 1986. We do not, however, want to suggest that J18 is anti-Semitic.