8.2
Some Comments on the Bamako Appeal  

I have some overall reaction to the Bamako Appeal that makes me hesitate to think we at ZNet should, for example, give it a big place on ZNet, hoping to provoke wide debate of it, etc. I would be happy to be shown wrong about this, and convinced that ZNet should feature it, provoke discussion of it, etc., but I have reasons for thinking that will be a hard case to make.
 
I wouldn't reject relating to a document that sought to inspire even so massive a thing as an international movement or organization, simply by virtue of its having a narrow authorship, or one that was quick, or even one that was narrow, quick, academic, and flawed in who knows what other ways. (I don't know who wrote, or more to the point signed on to this appeal, and am only guessing some of these attributes may be relevant.)

I admit that I would expect that a document with a narrow authorship and quick creation might lack the literary qualities needed to inspire, to establish an urgency, and to yet to also convey a quality of creativity and innovation that one wants in a new undertaking. But if an appeal did that, okay, excellent, though I would not expect it - and in this case I do think that the document, independent of its content, is flawed on those grounds.

I would also not expect, as a high likelihood, that a narrowly authored appeal would go deeply enough into the broad areas it would need to address, not just saying what people already pretty much all take for granted, but saying new things, inspiring things, able to lend an overarching meaning to an organization or project that were previously absent. I also think this document falls short on those grounds.

This appeal, at least to my reading, is not written in the language of normal people assessing their lives and possibilities. It is not emotive, or urgent, or inspiring, in the ways that I think would be necessary or at least very positive for any kind of kick-off work. And substantively, this appeal does not, to me, go deeply enough into new directions, providing new reasons for hope that it could spur something original and worthy. But all these flaws, if I am even right that they are there, could be corrected, of course by refinement. These are things a widespread discussion of the document might take up, not a reason to not widely discuss the document in the first place.
 
There is a different problem, however, that I think may be intractible and does seem to me to call into question a widespread discussion that takes for granted that if the appeal is or if it becomes excellent in its expressed content, then one ought to support it. I can understand and would have no a priori problem with a document that was meant to inspire a new movement or organization, which laid out very broad principles and commitments both at the level of values and also, even (and I think very much needed), at the level of institutional goals, even if it was written by a very few people. Such a document, or such ideas, would either resonate or not. Such a movement or organization would come into existence, or not. I do think a better approach would be that such content, which does after all have to arise from somewhere, would make many rounds among diverse audiences, acquiring ever wider support and refinement, becoming more the product and possession of a large group, before being proposed as a basis for widely collective activity, but that view doesn't entirely rule out a narrower and admittedly much quicker approach.
 
But a document that comes from a narrow, or even a pretty broad authorship, and that charts an organization or a movement's program in considerable degree, is to me a very different matter. It seems to me that specific program must flow from those undertaking the work, not from an initiating group, of whatever size and skill, for at least two reasons.

First, program is highly contextual. On the one hand, yes, it needs to relate to ultimate goals, and that part is arguably able to be conceived in advance and, in fact, probably could only be initially offered in a founding document, a call, or an appeal, or just a paper, or book, etc., though perhaps, and I think to its advantage, with a lot of work before hand. But this appeal goes beyond that kind of content to also relate to current conditions and prospects, proposing actual immediate program and projects, etc., as its main focus. I have to say, doing that optimally seems to me to be very nearly inconceivable in advance, and certainly not at a distance. And yet let's say those odds are confounded or I am just wrong about that. Let's say this appeal has by some incredible dynamic, or just by lifting references to what people are already doing, posed a program that is exactly what activists around the world would pose, in place after place, for themselves, even in a new and much larger and more international organization, in light of shared ultimate goals and basic values, etc. Even if the Bamako Appeal's programmatic proposals were that good, it seems to me that to put forth a program for their activity in advance of the activists joining together ever even discussing program, in advance of their proposing what they want to do, of their advocating and debating it, and of their deciding it, probably with much variation from place to place, is topsy turvy in the extreme. Proposing program before one has a membership, even, is not the kind of democratic, much less self managing, participatory process that one wants to utilize to initiate and carry forward new projects. Instead, however well motivated - and I am quite sure the motivations are exemplary - it seems to me to usurp participation and unintentionally make a bit of a sham of democracy and certainly of self management.
 
My problem isn't with an appeal coming from a few people that offers broad vision - both values and institutions - and indeed I wish this appeal was stronger on such matters - proposing institutional goals that we might discuss, evaluate, refine, and hopefully share for economy, polity, gender, culture, etc. Such an appeal could be good or bad, useful or not, and that would be the issue in assessing it, not its source. My problem is with an appeal from a few people that poses actual program that others are supposed to carry out but which is offered with no input from those other people, and before they are even involved, no less. That seems not to promote discussion, but to end discussion before it begins. I could see an appeal that maps out broad institutional values and goals, so that those aligning with the appeal and moving forward with it have common cause and comprehension, even as they refine these grounds of agreement. But it seems to me that the actual program of an organization or project or movement has to percolate through a widespread look at what is possible, what has been and is being done, and what fits those requisites and also contributes to the long term aims, context by context, and that all that has to be done at the base, at the point of involvement, for process and for quality of result.
 
Again, it isn't that I think all good ideas come only from people in jail, or waving weapons, or in the throes of civil disobedience, or organizing at the grassroots, or that good ideas never come from people not doing those things, or other things, etc. etc. Nor is it that I think broad vision, broad strategy, broad analysis, can't be initially posed, even for an organization, by a few people, and then refined, to finally serve as the glue that holds people together, even as the people who are thereby held together then self manage what they think and say and do based on their broad agreement. And it isn't that I think there is something wrong with particular people having strong ideas they wish to advocate about program, as well, for that matter. But for a few people, in a short span, to think they have arrived at a program that people all over the world ought to implement, in considerable programmatic detail, maybe I am reading wrong or misperceiving, but I think that goes way too far and usurps self managing process even before anyone has aligned with the project. So, for myself, the fact that this appeal is actually pretty vague about both what is wrong in the present, and what we want in the future, but is quite specific about program, seems highly topsy turvy.
 
This is why I haven't paid a lot of attention to the appeal up until now.
 
Having read through the document again in response to invitation for comments, however, I have a few other broad reactions. Here are some.
 
Early the appeal says, "The goal is a radical transformation of the capitalist system." Imagine someone saying the goal is a radical transformation of slavery - of patriarchy - of empire, etc. It is a strange formulation, and also not compelling alongside our endless arguments that capitalism is intrinsically grotesque and intrinsically yields horrible outcomes (transformed or not). Can anyone imagine a really powerful, really massive movement that says it is about radically transforming capitalism? And more, at least as I read it, in any case, this is not my goal. I want to get rid of capitalism not transform it, and more, our goal, I think, can't be formulated in a negative way and be effective, but has to take a positive form as in we seek x in place of capitalism. In my case the x that I seek, as compared to capitalism, is called participatory economics. For someone else, perhaps it is something else. I suspect that to have powerful national and international movements we are going to need substantial agreement about a positive non capitalist alternative. But in any event, the phrase radical transformation of the capitalist system is a problem for me, hopefully just of communication.

Shortly later the appeal says, "We want to give to this principle of solidarity the place it deserves and diminish the role of competition." I agree with that sentiment for solidarity, and also for equity, justice, sustainability, participation, diversity, self management, and so on - but what does it mean in institutional terms? For the value noted, markets obliterate solidarity by their intrinsic implications for human actions. Is the appeal therefore anti-market? I don't think it is, but I am not sure. If the appeal isn't anti-market, I don't know what the quoted sentiment about solidarity means. If it is anti-market, good, at least in my view.

The appeal says, "The politically active citizen must ultimately become responsible for the management of all the aspects of social, political, economic and cultural life." Again, I agree, very much, but again, what does it mean, institutionally? Do people supporting this appeal by that phrase oppose corporate divisions of labor, for example, among other institutions? If not, I don't know what the phrase means. If so, then again, good, in my view. But what do we want instead. Is this like opposing old age - silly, because there is no alternative - or do have an alternative? More widely, what structures does this sentiment, which I like, oppose us to? What new structures does it align us to? I think substance is missing about these matters, which greatly reduces the value of the nice sentiments that are there, leaving the reader with no way, I think, to decide how he or she feels about these commitments.

The appeal also says, "One of the conditions of this democracy (that it seeks) is the eradication of all forms of the patriarchy, either admitted or hidden. " I like that sentiment, too, but again, what does it mean? There is nothing new in saying this, or in the other broad statements above...either...what would be new, and what might provide a basis for something very exciting and effective, I think, would be concretely indicating what has to go, and what new has to be created, institutionally, to fulfill the broad aims. More, I think a new movement, or organization, is going to need shared long term vision of that sort, for hope, for direction, so it is proper material for a proposal like this one.

Next, "Construct a universal civilization offering in all areas the full potential of creative development to all its diverse members." I don't know what this means. I fear, however, even after reading the explanatory paragraph that it may hark back to the idea of a single desirable culture as the solution to huge numbers of conflicting cultures, as compared to a poly cultural approach. I doubt that is the intent of the words, but, here as elsewhere, I just think the words aren't really very clear because institutional substance is absent.

Next: "In this framework, in which the market has a place but not the predominant place, economy and finance should be put at the service of a societal program; they should not be subordinated to the imperatives of dominant capital that favour the private interests of a tiny majority." My problem is that in the long run, I think allocation by a market has no place whatsoever in an economy that seeks to elevate solidarity, serving human needs and potentials, attaining ecological balance, much less eliminating class rule, etc. etc. This harks back to the "radical transformation of the capitalist system," line, above. Imagine someone said, "in this framework, in which dictatorship has a place, politics and judicial choices should be put at the service of a societal program and not subordinated to the imperatives of the dictator and his minions." I think it is pretty analogous. No would believe that the person who wasn't rejecting dictatorship was really serious about politics and judiciary serving society, or, whether serious or not, could deliver on the promise, at least without an end to dictatorship.

The appeal, in other words, critiques extreme marketization - which to me is like criticizing extreme dictatorship. It isn't that there is no such thing as better and worse market dynamics and better and worse dictatorships. And it isn't that the difference doesn't matter - it does, of course. And it isn't that we shouldn't seek to modulate or constrain markets (or dictatorship) at times. It is that to imply that less extreme or more moderated variants of markets (or dictatorship) are the goal is wrong and, also, will hugely undercut prospects for a movement that is strong and steadfast.

There are two problems. One, moderated markets, or moderated capitalism, are not my goal, far short of it. But two, the more extreme market dynamics and capitalist dynamics arise from the less extreme, and the less moderated market dynamics arise from the more moderated ones. Markets, and other aspects of capitalism as well, have an inexorable logic, quite like dictatorship does, and even if the worst is held in abeyance for a considerable time, if that logic isn't fully challenged and fully overcome, eventually these structures will devolve into their worst forms, and, in any case, even in their best forms will always be far short of what we desire.

The rest of the appeal, after the introductory part from which the comments above arise, is a very considerable compendium of programmatic priorities and ideas - many of which are in my view very good - included under the 1 - 10 listing. My problem with all this program is partly as noted in the beginning of this message. I just don't think this belongs in a document like this, even assuming it was done perfectly, whatever that might mean.

But I don't think it is done perfectly, or even nearly so - despite that there is much that I think is excellent - because I don't think the program, even if it had come from some massive process involving activists from all over the world in a participatory process in which they were proposing their own activities - is clearly enough formulated in terms of ultimate goals which could inspire and then give weight to widespread activist involvement by overcoming people's not so unreasonable fear that even if they give their all and win some great gains, in time capitalism will just roll them back, or take it out of someone else's hide.

This may well be largely idiosyncratic to me, I don't know, but it is my impression, in other words, that most people doubt left involvement NOT because they think everything is fine or even bearable with the world. On the contrary, most people know that the world is an incredible mess - doing massive damage to individuals and populations daily. Rather most people think there is no overall alternative to what exists. But this isn't a stupid kind of doubt. They aren't saying that war over there has no alternative - obviously, they know the bombs could stop falling over there, with that war ended. And I think they also know that poverty over there, in some particular place, might be ended. What they are saying is that the world's problems won't go away, or be overcome, but will only shift around. Instead of persons x being poor, maybe those other persons y will be poor - but poverty will remain. Instead of war waged here, maybe war will be waged there, but war will remain. People believe, in other words, that personal and social relations inexorably breed gross inequality, power differentials, greed, corruption, war, and so on, which might move around a bit, but aren't going away. They think most victories, therefore, will simply fade, in time, rolled back, and tend to be won as well only by one sector at the expense of another. They understand, or believe, in other words, that basic institutions of society are the problem, and that basic institutions continually reimpose horrible outcomes, so that even when we win some gains, they tend to be rolled back later. Every once in a while, absent hope for a real alternative, there will be a movement seeking to better the lot of some sector or group, feeling optimistic and hopeful that it might occur, but it will tend to lack broader solidarity - because broad improvement for all is considered impossible. This is why Thatcher was right trumpeting TINA as a great bullwork to the system she believes in. It is. And we can't overcome TINA by saying we want better this or that, or even by saying, however emotively, that another world is possible but not showing what it would look like and why we should believe it is possible. We can overcome TINA only by making a very compelling case that another world could work like this, with these institutions, having these effects, and in these ways, thereby making life this much better. That, done with real institutional substance, is what's missing, I think, for there to be a movement as big and as powerful and as committed and solidaritous as the Bamako Appeal is hoping for, but the Bamako Appeal doesn't speak to that need.

Indeed, I think that what will make an activist program as rich and diverse as what Bamako proposes really uplifting and engaging, in addition to its being posed in the language of people's normal lives, and in addition to its arising from activists consultations and refinements and therefore having a more contextual and impassioned feel, will be that it is formulated not only in terms of the immediate benefits that it can attain, but precisely in terms of how it will aid a long-term project that will finally create a broadly envisioned new world. This latter motive for participating - winning a foreseen new world - beyond seeking short term benefits, is what will convey the real and unquenchable, uncooptable, undeterable solidarity, commitment, and wide participation that I think the Bamako Appeal is hoping for. But it is this type overarching shared aim and the connection between program and the aim that is missing from the appeal or so it seems to me, at any rate.
Michael Albert
ZNet / Z Magazine
sysop@zmag.org

* Received on e-mail, May 4 2006