Counter and Anti Hegemony at the 2006 World Social Forum
by Fran Shor; February 05, 2006

Although preliminary plans for the WSF had delineated six thematic areas, two themes - “imperial strategies and people’s resistance,” and “power, politics, and the struggle for social emancipation” seemed to dominate most of the sessions, or at least, the sessions I managed to attend. ]

The program for the Caracas 2006 WSF touted the event as a “space for encounter and debate…for sharing ideas, proposals and experiences, for developing strategies and for articulating struggles around the world.” Certainly, the carnivalesque atmosphere in some of the venues in Caracas suggested not only lively discursive encounters but also celebrations of South American social movements. The opening march on January 23 of tens of thousands of WSF participants and supporters through the streets of Caracas under myriad banners focused, in particular, on the theme of anti-imperialism. Marching passed the guarded burial site of Simon Bolivar, one chant exploded from contingent after contingent of Latin Americans: “With the spear of Bolivar, we will march through Latin America.”

While the celebratory mode in the streets was swept along by the currents of radical change in South America, the question of the degree to which these currents challenged the hegemonic models of neoliberalism and imperialism were part of the debates and discussions throughout the week. Whether, as the program suggested, the WSF was the breeding ground for “new alternatives to the actual model of imperialist domination” and “a new way of doing politics, one that is anti-hegemonic and a true alternative to the dominant social model” had much to do with the emergent perspectives found throughout the WSF. In particular, debates about the degree to which South American social movements compelled or were constrained by their leftist governments raised profound questions concerning counter and anti hegemonic models.

On the other hand, there was little debate about the iniquities embedded in the hegemonic rule of the United States, whether of neoliberal or imperial bent. Certainly, the on-going worldwide criticism of the Bush Administration’s warmongering and empire-building was evident everywhere in Caracas from posters of Bush’s face with a Hitler-like moustache and large type declaiming Bush = Assassin to Hugo Chavez’s denunciation of Bush as “Mr. Danger” and “the world’s biggest terrorist.” A portion of Chavez’s 2 and ½ hour speech on January 27 to WSF delegates involved the condemnation of the US Empire. “It is the most perverse empire in history: it talks about freedom while invading and destroying other nations.” (In some ways Chavez’s attack on the US empire is reminiscent of the insight of the late literary and social critic, Edward Said, who claimed that the “difference between the US and the classic empires of the past is that, although historical empire has asserted its determination not to repeat the overarching ambitions of predecessors, this latest empire astonishingly affirms its sacrosanct altruism and well-meaning innocence.”)

Chavez’s conclusion to this denunciation of US empire was a Khrushchev-like bold declaration: “This century we will bury the US empire.”
While there are numerous social critics, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, who believe the US empire is already in decline, Chavez’s rhetoric underscores the fact that the US still deploys its military power to attempt hegemonic domination throughout the world. Ironically, the Chavez government remains a leading supplier of oil to the United States at the same time it engages in efforts to stymie US hegemony in international fora. In allowing Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, and Conoco-Phillips to reap large profits from Venezuelan oil fields, albeit paying higher taxes for their extraction of oil, Chavez seemingly defers to the hegemonic logic of US transnational oil companies. While Chavez has, in turn, used the revenues from Venezuelan oil to fund social programs for the poor in his country, such as health clinics and literacy campaigns, and in other countries, including the US where the Venezuelan subsidiary, Citgo, is providing home heating oil to poor residents in New York City and Boston, he has ceded control over oil rights to those transnational corporations. In addition, the Venezuelan government is in the process of working with some of those same companies to exploit coal reserves in the northwest regions of Venezuela at the expense of the land claims and environmental security of the indigenous groups that inhabit that region. (During the WSF Venezuelan indigenous peoples and their supporters demonstrated in Caracas against the plans for coal harvesting and building two massive ports in the same region.)\\

Beyond the contradictions of the Chavez government, other participations in the 2006 WSF raised the banner of resistance to US military intervention. The large contingent of Colombians spotlighted the nefarious activities of Plan Colombia, a joint initiative of the Colombian government and the US to ostensibly stop drug-trafficking but mainly to forestall insurgent movements throughout Colombia. Lila Solano, a candidate for the Colombian parliament, identified the new edition of Plan Colombia, called Plan Patriot, as “state terrorism financed by Washington.” On the last day of the WSF the International Assembly of Social Movements announced a day of international protests against the US occupation of Iraq, March 18, and a follow-up conference on March 24-27 in Cairo. Undertaking such pointed political action suggests that the WSF is morphing from what was its primary focus on neoliberal globalization.

On the other hand, the critique of neoliberalism remained at the core of the International Assembly of Social Movements and the 2006 WSF. The Assembly issued a document that lambasted privatization, expressing, in turn, support for the protection of water, land, and energy as public goods. One of the most eloquent analyses of neoliberalism at the WSF came from indigenous leader Blanca Chancoso from Ecuador. Accusing neoliberals of wanting “to base society only on the economy and also on the idea that only certain people are fit to rule,” Chancoso also condemned the social dislocation that resulted from neoliberal policies throughout Latin America. Lauding the efforts of Cuban solidarity and Venezuelan reciprocity, she proposed that such efforts could become “the basis of a new economy, a plurinational, pluricultural state that we can build together.”

Of course, the most exciting experiment in transforming the state in South America and countering the old hegemonic order was underway in Bolivia at almost the same time as the WSF in Caracas. With Evo Morales being sworn in as President of Bolivia with an unprecedented 53% of the popular vote, the possibility of a de-colonized state appeared on the agenda. In the special indigenous ceremony at an ancient Inca site before his official swearing-in, Morales promised the indigenous crowd that “with the strength of the people, we will put an end to the colonial state and the neoliberal model.” Having attended a special session at the WSF featuring two Bolivian indigenous leaders, I sensed the excitement and inspiration that Morales victory embodied. While both of these Bolivian leaders of different social movements agreed that Morales would oppose neoliberalism and de-colonize the state, they articulated slightly different alternatives as the path Bolivia would follow under Morales. One saw socialism as the obvious alternative while the other spoke of being different than the traditional left in the embrace of a communal struggle for primordial rights. Even as both agreed that nationalization of oil and gas reserves was imperative and representative of the aspirations of the Bolivian indigenous people, how Bolivia proceeds under Morales is still an open matter.

In fact, the whole question of how revolutionary governments can be within the world system of capital and the internal contradictions of political traditions was of primary concern not just to the Bolivians but practically all participations in the 2006 WSF in Caracas. One of the leaders of the MST (Landless Workers Movement) from Brazil, Ricardo Gebrim, noted that “no political party, no matter how left-wing they are, has been able to take political power without succumbing to the dynamics of electoralism and moving to the right. What we need to build is a powerful united political movement, like in Bolivia, that will take power at the right revolutionary moment.” Certainly, in Bolivia the crescendo of activities engaged in by various social movements propelled Morales to power. On the other hand, the whole question of how counter hegemonic movements could achieve state power and the transform the state to realize “another world” is open to the kind of debate and discussion seen throughout the WSF.

Although many at the 2006 WSF would agree with the Uruguayan women’s activist, Lilian Celiberti, that “it is important for governments to create mechanisms for participation to translate demands into public policies,” how closely aligned social movements should be with governments is another matter. Moreover, the whole question of the relationship of the WSF to particular governments, in this case the Chavez government of Venezuela, proved disconcerting to some, including a small group of anarchists who sponsored an Alternative Social Forum in Caracas under the slogan of “No compromise with power!” Indeed, if the whole effort to create an anti-hegemonic politics is taken seriously, any and all hierarchical structures must be dismantled and replaced with what anti-hegemonic theorist John Holloway calls a horizontal social model.

For the time being, however, Latin America has become a site of challenging certain hegemonic models in a profound, if not revolutionary, way. Contradicting the arrogant and imperial perspective of Henry Kissinger that “nothing important can come from the South,” the new experiments spawned by social movements throughout the continent, from workers self-management in Argentina to indigenous movements to protect water and land in Bolivia and Brazil, there is hope for, at least, a fairer world in that region. But the long range issue of countering and even eroding hegemony, especially from the North, is still a critically open-ended matter, one that was given inspiring consideration throughout the 2006 World Social Forum in Caracas.