|
A
holistic approach: Introduction
// The
Spiritual Dimension of Globalisation
// The Economic Dimension of Globalisation
// The Political and Legal Dimension
of Globalisation // After Rio + 10: Sustainability
- Model or Illusion?
// Who owns the Earth? The Question of Modern Land
Reform // Social Commitment of Capital -
Limits to the Free Flow of Capital // Our
Responsibility for Our Resources // The Human Right to Exist - Financing the Social Systems
From
Friday Oct. 11th until Sunday Oct. 13th 2002 a
conference took place at the Trier University. Promotors were the Institute for
Contemporary Questions (Institut für soziale Gegenwartsfragen), Stuttgart, and
the Institute for Modern Forms of Economic and Social Life (Institut für
zeitgemäße Wirtschafts- und Sozialgestaltung), Dornach.
"Today everybody is talking about
"Globalisation". With this word we name a process, which is
interfering ever deeper into the lives of human beings and which is related to
the development of a worldwide net of economic dependencies. The form, in which
this process is going on nowadays, is stamped by neo-liberal thinking. This kind
of thinking is the basis of the activity of global institutions, which have
gained more and more power, most notably the World Trade Organisation WTO. With
the GATS und the TRIPS agreements the WTO is setting out to subjugate all areas
of social life to commercial interests. In the meantime a global civil society movement has
arisen against those tendencies. The adversaries of this movement call it an
"anti"-globalisation movement. But in fact this movement is fighting
only against the specific form, in which globalisation is working today. In
particularly it is pointing to the growing gap between the rich and the poor on
the globe. Even some more foresighted representatives of the established
institutions agree with its demand for shaping economic globalisation in its
social and ecological aspects. In the next two years we will reach a crucial point
for all further development: Will a new "liberalization round" of the
WTO create irreversible facts? Or can we succeed, to keep open the possibility
for a different approach to shaping globalisation? And how can we create a
different, a humane form of globalisation? How can we handle the problems
practically? This question was discussed for instance by more than
50.000 activists of global civil society during the second World Social Forum in
Porto Alegre/Brazil at the beginning of this year. At Porto Alegre the
International Forum on Globalization, amongst whose members are a large number
of leading representatives of the civil society from all continents, has
presented a report on alternatives to the contemporary form of globalisation.
With this report the IFG wants to initiate a worldwide process of discussion
between all people interested (see htttp://www.ifg.org). The
Institute for Contemporary Social Questions in Stuttgart and the Institute for a
Modern Social and Economic Structure in Dornach have been working on this
subject for many years. They have forewarned of the development promoted by the
WTO at a time, when the public was still completely unaware of this subject.
They have also elaborated solution-oriented proposals for concrete questions as
for instance on safeguarding the social systems under the conditions of globalisation. They appreciate the initiative the IFG has taken andwould like to
take up the offer of a civil society dialogue. With the Trier Conference
they try to elaborate modules for a humane form of globalisation, which shall be
placed at the disposal of all people, who want to participate in the further
discussion process. We invite everybody, who is interested in the questions of
shaping globalisation und in the dialogue about these questions. The following texts are summaries of the introductions given by Udo Herrmannstorfer, Dr. Christoph Strawe, Prof. Dr. Harald Spehl and Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Filc.
1. The tendency
towards globalisation lies at the bottom of the whole of our modern cultural
epoch. The emergence of the term in the nineties means just an external
finalization of this process. The development of the last century doesn’t only
result from a historical reflection but was consciously conceived on a political
level as a project of a "new world order". After the period of
political colonialism the economy took over the role of the factor of
integration. The large global
comprehensive contracts, particularly the MAI-treaty as a keystone, were
intended to position the economic order of neo-liberalism promoting globalisation
even above social political order. The events in Seattle have,
temporarily, put a halt to this development. 2. A civilization that transgresses its original
regional boundaries and seizes the whole world, like the European culture, could
only have the power to mould the globe into a stable empire if it did not also
carry in itself the capacity to understand and encourage other cultures. This
can be seen as a new element which concerns the self-image of man as an
individuality and the potential for its development. The true cultural message
is not the scientific materialism, which came up as a consequence of the
elaboration of self-consciousness and is dominating our culture at present, but
it is the newly disclosed access to the spiritual foundations of man and world,
achieved on the basis of the forces of consciousness strengthened by that
elaboration, as we find it anchored in Christianity and - consciously opened up
- for instance in anthroposophy. Thus globalisation
turns into more than mere market expansion. 3. The globalised
world gives rise to the question of world culture. It is quite clear that this
question must not be answered in terms of national interests. These forces
formerly responsible for creating civilizations and nations can no longer be the
starting point, as they tend to produce incompatibilities. On the contrary, if
such forces are roused they will provoke downright cruelties, both within states
with mixed populations and internationally. Power politics is no answer to the
problems of globalisation. It is in every single human being himself that the
new concept of culture must find and stimulate the forces needed to stimulate
the processes of social formation. Therefore it can neither be national nor
international, neither multinational nor supranational, but only humane in a
universal sense. 4. What will be
essential is not only to look at peoples, states and markets in the discussion
of globalisation but to focus on man himself and his development going ahead
anywhere in the world. The term "universal" therefore should not be
equated with "abstract", but in the concept of man the human being
must be understood in his actual individuality. Then it will be realized that
man in himself is a developing entity. This again will shed a new light on the
question of how individual people and groups of people relate to each other and
what is needed in any given situation to promote development. [Translated by Wilfried Hüfler] Prof. Dr. Harald
Spehl 1.
Globalization is no natural phenomenon but the result of human decisions and
action. 2.
Globalization is more than internationalisation. Globalisation means a
new quality of the relations between human beings all over the world, it leads
to new chances and risks for social and economic development. 3.
Globalisation is more than free trade. Not only goods (products and
services) are exchanged.
Also natural resources, environmental media, people, capital, knowledge and
innovations get worldwide mobile or enter into exchange and competition with
each other. This also applies to moral concepts and cultures as well as to
deceases and technological risks. Also a competition and mutual influence of
conditions and chances of life is coming up. 4.
Globalisation requires configuration. Globalisation shall serve the
enhancement of the conditions and chances of life for all human beings. This
demand is valid with regard to today's world population but also with regard to
the relationship between the today's and the future population of the earth. 5.
Conditions: A human and just globalisation must satisfy at least
the following conditions in the economic sector: 6.
Globalisation requires steps
towards cooperative coordination in the economic sector: Globalisation
without the necessary framework of organs for cooperation leads to irresponsible
behaviour of the human beings involved. Thus economic globalisation requires
steps away from anonymous market mechanism towards a cooperative coordination. 7.
The existing institutions like WTO, IMF and World Bank must be
changed in accordance with this demand or replaced by other. [Translated
by Christoph Strawe]
Dr. Christoph
Strawe
Prof. Harald
Spehl Results
of the world summit on sustainable development Johannesburg 2002: In
many cases only declarations of intent, not much concrete stuff, insofar a
“summit of disappointment”: World
summit on sustainable development at Rio (1992:) The
task of the conceptual building blocks for a human and just globalisation in
this context: [Translated by Christoph Strawe]
Udo Herrmannstorfer 1.
The system of land legislation, i.e. the canon of rules for the
utilization of land, is a fundamental feature of every society. However, it is
also an expression of the society’s self-perception. The emergence of modern
concepts of state, with the break-up of traditional social hierarchies, and the
advent of a globalised world order make a new look at land legislation
mandatory. Otherwise serious injustices and damages will result, of the kind
which we are facing already to-day in numerous instances. 2.
Land forms the basis of the whole of any society. Thus the necessary allocation
of land utilization must benefit all individuals within the society. Since land,
with few exceptions, is not a producible commodity, it cannot be put on sale in
a market. Selling land means privatizing that part of the ground rent which
should actually be socialized. Turning the factors of production into saleable
commodities is a serious and fundamental mistake of our economic system. In this
regard, labour and capital are similarly problematic, though for different
reasons. 3.
The land always belongs to everyone, though it can be utilized only
by individuals. Thus individual “ownership” of land can only refer
to the right of utilization. As long as this individual utilisation continues
unchanged, there is no need for societal action. Society only has to ensure that
a new user can step into the rights of the previous utilizer when he quits. In
such a system, the right to land utilization
would change hands only by assignment, not by sale. In this way, land
“ownership” would be brought back into circulation within the social system.
Society would not manage the land; it would only ensure that it is available to
(suitable) individuals for utilization, and that such utilization is not made
impossible by prohibitive sales prices. 4.
Instead of a sales price paid to the to the pre-possessor, society could
impose a social compensation payment for the ongoing utilisation of the land.
This is justified because the use of land by one individual excludes everyone
else from using the same plot. The communal income accruing from the
compensation payments would be used to the benefit of all people in the
respective region or part of the world. Such compensation payments do not
constitute interest on capital, since no sale, and thus no capital transfer, has
taken place. Their level would not be determined by supply and demand,
but by social
considerations. For instance, society can adjust the level so as to further
ecological agriculture or other societal goals. 5.
Such a kind of land reform would have enormous consequences for the
conditions of social life, from housing to regional and town planning, and
finally to the agricultural system. Even more serious would be the effects on
prices and incomes if the manner of land utilization were thus to be brought
back to a state of stable health. The capital which is presently tied up in land
property would be set free for other, useful purposes. 6. Large parts of the world are presently being forced to reorganize their social systems, adapting them to the conditions of globalisation. It would not be necessary to plunge these regions into the same problems of land speculation which other parts of the world have gone through - possibly in even more acute forms. In the rich countries, the problems arising from land legislation are alleviated by long-established social rights and public welfare. Countries which are still developing have not had the time to establish such safeguards; consequently, they lack the corrective forces which make the adverse effects of outdated forms of land legislation tolerable in our part of the world. [Translated
by Prof. Helmut Fischmeister]
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Filc 1.
The inherent Instability of the Financial System Since
the last decade of the 20th century, world economics has
become highly susceptible to instability and crisis. The financial markets
were shaken by one crisis after the other. In 1997, the emerging countries of
Southeast Asia were hit; one year later, it was Russia’s turn; Brazil came in
1999, and after that, Turkey. Presently we see the economic and financial crisis
of Argentina spreading to other countries of the subcontinent. The
industrialized countries are groaning under the debacle of the stock markets
which followed the techno-hype in the USA, and has reached its high (so far) in
the Enron attack on the stability of the world’s financial system. These
deformations have common features which could have been seen before – had
anyone cared. But many economists, and the people who bore the responsibility
for currency and financial policy in the leading economies of the world,
disregarded the evident indications. 2.
Conditions for Stability Without
well-performing and stable financial markets, it is impossible to achieve
satisfactory economic development. The foreign exchange rate of a currency,
jointly with wage and interest levels, determine the situation of a country’s
economy, its growth, its ability to compete internationally via pricing, along with its import-export
balance, the direction and extent of its international capital flow, the internal buying power of its currency, and the distribution of
incomes. Two of these quantities are determined by the financial market, viz.,
the rate of exchange and the interest level, and thus the importance of
financial relations for the development of an economy can hardly be
overestimated. A responsible monetary and currency policy must aim to avoid
detrimental developments caused by inappropriate rates of interest and exchange.
There are three conditions for counteracting crises of the financial market.
First,
structural deficiencies of the national finance market and its relations to
international markets must be identified and remedied. In particular, the
international framework for trading in financial markets must be adapted to the
conditions created by the globalisation of international financial relations.
This is the area of microeconomic or structural reform. Second,
economic development as a whole must
be made more steady and calculable, allowing the risk level of financial
transactions to be lowered, and making the financial system more resistant to
crisis.
Third,
it is the task of governments and international institutions like the world bank
and the IMF to fill the gaps which have opened up in the wake of the
de-nationalization of economy and economic policy in the course of globalisation. This goal will not be achieved without much stronger
international cooperation in economic policy.
In
the era of economic globalisation, mishaps anywhere in the world can escalate
into shock waves running around the globe, which threaten whole economies
elsewhere. Market globalisation is accompanied by increasing regional
integration, be it in Europe (European Union), Asia (ASEAN), or in America
(NAFTA and Mercosur). Regional cooperation is the key to success where trade
relations are concerned, but it is insufficient for financial relations in our
era of globalisation. A stable, world-wide financial architecture requires
intercontinental cooperation. Stability-oriented economic policy in each
country is a prerequisite for improved stability of the financial system. But
this is not enough, seeing that market dynamics can trigger the derailment of
exchange rates at any time. How to guard against this is a matter of
advisability. The salient point, which
must be firmly implanted in the heads of those responsible for international
economic policy, is that globalisation of financial markets requires an
institutional accompaniment by Global Governance. Economics,
and in particular finance, must be shored up by a framework of rules which must
be defined by politics and matched to societal aims, because what is good for
the automotive industry or for the large financial institutions is not
necessarily good for the citizen. A policy entirely subjugated to the interests
if the finance industry puts at risk the survival of market economy, of an open
world trade system, and indeed of open societies. Market economy will be able to
retain credibility only if it can be enclosed in a fitting social and political
framework. Three functions, based outside the market itself, must be provided to
allow the sustained existence of markets and market economy: regulation,
stabilization, and legitimation of market results. This is why every stable
society and every stable economy has institutions which suppress unfair
competition and punish fraud. Monetary and fiscal institutions smooth changes of
the economic situation; social systems make market results acceptable to current
societal values. Regulating institutions of this kind have not yet come to
function on the international scale.
This
contrast of globalisation of the market versus national partitioning of
regulating institutions is remarkable, because a typical consequence of globalisation
is the loss of national sovereignty in a world where all
boundaries between territorial social systems, including economics, are being
abolished. National powers of control have been largely eliminated by
joint action on the international scale, especially of finance markets. Without
a globally oriented policy, it will not be possible to re-establish a
determinative influence of institutions outside and above the market upon
financial markets and economic development. What is lacking is a supranational
institution to assume the role of honest broker, unaffected by national
perspectives, and committed solely to world welfare. Global
markets are not compatible with an economic policy which is bounded by state
boundaries, or with controlling/regulating institutions attuned to currency
areas. A much wider international cooperation is required in this respect. In
addition, an internationally accepted framework is needed to support financial
markets and international financial relations in this era of globalisation. Only
such a structure can save globalisation from stumbling into a trap,
the closing of which could trigger an implosion of world economics. In
particular, the governments of the great industrialized countries (G7) must not
neglect their joint responsibility for world economics. Almost half of the
social product of the world is generated in these seven countries, and 80 per
cent. of all financial transactions
world wide are settled in Euro, Dollar or Yen. Therefore, willingness and
ability to cooperate in economic and currency policy are an important condition
for world-wide economic stability. Only when the core of world economics has
become stable will we have the prerequisites for improving stability at the
periphery, i.e. in emergent and developing countries.
[Translated
by Prof. Helmut Fischmeister] 1.
Since time immemorial, the resources of our world seemed inexhaustible. Again
and again, new discoveries and inventions seemed to make serious concern
unnecessary. This euphoria is now gone. We have become conscious of the
limitations of our resources. Care and husbandry are indicated. A more
sophisticated concept is sustainability, based on self-renewal and circulation
of resources. 2.
Land legislation has a greater impact on resource management than is generally
realized. What matters is not only the direct effects mentioned in the theses
of the first Building Block. Directly or indirectly, property legislation
influences a lot more: the right to mineral resources in the ground; preferred
types of agricultural utilization; the management and care of water supply and
atmospheric pollution. Those are also the points of origin of the strongest
opposition to reforms. The problem is aggravated by WTO’s claim to
deregulate land property transactions everywhere. 3.
A special problem is posed by mineral resources below the sea outside national
territories, which so far have been exempt from sovereignty. The extension of
territorial limits to 200 miles was a first coup against the chances of making
those resources available to all mankind. Contention for territorial rights to
islands and bases such as the Falklands, the Aegean, Morocco etc., which at
first sight appears politically senseless, often concerns suboceanic mineral
or oil deposits. Reversing this misstep would constitute a movement towards a
constructive type of globalisation that would not imply real loss of
sovereignty, only abstention from an expansion of power spheres - an important
step toward building confidence. 4.
In agriculture, promotion of ecological (“bio”) cultivation methods is the
foremost goal - being is the closest we can get to real sustainability. In our
countries, the share of ecological methods is steadily increasing, although it
has yet to reach the 10 per cent level. But in the end, ecological methods
will survive only if the price structure allows it. Reacting to the change
from traditional into area-proportional subsidies in
the developed economies (without regard to ecological aspects), the
developing countries now ask for the total abolishment of agricultural
subsidies. This brings out a second problem in agriculture: that indeed we
must learn to sustain regional equilibrium everywhere. Agriculture is tied to
immobile land, and that puts regional limits to its markets. It would be
absurd if globalisation, in striving for trade and technical equalization,
were to destroy the agricultural part of the economy in our countries. Ecology
is not the only reform we need in our agricultural sector: we also need a new
type of economy. 5.
With regard to materials, today’s watchwords are economy of use, abstention,
re-usability and substitution. Water and air take a special place because
everybody needs them absolutely. In the long run, a globalised economy should
also strive for equilibrium of goods transfers since the place of consumption
increasingly does not coincide with the place of production. Low prices for
raw materials and low transport costs lead to an unnecessary acceleration of
consumption. Ecological taxation would be a remedy. In order to ‘shape’
globalisation, such taxes would have to be earmarked for global
(supranational) efforts, to ensure that they are not misappropriated for the
internal financing of individual states. 6.
Resource consumption is determined, to an important part, by the technology
available to the civilisation that does the consuming. If we want to avoid
that societies developing in our wake wreak damage similar to what we have
done, we must enable them to start at our present technological level. Thus
our goal in dealing with developing
countries should not be maximum competitive advantage, but ensuring
that they use the most economical and resource-preserving technologies
available. Economists should think about how the necessary economic
regulations would have to be formulated. 7.
Human resources are a special chapter. The task of creating working conditions
which promote development without offending against human dignity is
irrefutable, but it can be achieved only by a concerted system of economic
measures – for instance, when we want to avoid that the introduction of a
minimum wage leads to a loss of sales because of increased prices. The slogan
“Poverty is our biggest competition factor” is a forceful example. 8.
The way of using capital as a resource needs to be further developed.
Obviously, this is dependent on how the processes generating capital needs are
perceived. We must acquire special sensory organs for a correct perception of
such needs, to avoid the danger of a
proliferation of spending, or of misappropriation by the ruling establishment.
9.
The development of economic thought and policy relies predominantly on
economic stimuli. But recent insights show that ecological considerations are
generally fading from public consciousness, leaving control to purse strings.
Yet one would expect people to realize that without a thorough alteration of
public consciousness, it will not be possible to solve our resource problems.
In fact, it appears questionable whether moral appeals to husbandry and
technological equilibrium considerations are at all suitable to stimulate
global responsibility. 10.
Finally, this whole problem area of resources must be extended by asking what
final use is made of the products. What really matters is not how much is
being consumed by someone, but to what end he or she is using it? What is
mankind achieving while it is “consuming” nature? [Translated by Prof. Helmut Fischmeister] Prof. Harald Spehl The contribution of Prof. Harald Spehl to this subject is at the moment not available in English. The idea was also described in a Workshop, which Christoph Strawe held at the 2. World Social Forum at Porto Alegre/Brazil in January 2002. >>> Where to go with the Social Systems - Safeguarding the Future by Restructuring the Financing of Social Security from non-wage Labour Costs to a Consumption-related Social Rate >>>
Christoph
Strawe
1.
With the development of a global world order, particularly of a global economic
system, the old frontiers are disappearing more and more. However, frontiers are
also protection fences behind which processes of life can develop and within a
protected room. These shelters were abolished or destroyed increasingly with the
Bretton Woods appeal "Down with protection". We ask again for the
responsibility for the development of all regions which are less or least
developed at the moment, when the
frontiers are abolished. The neo-liberalism believes that this question
must be answered by noting else than the markets. But markets alone, however,
are not a social development model. 2.
Life starts with an enormous donation. In our countries young people are in a
social room of protection for many years. The parents or the society are taking
care of them, until they can enter professional life after a period of
education, training and studies. Donation in this context means also that
parents and society do not demand a back payment. We trust in the possibility
that there will be a flow back on the detour via the general social life. In
contrast the development aid which the northern countries pay is extremely low.
The industrial nations have “tormented” themselves with the question for
decades, whether 0.5% foreign aid is reasonable for their national economies or
not. Moreover, a large part of the very low donations is only given in the form
of allowance for depreciation. 3.
At the doorway of world economy one cannot expand straight away because the
growth then hits back to inside for lack of expansion capabilities. Additional
growth in productivity e.g. causes unemployment instead of more jobs. The forces
of economy released by the growth of productivity have to be use in a new way to
avoid illness of the social life. The development of the stock exchange shows
the problem quite well since stock exchange seems to be able to grow ad libitum
because it has not to be considerate of the reality. The
stock quotations are abstract and not fulfilled with real life. The crisis of
the stock markets has created some reflectiveness and doubts. But let’s see if
this is lasting when a next stock price gain is coming! 4.
The TRIPS agreement aims to protect the intellectual property rights just at the
moment at the moment where for the purpose of development know-how transfer
would be necessary in the largest scale. Behind this question there ist the
problem that the research has always more been dragged into the sphere of
microeconomic business management and profit making. Questions of Know-how
become pure questions of competition with that. Competition, however, doesn't
ask for the development of the other human being but on for the own welfare. For
this reason it would be necessary to separate research and licensing on the one
hand and production and distribution on the other hand. Starting from such kind
of separation a completely different distribution of the utilization rights
would arise. The effect would level the development differences instead of
heightening them. 5.
The development of a global situation makes it necessary to enlarge the
understanding of economy by the idea of donation. Without donation no
development. [Translated by Christoph Strawe]
I.
Need for Action and
Orientation: That action is required is clearly apparent to many - though they are
still too few. On the other hand, if action is to be suited to reality, there is
need for a deeper understanding of the problems and basic issues of social
relations in an era of individual freedom accompanied by a growing together of all mankind. What is required
are not solutions imposed from above, old style, but open structures which allow
the social life of individuals and of groups to be designed anew.
In
defence of formability:
This
is the point where resistance to neo-liberal globalisation meets with the quest
for creating building blocks for such an open, formable society. This is because
the neo-liberal ideas would lead not to freedom, but to its precise opposite: a
closed and integrated system impervious to ideals of humane development and free
design.
II.
The
subject of the change process:
“He
or she who stands by himself will achieve little - what counts is he or she who
unites with others at the right moment” (Goethe). Such a union will not
produce ‘mass’, but an alliance of free spirits. The era of group subjects,
or classes (bourgeoisie, proletariat …) as subjects of social change is past.
Civil
Society:
Seattle marked the appearance of a new force of change. Initially, civil society
defined itself by negation, through its non-identity with state and market. But
it has the potential to become a ‘pro’-movement, to proceed to a positive
definition, projecting visions for a new world for which it can act
constructively.
Mass
Movement?
If civil society wants to remain true to itself, it must stay away from the old
style mass movement. Rather, it must see itself as a cultural movement
characterized by diversity and respect for the individual. It is in this sense
that civil society must define itself as a cultural force.
The
problem is not the content of standards, but standardization as such:
The civil society movement must not degenerate into a normative effort, trying
to impose societal rules from outside. Neither must it allow itself to be
absorbed by the conventional power structure. Where it acts politically, it must
do so on the basis of a new concept: politics as the creator of formability, not
of finished forms. In this sense, politics must be relentlessly guided by an
comprehensive understanding of human rights, horizontal subsidiarity, and
amenability to self-organization. Importance of the Porto Alegre Process: The Porto Alegre Process and its regionalization (European Social Forum etc.) is of paramount importance for the self-identification of civil society as a ‘pro’-movement, supporting the behavioural practice of individual freedom, equality and solidarity.
III.
Trisectoral
Partnership - but how?
Only after it has reinforced its strength by such practice civil society
can contribute to true renewal by joining trisectoral partnerships. Only in this
way it can become the motor of change, joining forces with Cultural Creatives
who are active within government or within the conventional economic sector.
Active anticipation
of the changed world: It
is of great importance for the power of the movement that it should anticipate,
within itself and among its members, the future forms of communication and
cooperation, and that it should be able to point to functioning institutions in
the cultural, political and economical spheres of life as living examples of a transformed society.
Resistance
Strategies:
What is essential are strategies correctly aimed at each individual link in the
chain of events as planned by the opponents. The Dracula Principle - the vampire
dies when exposed to the public light - has shown its power in the repudiation
of the MAI proposal, and this tool will remain important; equally important is
the ability to publicize the scandalous aspects of developments such as the
commercialization of water supply or health care. It is well known that
conventional politics is quick to react to changes in public opinion.
The Cancun Conference
- a Key Event:
The
WTO Conference in Cancun is an event of central importance for the future course
of development. Much will have been gained if a moratorium can be reached there. The moratorium will come
true if the civil society movement in
Europe can be strengthened to such an extent that certain European governments
revise their attitude. In this regard, Germany will play a key role.
IV.
No centralism for the
civil society:
Civil society must resist the temptation of coordinating its forces by conventional
organizational
patterns, keeping instead the form of a flexible
ensemble which allows new forms of organization to emerge
between networks, NGOs an movements. In addition, it must enter into network
relations with all independently organized groups.
Discourse,
the counter-scene, active tolerance:
A continuous discourse with its counter scene is essential for the power
of the alternative movement to develop. We need a real dialogue which not only
takes up the topic of social forms adapted to human dignity, but also cultivates
active tolerance, warmth and attention to others by
the very way in which it is carried on. An important part of this is the
perception of the partner’s contributions, both in
thought and in practical action.
Network of political
friends:
Within
the civil society, we can form a network of friends that carry our
socio-political work. Practical examples already show the efficiency of such
networks, e.g., the contributions
to the anti-GATS campaign from Stuttgart.
V.
Spirituality
and Sociality:
For the movement to flourish, traditional prejudices and oppositional positions
must be overcome. Social and spiritual engagement must no longer be seen as
opposites. This is a relatively new point of view especially within the European
civil society. Anthroposophy could make important contributions if it regarded
itself as a part of civil society.
New thinking, not
potpourri:
Diversity does not mean composing a potpourri of everything desirable. It means working seriously towards the development
of new thinking in social life. Marxism hoped to let a new world emerge from its
critique of the old world; the civil society must go beyond critique to make
space for socio-artistic inventiveness.
Critical
appreciation of the IFG
report:
The International Forum on
Globalization is a
site
of free scientific life and an important forum for the
globalisation critique. Its members give living testimony of their engagement in
their statements. The IFG report “A Better World is Possible” is an
important step in the
right direction especially by its intention to form the starting point of a
world wide debate within the civil society. Necessary differentiations and supplementations: Some of the concepts used in the IFG report “A Better World is Possible” must, however, be defined more precisely, or critically queried, or differentiated. This pertains to the category “The Commons”, to the category “Localization”, the complex “Control or Dismantlement of Concerns”, the issue of abolishment or reform of the “Trinity” Institutions, (IMF, World Bank, WTO) and the regulation of capital flow. [It is hoped that the “Building Blocks” presented at this Conference may prove helpful to this end.
Type-II-Outcomes
and Dialogue - Civil Society at the Point of Decision:
Important points in the coming debates are trisectoral partnerships and the
dialogue with the establishment. After Johannesburg, there is the threat of a
possible splitting of the movement. It appeared, like writing on the wall in the
separation of Official Conference Meetings on the one hand and civil society
Forum on the other. The worst case would be a complete retreat of one group,
with the other being taken aboard by the established
economic-political complex. The New World will not emerge as a quasi-automatic
product of ‘liberated liberty’ (Jean Ziegler), nor will it arise from a deal
between civil society, Governments, and Business. The New World will be created
by human beings who consciously set about to create it. "System " or Human Development?: In the last resort, the future of globalisation depends on the issue of “Systemic solutions functioning regardless of man” versus “Solutions which enable and promote human development”. Only the latter can carry the future.[Translated by Prof. Helmut Fischmeister]
|
|
Last update: October 15th, 2003 |