Ebrahim Harvey Left field Coming on the heels of the Seattle, Davos and Washington battles against the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in Prague last week has reinforced the rising power of the international mass movement against globalisation. Despite some major weaknesses it holds great promise to bring about revolutionary changes to the world economy. But what we have seen so far are skirmishes compared to what will be required to win the battles. Globalisation, acknowledged by the World Bank as increasing the gap between the rich and poor within and between countries, is an organic outgrowth of 20th-century imperialism in which finance capital has long domi-nated the world economy. The difference is that its power, driven by technology and the restructuring of the world economy along neoliberal lines, has never been as great as it is today. Multinational corporations, the IMF and the World Bank have diminished the power of the nation state to satisfy basic social needs. Social democracy and the welfare state have suffered blows in the past decade. Privatisation, which is central to neo- liberal restructuring of the world economy, has increased poverty and unemployment to their highest-ever levels, particularly in Africa.
The fight against globalisation poses major challenges. The first is to translate opportunities for growth into programmes of action which can provide a focus and weld together the strands of the movement. The struggle against globalisation serves to restore the credibility of socialism. Secondly, this is a fight against the might of world capital, so leadership of the movement is of critical importance. This means that the thrust of the movement has to be socialist. The question of what political authority this movement has in trade unions and the working class, and what its programme is, is therefore critical. Opposition to globalisation will also not by itself define a common programme and perspectives. This has to be hammered out within the movement. Its broad and diverse social base is both a strength and a weakness. The longer it remains diffuse, the greater the risk that it could lead to internal disintegration and exhaustion. Lastly, calls for shutting down the IMF and the World Bank lack a strategic perspective informed by a clear programme, organisational preparedness and practical considerations. Besides, rampant globalisation takes many forms. But if this is ended an alternative vision, policy and programme must begin to take shape and guide the movement. The next phase is to transform the movement, which is largely an educated, young, activist and middle-class layer, into a united front of mass organisations under the leadership of the working class. Because the world economy is structured to serve the interests of the rich countries it is impossible to reform one or other aspect without challenging and changing the underlying imperialist power relations which inform it. The movement would have to become much more than being repetitively pitted against IMF, World Bank and WTO meetings. In each country a united front against globalisation must be formed and coordinated so that such protests are part of an ongoing programme of action. The 125-million strong International Confederation of Trade Unions is one such weapon.