<html﻿>﻿

﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/old_mag/magazine/14/article06.html"﻿,﻿"20100626192607"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1277580367﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿

﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, Dangerous Shortcuts: Letter to the International Friends of the Zapatistas - Article﻿</title>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿

﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿

﻿</head>﻿


﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

﻿<center﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Dangerous Shortcuts: 

﻿<br﻿>﻿Letter to the International Friends of the Zapatistas 

﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿

by Richard Greeman﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, June - July 1998﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿</center>﻿


Dear Friends: 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

I recently attended the "Intercontinental Encounter Against Neo-Liberalism and for Humanity" held in Spain and inspired by the Zapatista movement. It is altogether fitting that these efforts to organize the first truly international response to the brutal offensive of global capital against the working and living conditions of the world's poor and oppressed should take place under the sign of the Zapatistas. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Although this year's Spanish meetings were somewhat disorganized, I was delighted by the atmosphere of openness, non-sectarianism and sensitivity to cultural differences that surrounded the 1997 Encounter. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿"Neo-Liberalism" vs. "Capitalism": ﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

During the Encounter, I heard many interesting ideas put forward about alternative economies and forms of resistance as well as about ongoing attempts to resist globalization and the commodification of life. However, I also sensed a good deal of confusion over the fundamental questions of who, precisely, represents "Humanity" and whether we are supposed to be simply "Against Neo-Liberalism" or against capitalism itself. Finally, I came away worried that using the phrase "Neo-Liberalism" as an ideological short-cut to designate the system to which we are opposed may prove imprecise, misleading, and potentially dangerous. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

First, I find the use of "neo-liberalism" instead of "capitalism" imprecise. Strictly speaking, the phrase "neo-liberalism" refers either to an economic theory or to a policy based on that theory. The word "capitalism," on the other hand, designates a whole economic and political system. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Second, I find the substitution of "neo-liberalism" for "capitalism" misleading, because it appears to imply that we should attempt to force the powers-that-be to adopt another theory (e.g. neo-Keynsianism) or another economic policy (e.g. welfare-state capitalism) in the hope that under such policies the oppression of Humanity and the destruction of Nature would be checked or at least significantly diminished. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

But I am afraid that this hope is an illusion. It also tends to focus peoples' minds on opposing the most recent manifestations of capitalism (downsizing, conglomeration, restructuring, free-market dogmatism, globalization) while neglecting to attack its essential nature as the system of wage-labor and commodity exchange where profit derives from capital's theft of unpaid labor. Being "Against Neo-Liberalism" misleadingly suggests that humanity would be better off under some form of national capitalism. Such an outlook is an open invitation to local activists in each country to join ranks with protectionist elements among the "patriotic" owning classes who are also opposed to "free trade" and the penetration of "international capital." Thus, by dint of being "Against Neo-Liberalism," local exploiters, be they land-owners, factory-owners, or managers of state enterprises, must be considered to be on the side of "Humanity." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Such illusions are dangerous. Money knows no race, color or nationality. Capitalism was global from its very beginnings. Nor can capitalism be "reformed." Struggling to make capitalism change its nature is about as realistic as trying to convert a shark to vegetarianism -- and about as safe. By its nature, capitalism is no more capable of giving up the ruthless exploitation of humans and nature than the shark can give up blood and meat.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

I realize how scary it is to accept the fact that the only way out for humanity is to totally uproot the capitalist system. Taking the shortcut of being "against neo-liberalism" feels much easier, safer and more fashionable. But is it fair to invite people to join us and dive into the sea of social struggle without posting the warning: "Danger! Shark-Infested Waters!"? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

If I seem to exaggerate the importance of this issue, it is because I have lived long enough to witness the tragic fate of two generations of radical activists whose struggles failed disastrously because they balked at anti-capitalism and found it more convenient and fashionable to take ideological short-cuts and define themselves as "against" something more immediate and tangible. I refer to the anti-fascists of my parents' generation and the anti-imperialists of my own. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The question today is, can our use of "anti-neo-liberalism" as a substitute for "anti-capitalism" lead to another dangerous short-cut? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Marxophobia﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

The only explanation I have heard for the near-phobic avoidance of "the C-word" is that a certain Karl Marx used it, and we don't want to be labeled as "Marxists," (neither did Marx!). To be sure, many people today consider Marxism rigid, tainted, and, worst of all, pass,. So we re-invent the wheel of "capitalism" and awkwardly rename it "that neo-liberal round thing that rolls." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Naming things by their true name. That, in my opinion, is the beginning of wisdom and integrity, whether talking to a child about death and sex or to people in struggle about capitalism.

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

In any case, there is no such thing as "non-ideological" vocabulary. Every phrase betrays its underlying ideological context. Today's overwhelming media ideology is anti-Marxism, and this pervasive context demands that we avoid such "trite" and pass, words as "capitalism." So we talk about post-modernism, post-industrialism, post-Fordism, globalization, neo-liberalism -- anything to avoid the taint of that poor, unread, pass, and twenty-times discredited philosopher who first, and most accurately, analyzed the capitalist system: Marx. 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Curiously, the best, most cogent observations on the current situation I have heard in our Zapatista-inspired movements are nothing more than 1997 updates of what Marx wrote in his 1867 book on Capital. Marx's original analysis of the "So-Called Primitive Accumulation of Capital" showed how, beginning in 1492, capital was created not by the capitalists' hard work and thrift but by the use of armed force to "rob, enslave, and entomb in mines" the indigenous peoples of the pre-capitalists lands -- a global process which is accelerating today to the point where not only indigenous peoples but the very environment is threatened. From these analyses, Marx concluded that global capital could never stop expanding until it had taken over the whole earth, turned every human into a dependent consumer of commodities, whether a wage-slave or a member of what he called the "unemployed army." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Nonetheless, in 1997 Marx's name remains anathema. So powerful is this anathema that even Sub-Commander Marcos, in his recent manifesto "The Fourth World War Has Begun" expounds precisely six Marxian points as "six pieces of a puzzle" without once alluding to Marx or his theories. As a result, when we get the the "seventh piece" of Marcos' puzzle, we are no longer sure whether the "Fourth World War" is the war between the rich and the poor or the war between globalizing Neo-Liberalism and "national sovereignty." To be sure, concepts like Neo-Liberalism are﻿ illuminating and useful in describing aspects of our modern condition. But if we avoid facing the central, systemic problem of capitalism, if we fail to name the enemy by his name, I fear our movements will find themselves ideologically disarmed at the next crisis. For example after the next stock market crash, opportunist capitalist politicians will start coming out against "neoliberalism" to get votes, and Wall Street may allow them to get elected in order to calm the masses and co-opt our movements. What will it mean to be "Against Neo-Liberalism" then? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<b﻿>﻿Strange Bedfellows﻿</b>﻿

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Indeed, even today the only consistent opponents of globalization in France and the U.S. are the semi-fascist nationalists, Le Pen and Pat Buchanan. They certainly are out to defend "national sovereignty" against Neo-Liberalism. It is well known that "politics makes strange bedfellows." How can our movement avoid lying down in the same bed with such as these (for example in opposing plant-closings) if we are reluctant to stand out by openly opposing capitalism? What I love about our Zapatista-inspired movement is the general understanding that it is the evil, money-dominated system of commodity exchange (including wage-labor itself) that must be eliminated if we are to live like human beings, as the Indians of Chiapas are attempting to do against terrible odds. This humanism contrasts with previous movements which often got stuck inside the capitalist game by simply demanding more for the workers or by assuming that of only the state would replace the market, capitalism would be different. In this respect, our Zapatistan analysis -- based on the humanist philosophy of pre-capitalist indigenous people whose revolt is a refusal of wage-labor commodity society -- is a thousand times closer to the original ideas of Marx than the analysis of most of the self-designated "Marxists." And we are light-years ahead of all the welfare-statists, social-democrats, nationalizers and "communists" with their bureaucratic panaceas. The Chiapans have understood, as Marx himself did, that capital is not a thing but a human relationship -- a power relationship which enables one person first to steal other peoples' land and then to steal their labor and disguise this theft under the "free and fair exchange" of money for labor power. Like the original Marx, they understand that this perverted, money-mediated relationship must be uprooted and replaced by new human relationships, based on equality, cooperation and community. But can humanity accomplish this task without using the name of the beast we must face and conquer -- capitalism? 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

I don't know the answer, but I think the question is worth exploring. In any case, personally, I am tired of witnessing movements attempting to turn sharks into vegetarians and getting their legs bitten off, tired of trying so hard to appear "broad," "non-ideological" and "relevant" that we end up taking short-cuts that turn out to be roads to Hell. George Bernard Shaw was right: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

Yours in Solidarity, Richard Greeman 

﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<font﻿ ﻿size="1"﻿>﻿Richard Greeman is best known as the translator of the novels of Victor Serge. His latest project is "The Invisible International... It's Everywhere" soon to appear on the internet. You can write him at 16 r. de la Teinturerie, Montepellier 34000, France or at ﻿<richard.greeman@hol.fr﻿>﻿ if he can make his computer cooperate.﻿</font>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿


﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿


﻿</body>﻿

﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿19:26:07 Jun 26, 2010﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿09:54:10 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿0.662﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.064﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.052﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.01﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿24.623﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿211.628﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿129.441﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿139.513﻿ (﻿2﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿74.671﻿
﻿--�