(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The purpose of the comprehensive demonstrations in Gothenburg was to highlight specific political issues in connection with the EU summit.
Most importantly, it highlighted opposition to the neo-liberalist policy that not only dominates the EU, but the entire international community. The past massive mass patterns in Seattle, Prague, Nice and Quebec show the strength behind the resistance of global development, where the boundless market adaptation does not just influence political decisions.
In a very distasteful way, global neo-liberalism innovates the very foundation of the established democratic institutions. Today's turbo capitalism could eventually undermine the framework conditions for democracy and popular influence. The political institutions, including the EU, have so far fallen short of the new global power interests, which help to consolidate the advanced position of neo-liberalism. If development is not stopped, the risk of the policy being forced to abdicate to market interests increases.
Signals of this exist, and the sharpest critics of neo-liberalism claim that such abdication has already occurred. Against this background, it will be the challenge of the NGOs to contribute to the necessary course change.
Totalitarian potential
The popular mobilization towards international market hegemony can be understood as an expression not only of solidarity with the countries of the south, but as a genuine demand for freedom from civil society in our part of the world.
The emergence of a new political movement for taxing international currency transactions and for the release of foreign debt can be understood as warning bells against a global development that is not only detrimental to developing countries, but also threatens Europe's political culture. Global neo-liberalism has significant totalitarian potential, primarily because there are no longer adequate institutional counterparts that can balance market power, either nationally or internationally. Therefore, it is the people's own responsibility to take the initiative for activities that can slow down or reverse development. It is on this basis that the international demonstrations take place, and these will probably continue as long as the political course within the EU and the international community does not change.
The challenge of civil society lies in developing and strengthening existing popular mobilization, combined with a communicative strategy vis-à-vis political rulers and state institutions. Such a broad requirement as the correction of current policy within large international institutions such as the EU, the Monetary Fund and the World Bank presupposes a correspondingly high requirement for political maturity in its own ranks.
Participants in international demonstrations have a personal responsibility to safeguard the same liberties towards their opponents, as they themselves demand of the political system in their respective countries of origin.
The Attac movement's meeting with EU Presidency leader Göran Persson ahead of the outbreak of violence was in many ways a historic event. In order to prevent the use of violence to dominate the media image in future demonstrations, the Attac movement should develop an offensive and credible strategy in relation to so-called autonomous elements and other extremist environments. It should be a thought that European Youth in Norway chose to cancel their participation in Gothenburg on the grounds that the organization feared uncontrolled violence against its own activists.
This fear was anything but unfounded.
Stronger instruments
The main aim of the Attac movement is to take back the people's power over political development. In order for this to be possible, it is imperative that the international movement raise the intellectual precision of parts of its business. Attac Norway will probably have to go further than just taking verbal distance from the use of violence. In plain text, the situation requires significantly stronger measures.
An alternative is to discuss the possibility of restrictions in the right to demonstrate internationally, based on some form of fulfillment of criteria for political formation. Individuals and groups that do not share a democratic value community should be denied access to the host country in the relevant time period, in line with current restrictions on footballers hooligans.
The unacceptable use of violence by shareholders as well as by the police during the EU summit in Gothenburg may not be primarily a matter of cruelty. The incident can also be understood as birth pain for a new international leftist movement torn between regression and political maturity. Like the historical parallels, today's international movement also has its roots in destruction. From a Marxist perspective, individual violence is a political perversion, due to powerlessness and lack of insight. Therefore, the ability of the Attac movement to achieve its goals will be limited by the participants' ability to dialectic thinking, that is, the ability to have two thoughts in mind at the same time. On the one hand, it is to fight against market power and boundless neo-liberalism, on the other, the situation requires the implementation of effective sanctions externally and, if necessary, also internally, against the so-called autonomous forces. In order for the mainstream of organizations behind the major international demonstrations to reach the most people with their message, and for these to be able to achieve results purely politically, it will be imperative to make an uncompromising settlement with forces that damage the new international movement.
