No social democratic solution
THE PT is determined to maintain its socialist perspective in developing its economic programme. It does not believe that the way forward for
Brazil lies in the social democratic options of "popular democratic management" of the capitalist crisis or some kind of "peoples's government would face - organised assassinations - succinctly explains the roots of the violence whilst suggesting some of the measures which must be taken to counteract the situation. Roland Wood *
International Viewpoint #251 December 1993
N the past, social democratic governments in the imperialist countries were able to make reforms within the framework of capitalism, resulting in significapitalism".
JOÃO MACHADO - São Paulo, 18 November 1993 cant gains for working people. Today however, the context is entirely different. In the last few years, even in the wealthiest capitalist countries, social democratic governments have applied neoliberal policies rather than social demo-
Dossier Introduction PRESIDENTIAL elections in Brazil next year will be watched carefully, if for many different reasons. Lula, the popular leader of the leftwing Workers' Party (PT) has a substantial lead in opinion polls, having come a very close second in the 1989 elections. And yet, it is only fourteen years since the formation of the PT. The Party has had to learn quickly. Certainly, there have been many mistakes, but the advances already made by the Party and the hope which it offers for the mass movement in Brazil far outweigh any reversals or defeats. In our opening article, João Machado states that the programme on which the PT will fight the election will not be socialist and ".. the votes for Lula will not be for socialism, but because he and the PT are seen as the only force that can effect real change... without (the masses) having a specific end in mind." Why then should Washington, or elsewhere, be so concerned at the prospect of a Lula victory? Because a PT government — a popular democratic government -will still take as its starting point the needs of the working class, and that is enough to give any White House official a hernia. Moreover, as Machado continues, they will make it perfectly clear that the real changes everyone wants lead in the direction of socialism. The PT will of course have to overcome many challenges and obstacles to the carrying out of their programme. • In publishing major extracts from the Party's Guiding principles, agreed at its meeting in June, an overview is given of its position on political, economic and social reform and the ways in which this may be achieved. • João Machado specifically examines the economic perspectives of a PT government and the extent to which it would be tempered by the prevailing international situation, whilst also proposing concrete alternatives. He refers in particular to some of the ideas of Ernest Mandel, for many years now a central leader of the Fourth International. • Beti Búrigo and Raul Pont explain how the PT's experience of municipal government, both good and bad, can be used by the PT government to encourage and build greater mass participation in decision making at every level of society. • Carlos Henrique Árabe draws a balance sheet of the progress made by the Party since its June national meeting, where the left won a substantial majority. Arabe contends that while some of the political positions agreed have been absorbed by the Party, particularly in relation to the Lula campaign, organisational problems continue to persist. • And José Corra, in describing one of the worst problems which a PT 12
The social democratic parties have distinguished themselves by the dismantling of economic reforms, citing the need to increase productivity. The policies of the French Socialist Party (PS), from 1983 to the shameful electoral fiasco of March 1993, provide an example of the "de-social-democratisation of social democracy". This is also true of the policies of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) - which has continously failed Spanish workers whilst also denying the rights of oppressed nationa-
It is very unlikely that a social-democratic type policy will benefit Brazil and, indeed, those that label themselves social democrats, such as the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), have shown their neo-liberal character on numerous occasions.
"Crisis of credibility"
This does not reduce the difficulty of placing our governmental programme within a socialist perspective. One of the consequences of the crisis of the "Eastern Bloc" countries is that socialism is confronted with a generalised "crisis of credibility"; a majority of people believe that socialism will never exist, or that it will only be possible in a far and distant future.
Moreover, the ways in which the transition from capitalism to socialism have been conceived are now considerably outdated. Both the reformist and revolutionary visions gave tremendous importance to State control over the commanding heights of the economy. For example, one of the axes of revolutionary strategy of the Third International and later its heirs (including the Fourth International) was the struggle for a workers' and peasants' or a workers'
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
ECONOMICS
International Viewpoint #251 December 1993 government. One of the criteria for such governments was a high level of nationalisations, which demonstrated controntation with the bourgeoisie and a break with capitalist logic.
The reformist strategy for a transition to socialism - which underscored the programme of the Chilean "Popular Unity" government and that of the French Union of the Left (until 1983, when the PS effectively abandoned any idea of a transition to socialism through reforms) - had at its heart the creation of an "area of social property", property. This "area" strategic sectors of the economy. One of the debates between the PS and the French Communist Party (PCF) dealt precisely with the number of nationalisations which had to be carried out to achieve this. In both revolutionary and reformist strategy, socialism was not equated with nationalisation, but nationalisation was perceived as a step towards socialisation.
### Suspicion
However, one of the consequences of the "crisis in the Eastern Bloc" is that there is tremendous - and justified — suspicion of nationalisation. It is seen as related to bureaucratic Statism, as in the former Soviet Union. This means that we have to approach the question of the transition to socialism in a different and innovative way - something in which until now we have made little progress.
The programme for the 1994 election campaign will not be a socialist programme. And the votes for Lula will not be for socialism, but because he and the PT are seen as the only force that can effect real change in Brazil — a change wanted by the population, without their having a specific end in mind.
Our role is to propose a programme which takes the basic needs of the population as its starting point, then sets out socialist ideas. We must make it perfectly clear that the real changes everyone wants lead in this direction. In our view, this is the meaning of the "popular democratic" alternative, first put forward at the PT's 1987 national meeting.
The difficulties associated with thinking through the transition to socialism, and more generally the "crisis of socialist credibility", are the background to the paradox described by César Benjamin. According to him, "Bourgeois rationality has shown itself incapable of organising the nation but it still defines the framework of the debate on the nation; and it is within these limits that the left has worked."
César has rightly underlined the fact that as the bourgeoisie has been able to formulate its ideas so we should be able to formulate our own. In order to go beyond present-day neo-liberal "bourgeois rationality" and to be hegemonic ourselves, we must explicitly develop our own rationality.
In the economic sphere, the challenge that faces us involves rejecting the ideas disseminated by the bourgeoisie through their media, and spelling out alternatives.
"Invisible hand"
The first guiding notion of the neoliberal bourgeoisie is that of making the market the only regulator of the economy, and the guarantor of maximum efficiency and optimal allocation of resources. This is the theory of the "invisible hand", first advanced in the eighteenth century by the English economist
However, in spite of its current popularity among the general public, the notion is increasingly absurd. "The market" is capitalists making investment decisions purely on the basis of profit maximisation. To transform maximum profit into common good would require not only an invisible hand but one which can perform miracles.
The PT's June national meeting stated that: "The real world market is controlled by less than seven-hundred companies, and the two-hundred largest determine thirty percent of its Gross Domestic Product. The real market in Brazil is one in which a few businesses determine prices in each section of production, speculate with hidden resources and manipulate the people by way of the mass media, including advertising. A few hundred large banks, industries, large businesses and nationally and foreign owned agro-industries account, with a few State businesses, for seventy percent of our economy, and directly control both the internal market and exports."
Never before, in the whole history of humanity, has hunger been so widespread; this is a direct consequence of the logic of the "real market". To defend the notion of an "invisible hand" in a world riven with inequality can only result from particularly cruel ignorance or cynicism.
We will not be able to get rid of the market in the foreseeable future. Nor do we intend to eliminate small commercial, service-oriented, agricultural, artisanal, or even industrial property in the medium-term. However, we can and must establish control over and limits upon the free play of the market.
The second guiding notion of neoliberalism, closely linked to the first, is the idea of the minimal State.
This idea has been strengthened by the crisis in the Eastern Bloc and the decomposition of the State in various countries, including Brazil — which has been dismantled by the elites which control it. There is of course no question of combatting neo-liberal propaganda on the minimal State by defending the Brazil of today.
In the foreseeable future we will need a different kind of State - which will fulfil a number of functions. It will have to control the market, by structuring and developing a model of development. It will have to work towards the reduction of social and regional inequalities, and satisfy a range of basic needs which can only be met by public services: health care, education, housing, transportation, and a basic infrastructure. Such a State will plan urban development and proceed with the humane development of the sciences. It will guarantee respect for the environment.Last, but by no means least, it will guarantee the national currency.
### Strategic sectors
In none of the above has private management through the market been effective. This is why the PT is correct to advocate the presence of the State in the strategic sectors of the economy.
Instead of reducing the State to the bare minimum and further privatising it, as prescribed by the neo-liberals, we have to deprivatise it so it can carry out its public functions. It must be decentralised so far as possible, and social forms of control over the State developed to the fullest. The State can even grow, so long as there is also increased popular control over its apparatus.
Another set of neo-liberal ideas, and advanced by ex-President Collor, revolves around proposals for modernisation, competitiveness, opening up of the economy and integration into the world economy, including into the international financial system.
The logic of competitiveness, including increased exposure to international competition, reflects a desire to reduce costs, which translates into a decrease in salaries, social rights and corporate participation in the financing of social programmes — and also a "rationalisation"
which creates unemployment, and the
13
----- photo credits and running heads -----
URGENTE BRASIL
Mass demonstrations helped bring down the corrupt President, Fernando Collor.
International Viewpoint #251 December 1993 replacement of State social spending with programmes encouraging "productivity"
This is what we are seeing today in Europe. Faced with the growing integration of their economies - without the parallel construction of a common State which unites their policies - European countries (especially the poorest) are implementing austerity measures against working people.
Working class gains, won through decades of struggle, are now being whittled away. Massive unemployment is used as a weapon against working people, with the threat that if competitiveness does not increase, further job losses are inevitable. In Brazil, the country could even be forced down the path of deindustrialisation, such as has occurred in Argentina and Chile.
Integration into the world economy as above only benefits the upper layers of the middle classes and the bourgeoisie, who can increase their consumption of luxury items, such as imported cars, which cost more than 1,000 times the minimum wage.
The alternative to this is not plunging the country into isolation and economic autarchy. We need to be selective in opening up the economy, concentrating on agreements and joint projects with countries which have the same interest as Brazil in building a more equal international order. Given the inequalities between different countries, it is absurd to envisage full economic integration.
A coherent plan for integration demands that we take present inequalities as a starting point for agreement with similarly-placed countries around common or complementary interests — which does not correspond to the logic of the market.
MERCOSUR, the "common market" which exists in South America, could play a central role for Brazil and its neighbours but must be completely redefined. The search for allies on the international level will also be crucial to the implementation of our policy of stopping payment on the external debt. In addition to governmental allies, we must establish alliances with unions, leftwing parties, non-governmental organisations and progressive movements in general.
Our aim is not to break with the international financial community. We would like it to invest capital, as opposed to the last few years. However, we cannot make concessions on sovereignty. We cannot let our economic policies be dictated by the International Monetary Fund;we cannot pay an illegitimate debt 14 by imposing misery on the people.
In the technological field, there is clearly progress to be made. We must define the most effective model of development, one which corresponds to our means and social and economic objectives. What we must not do is import technology which we cannot afford and which is irrelevant to our needs.
To summarise, we support improved integration into the world, but by participation in a united effort to build a different international order.
Having rejected neo-liberal ideas, we will have to say what we propose in their place. If we reject both the market and a bureaucratic State as the central regulator, how do we hope to run the economy?
### Choice
Ernest Mandel refers to a third way - that of the population itself choosing alternatives. A popular and democratic government would be a starting point for such an approach. We have to give maximum encouragement to popular participation and control on all levels, so that the people can have real influence.
So far as control of the State is concerned, the experiences of the PT municipal governments can be built upon, especially that of popular participation in the drawing up of budgest. In addition to being democratic, this is a guarantee against corruption - not an insignificant factor these days. Of course this will be more difficult to carry out on a federal level, but is entirely possible. For example, there would be no difficulty in televising the debates of the Budgetary Commission. Can the PT mobilise the masses for socialism?
Moreover, in order to improve popular participation and control, we have to move towards greater decentralisation, so that a large part of public spending is administered on a community level. The widening of practices such as the participatory budget can give the population control over the use of public resources; this would make national debate on economic priorities a possibility.
It is likely that, to begin with, there would not be extensive participation in these discussions. However, once it becomes clear that they served a purpose, participation would definitely increase.
There also has to be control over private, and especially large capital. In this area, there have been interesting developments, such as that of the Sectoral Chamber of the automobile industry, which brings together the unions, employers and the government, even though its organisation is limited and not without its contradictions (one of the main problems being that negotiations within a single branch of production tend to produce a corporatist dynamic). Also, the interests of the automobile industry are not necessarily those of the whole economy and the population. Indeed, it would be more worthwhile to prioritise public transport and reduce automobile production.
What is most interesting about in the Sectoral Chamber is that by negotiating over prices, salaries and jobs, the workers can formulate a proposal for organising production, evaluating costs, investment priorities and so forth. Combined with a discussion of the all-round economic priorities of the population, under the auspices of a popular democratic government, this would result in pressure on and control over the capitalists.
----- photo credits and running heads -----
URGENTE BRASIL
I PARTIPATION