|
(Part 1 of 3-Part Series)
ATTAC, THE "TOBIN TAX," AND THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM OF PORTO
ALEGRE (BRAZIL):
IS THIS A WAY FORWARD TO FIGHT GLOBAL CAPITALISM?
By MIGUEL CRISTOBAL
INTRODUCTION
Members and representatives of the Workers Party in France are often
asked what links it has with ATTAC (Action for the Tobin Tax for the Aid
of Citizens). This is because ATTAC, as part of its fight against
"ultra-liberal globalization," brings together members and
organizations around objectives which appear, at first glance, to be
close to those of the Workers Party and the International Liaison
Committee for a Workers' International (ILC).
This contribution attempts to introduce the first elements of a
discussion on these questions, which stem from the existence of ATTAC.
Some preliminary notes and remarks
ATTAC was set up in France in 1998 on the basis of an appeal calling
for the worldwide application of the "Tobin Tax," which is the
proposal to apply a tax of between 0.05 percent and 0.1 percent on every
transaction in the financial markets. Since then, we have seen the
creation of ATTAC International, which claims to exist in 26 countries.
In its founding platform, ATTAC aims to:
"tax speculative transactions on the exchange markets. Even fixed
at a particularly low rate of 0.05%, the Tobin Tax would gather close to
US$100 billion a year. Collected, primarily, by industrialized
countries, where the largest financial centers are located, the sum
could be redirected to international organizations for activities aimed
at fighting inequality, promoting education and public health in poor
countries and food security and sustainable development."
We shall return later to the specific problem of the Tobin Tax. For now,
let us highlight one point, which we find significant - that those who
set up ATTAC stated from the outset that the application of the Tobin
Tax was simply one component of a more "global" project: the
fight "for another world." What kind of other world?
Before we analyze the positions of ATTAC in France, we think it
important to examine the position of the person who first proposed the
tax, James Tobin himself, Nobel Prize-winner for Economics, who stated
recently that his proposal was in no way contradictory to globalization:
"I am an economist, and like the majority of economists I am in
favor of free trade. I am in favor of the International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank and the World Trade Organization" (El Pais,
Spain, Sept. 3, 2001). For James Tobin, then, there is a
misunderstanding.
When the press published James Tobin's statements, representatives of
ATTAC denied sharing his positions. They reaffirmed their wish to bring
about a break with today's world. ATTAC stands "for a break with
the hegemony of ultra-liberalism;" it aims to "at least to
restrict social inequalities" and to "put sand in the gears of
speculation."
As everyone already will have realized, it involves a "break"
which does not go so far as to challenge the system based on the
exploitation of labor itself. It involves (or would involve), according
to the phrase adopted by the recent founding conference of ATTAC Germany
(October 2001), imposing a greater "control" over
globalization.
For René Passet, chair of ATTAC's Scientific Council, "one must be
able to define a monetary system in which the current flexibility is
framed better. ..." (Alternatives économiques, special
issue, first quarter 2001).
For economist Roman Palan, organizations like ATTAC "try to
identify the sources of world power and to influence them into a more
humane direction. ..." (Alternatives économiques, Ibid.)
ATTAC therefore proposes to "change the world" without
challenging the fundamental relations upon which it is based. That is a
fact, just as it is a fact that the Workers Party, as part of its
continuity with the program upon which the labor movement is based, is
working to challenge the system of private ownership of the means of
production. In effect, we do not think, as do the representatives of
ATTAC, that this system based on the exploitation of the labor force can
be led to "abandon the logic of profit."
The "logic of profit" is consubstantial with the system; that
said, the aim of this contribution is not to address this fundamental
question. The issue remains, therefore: Upon what basis is it possible
to engage in united action? The Workers Party does not set agreement
with its program as a precondition to taking action in common with
others.
In fact, the Workers Party is working to unite all those who, without
necessarily sharing its program, show willingness to defend the gains
made by the workers and peoples against deregulation of labor and the
threat to democracy which result from the inevitable diktats imposed by
institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. So where does the problem
lie? In order to try to reply to this question, we think it necessary to
begin by pointing out a certain number of facts.
- For example, regarding job cuts. ATTAC states: "[T]he right of
capitalist property includes the right to hire and fire. The question is
knowing how far to go. S" ("In the face of job cuts that
suit the stock market, ATTAC's analysis and proposals," May 2,
2001)
Let us stop there. An unprecedented wave of job cuts is in the process
of sweeping the whole planet. For the Workers Party, there can be no
question of "knowing how far" it might be legitimate or
justified to promote layoffs. Each redundancy is an economic and social
tragedy for whoever suffers it, especially in a situation where
everything in today's world leads working people to fear an economic
crisis with tragic consequences. All this points to the need to offer
the only response that can allow someone to face up to that reality and
those threats of layoffs - and that is to reject all job cuts, purely
and simply. We shall return to this point.
o We think a second preliminary remark is in order. For the Workers
Party, no action can be carried out in pursuit of the permanent defense
of workers' and peoples' interests without being based on financial
independence from all capitalist institutions and groups.
From this point of view, we think a number of facts need to be
emphasized. ATTAC is an organization that relies heavily on official
funding. Thus, for example, ATTAC's General Council meeting of Dec. 11,
1999, was informed that the European Commission had approved a grant of
110,000 euros. The General Council meeting of March 18, 2000, was
informed that "the total amount of grants was projected at more
than one million French Francs."
Are there no consequences to such a situation? Could the positions of
ATTAC France give the lie to the popular saying "who pays the piper
calls the tune"?
o As everyone knows, ATTAC France has close links with Le Monde
Diplomatique. It was the director of the monthly Le Monde
Diplomatique, Ignacio Ramonet, who launched an appeal in December
1997 for the creation of an organization around the Tobin Tax.
Since then, that publication has been the main mouthpiece for the ATTAC
movement.
The majority of the shares in Le Monde Diplomatique are held by
the daily newspaper Le Monde, which, along with the rest of its
powerful press group, has not wavered in recent weeks in its
unconditional support for the U.S. bombing and attacks on Afghanistan,
notably in an editorial titled: "We are all Americans now!"
Are there no consequences for the positions of ATTAC France and Le
Monde Diplomatique as a result of their financial dependence on Le
Monde?
Bernard Cassen is both chair of ATTAC France and a leading figure of Le
Monde Diplomatique. What did he say about the situation since
following Sept. 11, 2001, when he spoke at the recent founding
conference of ATTAC Germany in Berlin (Oct. 19-21, 2001)?
He began by drawing attention to the fact that the press does not always
report ATTAC's positions accurately. Mr. Cassen offered an example:
"President Bush has moved closer toward ATTAC's proposals since 11
September 2001. Of course, there is still a very long way to go. But it
should be noted that:
"- on tax havens, about which Mr. Bush used to say: '[W]e are not
going to compromise the national sovereignty of Vanuatu, or Jersey -
they have the right to banking secrecy' - the situation has now been
completely reversed, and Mr. Bush is against tax havens. We duly note
this.
-" Bush has moved closer to our positions on the question of the
role of the State. Today, he is making US$120 billion available for the
economy. S Of course, when Bush rehabilitates the role of the State in
this way, he assuredly does it for the wrong reasons, such as bailing
out the insurance companies. S
"- He has moved closer to our positions on cancelling the debt.
They are in the process of doing it, even if it is for their own
reasons. They have just cancelled Pakistan's debt. This proves that
cancellation of the debt is possible. S"
For Le Monde, which will soon be quoted on the French stock
exchange, "We are all Americans now." For Bernard Cassen,
chair of ATTAC France and acting as international spokesperson for ATTAC
International, Bush has "moved closer" to ATTAC since Sept,
11, 2001. Is there a difference?
Besides, could this be a position held just by Bernard Cassen? Let us
take for example the positions of the LCR (Revolutionary Communist
League, French organization of the United Secretariat), and its weekly
newspaper, Rouge, which are a current within ATTAC (supposedly
the most left-wing one). What do they say about the war launched by the
U.S. government?
"By one of those paradoxes known only in history, the military
deployment by the United States is taking place at the same time as
initiatives which are serving to loosen the stranglehold which has
gripped the Palestinian people until now. In order to facilitate an
alliance sought with certain Arab states, and to mitigate the disastrous
effect on the Muslim world of his support for Israel's policies, George
W. Bush has just declared that 'the idea of a Palestinian state has
always been part of a vision, as long as Israel's right to exist is
respected.' Little does it matter that this aim represents a great big
lie, in view of the fact that Republican administrations have always
rejected this perspective until now. What matters is that for the first
time Israel's rulers have failed to get the green light from Washington
for the continuation of settling the Occupied Territories and for their
acts of war toward the Palestinian national movement." (Rouge,
Oct. 4, 2001)
Is there a difference between this and what Bernard Cassen said? Could
Bush really be one of those people who is able and willing to respond
positively to the demand to build "another world"?
- ATTAC France and ATTAC International have also signaled their aim to
link up and cooperate with those trade unions that are working toward a
"participatory" approach with regard to the adjustment
policies of governments and the international financial institutions.
Thus, as was stated at a symposium organized by ATTAC France: "The
history of ATTAC is particularly fruitful in this regard. Whilst NGOs
and trade unions often belong to two separate worlds which ignore each
other, ATTAC is inventing an NGO which contains an essential trade union
component." (Patrick Viveret, at the Morsang sur Orge Symposium,
"History")
In fact, Pierre Rousset went so far as to write in the December 2000
issue of Inprecor (the review published by the United
Secretariat, to which the LCR is linked) that "the center of
gravity" of the Saint-Denis International Meetings organized by
ATTAC, which were held in the Paris region in June 1999, "was
situated more on the side of the trade unions and labor associations
than the NGOs."
Indeed, one can find among the founding members of ATTAC such
organizations as SUD-PTT, UGICT-CGT (General Union of Engineers and
Technicians-CGT), CFDT Banking Sector, CGT Financial Sector, and the FSU,
which is part of the "Group of Ten" - that is, a group
advocating the "refounding" of trade unionism based on the
concepts of "jointism" and "cooperation." (We shall
return to this later.)
For example, regarding the proposal by the French government to
dismantle the national system of universal health care and Social
Security (through the creation of a system of wage-based savings as a
first step toward the establishment of a U.S.-style "pension
fund") the CGT Financial Sector states: "The CGT has never
adopted an ideological approach to this matter. The legislation proposed
[by the French government] contains a number of measures which represent
improvements to the existing system of participation, profit-sharing and
savings."
It is clear that ATTAC is mainly concerned with linking up with a
certain type of "trade union" and not with others. They are
not interested in those unions those which seek, whatever their
situation, to take a stand on the grounds of defending the workers'
interests.
One example: A report by Agence France-Presse (Oct. 6, 2001) stated that
during a demonstration against tax havens organized in Luxemburg, Mr.
Luc Koedingen, the chair of ATTAC Luxemburg, condemned "the
weakness of the Luxemburg trade unions," which according to him
were more interested in "defending the direct interests of the
40,000 workers in the banking sector than in adopting an ethical
position."
This statement by Mr. Koedingen deserves further examination. We confess
we do not know the exact policy positions of the Luxemburg trade unions.
But if they are intent, above all, on "defending the direct
interests of the workers," then we can only congratulate them. By
so doing, they are making the best possible contribution to the struggle
against the war.
The representatives of ATTAC talk about ethics. But what kind of ethics?
The ethics which demand that trade unions give up the fight for the
material and moral interests of the workers in the name of
"higher" interests are the ethics of corporatism, in other
words of the integration of the trade unions into the State, into the
international financial institutions of global capitalism S and into
the war efforts of the existing system.
Are those ATTAC's "ethics"?
The ethics of the labor movement consist in defending every inch of
the way the material and moral interests of the workers and the
independence of their organizations, whatever the circumstances and
wherever they may be - whether in the United States or Pakistan, in
France or in Luxemburg.
- Susan George, vice chair of ATTAC, declares that the
"alliances" that should link ATTAC and other similar
organizations "should transcend generations, sectors, borders and
sometimes political cleavages, and it may happen that we will find
ourselves in strange company" (Susan George, The Lugano Report).
Strange company, indeed, as far as ATTAC is concerned - as we shall see.
ATTAC has in fact received support from powerful individuals such as
George Soros.
As for George Soros [see Appendix 1 for more information about Soros],
one thing is certain. Speaking last January from Davos, Switzerland, in
a teleconference hookup organized jointly by the World Social Forum in
Porto Alegre, Brazil and the World Economic Forum in Davos Forum, Soros
stated in response to Bernard Cassen, chair of ATTAC: "I am not
interested in the destruction of global capitalism [but] I am currently
in favor of the Tobin Tax."
But Soros is not the only person of such stature who, according to ATTAC,
could be won over to the fight for "another world." There is
also Jean-Marie Messier, the CEO of Vivendi Universal, a powerful
multinational that was created essentially on the basis of the
privatization of public services. In a TV interview on France 2,
Messier, who was at the Davos Summit, was very pleased with the Porto
Alegre Forum (co-organized by ATTAC), calling it "a true
phenomenon" and wishing it could be "a means of establishing
and initiating a dialogue between businesses, representatives of civil
society, and NGO-type social organizations."
This statement was made just days before Vivendi Universal announced,
according to the Financial Times, "the cutting of several
thousand jobs" among the group's 71,000 employees.
ATTAC can also boast of a "parliamentary group" with more than
100 members in the French National Assembly. Most of them are members of
the ruling government majority. These are people who have voted for
measures such as the annualization of working hours (thereby reducing
wages across the board), the lifting of the ban on night work for women,
and the reintroduction of child labor. The list is longer. We ask: Are
these the people who are going to help build a "new" world?
Hardly.
- ATTAC has a certain tendency to use "double-speak." For
example, in its declaration on "the reform of the international
financial institutions" (ATTAC France Scientific Council, July 17,
2001), the title of one chapter refers to the "priority of
cancelling the external debt." Very good. But about ten lines
further on, the text refers to "reducing the debt burden to a lower
percentage of the exports from debtor countries." So which is it:
cancellation or "reduction"? There is a big difference, on the
quantitative level for a start. Why force countries to continue to pay a
debt which is not the peoples' debt, leaving the peoples to wonder where
the money they thought they had earned is actually going? But there is
also a difference on the political level: the "reductions" and
other "programs for debt reduction" are always part of a
reinforcement of the control exercised by the international financial
institutions of global capitalism.
These "reductions" come at a price in terms of accelerated
programs of privatization and dismantling of social services.
- Finally, we think it important to emphasize that the people who set up
ATTAC have a very particular idea of democracy: the "General
Assembly" of ATTAC (equivalent to an annual conference) can only
designate 12 out of the 30 members of the General Council; in other
words only 40 percent. The rest of the General Council members, in other
words the majority, are appointed by the founders of ATTAC - who
themselves cannot be removed.
Regarding the Tobin Tax
As we have seen, ATTAC is about the "Tobin Tax" - that is,
the proposal to apply a tax of 0.1 percent (or 0.05 percent depending on
who you ask) on financial revenues in order to create an international
fund that would thus receive US$40 billion to US$50 billion a year -
money which would then be channelled into development and the fight
against poverty.
Let us state straight away that if this was the ultimate objective, if
this measure could succeed in reducing poverty, we would be in favor.
But let us take a closer look at what's involved.
We think that at least one point must be made from the outset: The Tobin
Tax is based not on labor, on the exchange of goods, on the production
of goods - but on financial transactions.
- US$1.4 trillion change hands every day in transactions which for the
greater part are for essentially speculative purposes.
This does not mean that they do not have a material basis: The money
used for speculation is made up essentially of the proceeds from
privatization and the massive destruction of jobs that this entails.
This process is reflected today in the demands placed on the Russian
railways, for example. Aware of this fact, Russian railworker recently
hosted a conference of German, British, Russian and French railworkers
organized by the International Liaison Committee for a Workers'
International. In the final declaration adopted by the conference, the
railworkers noted:
"In Russia, privatization would mean redundancy for between 400,000
and 500,000 workers in the rail system, about one railworker in three;
the closure of lines declared 'unprofitable', a lowering of standards in
the rail service and in maintenance and repair work; a worsening of
working conditions, an increase in fares for the passengers; and a
reduction in passenger traffic. The adoption of the new labor code,
which restricts the rights of the trade unions and the workers,
especially in the rail network, would make that situation even
worse."
- Speculation and speculative profit have a material basis in the
so-called "foreign debt," which has already been paid four
times over (while at the same time the money borrowed has found its way
back to the Western banks, tucked away in private accounts by corrupt
governments and mafia-style nomenklaturas).
US$360 billion of "debt repayment" are paid every year by
governments in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Eastern Europe to the
detriment of the fundamental needs of the populations.
- Speculation and speculative profit have produced 100 million more
people in poverty than there were 10 years ago. In at least 10 countries
in Africa, the scourge of AIDS has reduced life expectancy by 17 years.
There are more than 33 million cases of AIDS in the world, of which 22
million are in Africa. 1.5 billion people still do not have access to
clean drinking water, resulting in 2.4 children dying every year. 125
million children still do not have access to primary schooling. 1.8
million people die every year as a result of unhygienic living
conditions. Speculation results in a world where inequality of access to
information is growing, and in a world where the forests are
disappearing at a rate of two hectares every five seconds.
- Speculation and speculative profit have a material basis in the threat
to public services, to systems for protecting health and providing
pensions, and in the deregulation of labor.
And, as a more precise answer to those Russian unionists and activists
who asked us what we thought of ATTAC, let us take the example of Russia
itself and say that speculation on a global scale has been nourished by:
- Massive loans taken out by the governments and nomenklatura-mafias.
Today, Russia is thought to have US$155 billion of foreign debt, with
most of the loaned money salted away in bank accounts in Europe and the
United States as a result of massive corruption. This has not prevented
the Russian people from being forced to make debt payments of around $15
billion per year, reducing them to even greater poverty instead of
addressing their crying needs.
- Speculation and speculative profit is what was organized in 1998, when
the banks started by trying to squeeze funds out of the Russian
population, offering them rates of interest that they knew full well
were far too high, and which also contributed a further increase in the
foreign debt. The hope that the Russian banks would repay their external
debts was never more than an illusion, because just before the financial
crisis broke they were pillaging their own assets, hiding them in
subsidiaries, in dummy companies, or in offshore companies abroad (tax
havens). Russian citizens who had entrusted these banks with their
money, drawn by the promise of fantastic rates of interest, suddenly
found that they had lost practically all their savings.
- Speculation was fed by inflation, which in 1998 in Russia was
estimated at 91 percent, at a time when wages increased by only 5 to 6
percent.
Speculation, therefore, is the process organized by the IMF, the World
Bank and the Russian government that has resulted in the fact that today
Russia's Gross National Product (GNP) is only 59 percent of its 1988
level.
Having said all this, we now ask the question: Can humanity's lot be
improved by placing a 0.1 percent tax on the trillions of dollars moving
around the financial markets - all of which are materially based on
poverty, war, disease, unemployment, and the destruction of social gains
and the environment?
Is it not a fool's bargain to propose that the vast majority of the
profits from speculative exchange transactions should continue to go to
the very people who are organizing this dramatic situation?
Is it not a fool's bargain to sign a "quittance," a blank
cheque in favor of the people who are organizing the poverty and the
pillage of the peoples of the world, in exchange for a possible promise
that they might "redistribute" 0.1 percent of their profits
from the process?
For our part, the Workers Party declares that it is for:
- The complete cancellation of the so-called "foreign debt";
- The renationalization of the companies that have been sold off for a
song and sacrificed to speculation;
- The re-establishment of Social Security, national health care systems
and Labor Codes;
- The re-establishment of the sovereignty of the peoples, which has been
sacrificed to the diktats of the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, the WTO,
and the European Union.
The Tobin Tax and the European Union
From our point of view, the Tobin Tax raises another question: As
far as James Tobin himself in concerned, it is impossible to institute
this tax in the current conditions of financial deregulation and
increased competition on a global scale. Specifically, in the interview
he gave to the newspaper El Pais which we quoted above, the
following can be read:
"Question: Do you think that the Tobin Tax will be introduced one
day?
"Tobin: In my opinion, no. The decision-makers in the international
financial world are against it.
"Question: But the European Finance Ministers are going to debate
the Tobin Tax at their meeting in Liege [Belgium] at the end of
September [2001].
"Tobin: That will probably only amount to shadow theater. I doubt
that there will be any serious consideration of the question. In fact I
do not believe that they want to impose any additional responsibility on
the financial sector."
To which ATTAC's representatives reply:
Yes, it is possible to introduce this Tobin Tax more widely once the
"conquest" is achieved of having it introduced in the euro
zone. "We'll start with the euro," said Siam Hoang Ngdoc at a
seminar organized by ATTAC on Jan. 25, 1999. More specifically, he
stated: "Isn't the new single European currency a special
opportunity for introducing a Tobin tax?"
In the same seminar, François Chesnais, a member of "ATTAC's
Scientific Council," stated that, in his opinion, the Tobin Tax
should "be part of a process, and the message that should be sent
to the political leaders is the following: 'Start there, in that [euro]
zone which has just been set up with a single currency, which can
provide a platform for introducing the Tobin Tax'."
Finally, also supporting the idea of a Tobin Tax within Europe,
Dominique Pilhas, one of the senior representatives of ATTAC, suggested
"using their own arguments against those who years ago were
promoting the euro. S Many sceptics considered that measure [the euro]
was too arbitrary. Nevertheless it was introduced, despite being much
more restrictive than a simple tax."
As far as the euro being more restrictive than the Tobin Tax, we can
agree that it is.
The so-called "conquest that is the euro" was, indeed,
introduced:
- through "convergence criteria" whose first objective was to
reduce "budget deficits" by drastic cuts in social budgets;
- by demanding that each participating country carry out an accelerated
privatization plan of public services;
- by forcing each state to undermine and reverse the existing social
gains (for example, obliging each state to end the ban on night work for
women).
And that was just the start: The timetable for the introduction of the
euro includes the privatization of social security/universal healthcare
benefits and pensions; in other words, the creation of additional
billions and billions of "pension funds" that will give a new
boost to speculation.
- In Africa, the process of introducing the euro has led to a
catastrophic 50 percent devaluation of the currencies that were linked
to the French Franc by a fixed parity rate, a devaluation which has
formed the basis for a spiralling growth in poverty on an already
devastated continent.
And what about the countries which have applied for membership in the
European Union? For them, it means the demand put forward by the
European Union for the introduction of "a viable market economy as
well as the capacity to cope with the pressure of competition and market
forces within the European Union (economic criterion)." (European
Union, Enlargement: Preparation for Membership)
Today, everyone knows that "coping with the pressure of
competition" means driving down wages even more, and going even
further in deregulating labor.
So this is the second question we think should be asked when considering
the Tobin Tax: Can a more just society be built on the basis of an
institution - the European Union - and an economy whose entry demands
such a high price in suffering, in threats to political and social
gains, as is the case with the euro?
Back to
ILC Newsletter Index Back to
ILC Debate over WSF Index
|
Open World Conference of Workers