The Occupy Movement has revived May Day. For far too many years, this holiday, which was of course also a solidarity-building occasion, has been ignored by the US labor movement. Ironic, given the fact that May Day actually began in the US.

Here’s a bit of the history behind May Day. In 1884, militant unions in the US declared that eight hours would constitute a legal day’s work beginning on May 1, 1886. When workers went on strike at a factory in Chicago on May 3, 1886, police fired into the peacefully assembled crowd, killing four and wounding many others. The workers movement called for a mass rally the next day in Haymarket Square to protest this brutality. The rally proceeded peacefully until the end when 180 police officers entered the square and ordered the crowd to disperse. At that point, someone threw a bomb, killing one police officer and wounding 70 others. The police responded by firing into the crowd, killing one and injuring many others.

Following the Haymarket Affair, eight of the city’s most active unionists were charged with conspiracy to commit murder even though only one was actually present at the meeting. All eight were found guilty and sentenced to death. Commemoration of this day and the outrages against justice that followed quickly became an key element of the international struggle for worker’s rights.

In 1904, the International Socialist Congress called on “all Social Democratic Party organizations and trade unions of all countries to demonstrate energetically on May First for the legal establishment of the 8-hour day, for the class demands of the proletariat, and for universal peace.” The congress made it “mandatory upon the proletarian organizations of all countries to stop work on May 1, wherever it is possible without injury to the workers.”

Why was May Day not celebrated in the US? In a demonstration of the complicit nature of segments of the US labor movement, the Knights of Labor (a racially exclusionary organization) caved in to the demand of President Grover Cleveland that the Haymarket Massacre would not be commemorated on May Day. So we now have a state-sanctioned and relatively toothless Labor Day in early September.

Yesterday Occupy revived the suppressed tradition of May Day on a joyous celebration of solidarity and outrage. The day started out for me with brilliant talks offered in Madison Square Park by folks like David Harvey, Frances Fox Piven, Andrew Ross, Drucilla Cornell. The Free University provided a great space to listen to debates about a series of key issues, from the right to the city, to student loans and debt, to the history of the labor movement.

From the Free University we marched down to Union Square, where more speakers and music were on offer. The entire park gradually got jam packed with people. This was a great opportunity to hang out with friends and make connections with activists from a variety of different organizations and walks of life. It was also a moment to revel in the carnivalesque spirit of the Occupy movement. Here are some photos that I think conjure up a sense of the celebratory atmosphere in Union Square:

[slideshow]

Unfortunately, all was not wine and roses. The police refused to allow us to march out of Union Square. As this image makes clear, they set up steel cattle pens in order to box marchers in, and then arbitrarily blocked off exist from these pens when it was time to march. Most of the demonstrators around me, seasoned protesters all, told me that this was in order to demonstrate the police’s power over us rather than to preserve our safety during the march. In fact, once they eventually let us out of the cattle pens, instead of allowing us to march directly down Broadway, where the march had been permitted, the police instead directed us down W. 17th street to 6th Avenue, so that we had to walk through the middle of traffic. This was obviously not a safe situation. Police officers then lined the street and tried to force us onto the sidewalk, despite the fact that our march was permitted. Tempers quickly frayed, and it looked like things were not going to go well. A friend of mine was violently pushed into a pile of garbage on a sidewalk by a group of police when he challenged their attempt to force us onto the sidewalk. Thankfully, we eventually got back to Broadway and the rest of the march proceeded in a jubilant spirit.

Not surprisingly, mainstream media coverage latched onto the scuffles and arrests that resulted from the police kettling strategies rather than focusing on the joyous and constructive spirit of the rest of the day. This article in the New York Times is typical of such a jaundiced approach. Luckily, though, there are other sources of information and reflection about the events of yesterday, including this excellent coverage on Democracy Now, which highlights the international dimensions of the protests.

It was an undeniably great day for radical activism and for the movement for global justice. That said, this May Day was more of a celebration of our collective and potential powers than a real General Strike (which is what many Occupy activists had called for). Much work remains to be done before the dispersed powers of the movement can be collected into a force capable of doing real damage to capital, let alone giving birth to a new world.

But although such skeptical assessments are perhaps necessary, they should not overwhelm the joy of the day. I’ll close therefore close this post with some video clips that capture the ridiculously creative energies unleashed by the movement. First of all, here’s a bit of fancy footwork and wonderful brass music from the Rude Mechanical Orchestra:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4diYc4zodRQ]

And here, to remind us of the history of Union Square and to challenge the Christian evangelical movement on its own terrain, is the Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts1MIugwrwY]

Last of all, here, once again, is the Rude Mechanical Orchestra, performing the uproarious Smash the Banks Polka:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWblaJHLrJo]

Italy was really great, but it’s so good to be back in NYC!

Today I walked through Union Square, which is filled with tables distributing information for Occupy May Day. There’s a very exciting series of events planned, as well as an immense amount of wonderful cultural production. The radicalism of the various booklets I picked up was so inspiring, with articles about the ecological crisis, resistance to foreclosure, the international military industrial complex, etc.

Here are some posters generated by the Occupy movement to publicize the events on May Day:

After spending time talking to Occupy activists, I went down into the subway. There I came across an amazing band called Underground Horns busking for money.

How inspiring to find so much vibrant popular culture on the streets.  Okay, the US is an extremely reaction country on a general political level, but cities like New York are filled with such redemptive popular energy.

Here’s a clip of Underground Horns’ performance:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IoiK_LhPsE]

Occupation by a fascist or imperialist power is perhaps one of the most common experiences of the last century.  This is certainly true of Italy, which endured nearly two decades of fascist rule, culminating in several years of occupation by the Nazis during the Second World War. Today Italy celebrates resistance to this oppression. Here in Europe, though, this experience of occupation and resistance is being forgotten all too quickly. As a result, Europe is witnessing the return of National Socialism.

Two days ago, in the French elections, Marie Le Pen won nearly 20% of the national vote. She ran on an explicitly racist platform, spewing demagogic vitriol about halal meat as a threat to French values and promising to clamp down on immigration. But in addition to playing on nostalgic white desires for the imaginary homogeneous France of an era before mass immigration, globalization, and financialization, Le Pen promises to leave the EU and to support a generous welfare state, early retirement, and old age pensions. On many of these positions, she is far to the left of the nominally socialist candidate François Hollande.

Extreme xenophobia and racism married to a generous socialist state for a white nation. Sound familiar? This was the formula of the Nazi – an abbreviation of National Socialist – party, although not many people remember the socialist elements of the party’s ideology.

Rabble-rousing populists of this ilk are making gains across Europe in the context of the austerity policies implemented by mainstream parties of both the Right and the Left over the last two years. The center-right government of Mark Rutte in Holland caved in on Monday after Geert Wilders, Le Pen’s Dutch equivalent, withdrew his support for the government because of resistance to austerity. In Prague, massive popular protests – the biggest since the Velvet Revolution – have brought the governing party to the brink of collapse as a result of its implementation of unpopular spending cuts.

We are living through a very dangerous moment, one in which the extreme right is set to capitalize on the lack of a strong progressive alternative to the horrendous, failed policies of austerity pursued by European elites, Sarkozy and Merkel foremost among them, since the financial crisis engulfed Europe.

In the face of this return of National Socialism, it is more urgent than ever to revive the memory of anti-fascist struggle in Europe. Salutary, then, that today was the celebration of Italy’s liberation from the Nazi occupation during the Second World War.

This evening I participated in a torch-light procession of partisans – guerrilla fighters against the Nazis and Italian fascists during World War Two – and their friends and family here in Torino to celebrate the Day of National Liberation. Here are some photos of the march:

[slideshow]

Notice how diverse the crowd was in terms of age. For Italy, it was also fairly multi-racial, with a strong anti-racist showing.

During the march I spoke to a young medical student named Federico. He explained that the national association of Italian partisans (whose acronym is ANPI in Italian) was only open to actual fighters during the Second World War until four years ago. At that point, though, a decision was made to open the organization up to younger people in order to transmit its values to new generations. The point, in other words, is to keep the memory of the anti-fascist, anti-Nazi struggle alive while also trying to make that memory active in the present. How can the heritage of the partisans be made meaningful in today’s world, the marchers asked?

The march concluded with a series of speeches by partisans on a stage in Torino’s Piazza Reale. Like Federico, these men stressed that the legacy of anti-fascism needs to be kept alive in the present. Unfortunately, no elderly women were invited to speak, although, as Roberto Rosellini’s great film Roma, città aperta shows, women played a vital role in fighting the fascists. A young woman did, however, make a powerful argument for the need to fight the advance of the Right within Italy and throughout Europe.

With Italy and the rest of Europe moving into increasingly difficult economic straits, this message needs to be amplified in every way possible. As Rosa Luxemburg might have put it, today it’s a case of international socialism or Nazi barbarism.

I’ll give the last word in this posting to the partisans. Here’s a version of the classic partisan song Bella Ciao:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duBhBTld5iM&feature=related]

Yesterday I took a trip to the idyllic Castello di Rivoli to the west of Turin with my friend Andrea. We discussed the film Romanzo di una strage, which I discussed in an earlier post. Andrea filled me in on some of the amazing background details.

Here are some shots I took from the Castello and during a walk around the medieval town. I include them as a counterweight to what follows:

[slideshow]

As Andrea explain to me, during the Cold War, NATO established a secret organization that went by the code name Operation Gladio (Latin for sword). The idea of this parallel military organization, that existed in all the democracies of Western Europe, was to fight a guerrilla war against communist forces in the event of an invasion by the Soviet Union. In the event, though, Gladio became a clandestine force that spread discord domestically since its operatives – many of them directly related to the fascist regimes of the pre-1945 period in countries such as Italy and France – were fundamentally opposed to social democracy.

Italy was particularly susceptible to the destabilizing operations of Gladio because it was viewed as a particularly front-line state, one with a very strong Communist Party. In 1964, for example, a silent coup d’etat took place when General Giovanni Di Lorenzo forced Socialist ministers to leave the government.

When members of the political establishment such as Aldo Moro refused to go along with the push towards military dictatorship following this silent coup d’etat, Gladio operatives unleashed the so-called strategy of tension: a campaign of bombings and other massacres, which would be blamed on the Left and would destabilize the country to the point where martial law would be declared. Foremost among these bombings were the Piazza Fontana bombing (1969), the Peteano massacre (1972), and Bologna massacre (1980).

Officials at the highest levels of the Italian government knew about the existence of Operation Gladio, as the confessions of Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti before the Commission on Massacres (1990) revealed. In addition, Gladio operatives circulated through a world-wide Right-wing terrorist network, carrying out assassinations in places such as Chile and taking refuge in countries such as Franco’s fascist regime in Spain.

I wonder how many Americans know about Gladio and the CIA’s involvement therein? A quick search comes up with only two books on the topic: Philip Willan’s Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy and Richard Cottrell’s Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe. Both of these book document the secret CIA-NATO-neofascist-mafia network that penetrated Europe, carrying out terrorist atrocities and sponsoring military coups in places such as Greece and Turkey. In Italy, a shadow government was formed through the P2 Masonic lodge, an organization founded by former blackshirts, to which most of the leaders of Italy’s post-war governments belonged. The facts are so shocking that they come off like something out of a spy novel.

Very few of those responsible, either directly on indirectly, for any of these massacres have been brought to justice. Small wonder, then, that this history is still alive in Italy in a way that outsiders fail to understand. There’s a dark unsettling reality beneath the surface of this beautiful country.

That reality was brought home during the protests against the G8 meeting in Genoa (2001). During these demonstrations, Italian police forces broke into a school that was being used as a communications center by journalists working with the Global Justice Movement. They beat everyone they found inside the school to a pulp, arrested them, and detained them without judicial proceedings for many days. Amnesty International called this the worst act of brutality in a western democracy since the Second World War. Again, very few of these police have been prosecuted for their crimes.

But Italy thankfully also still has a strong Left, which continues to document and militate against these atrocities. Last night I went to see Diaz, a film which deals with the police attacks during the G8 protests. It was one of the hardest to watch films I’ve ever seen, with long, brutal scenes of police violence. Although it was difficult to stomach, I think it’s very important that these events have been documented on film and are being circulated within the public realm.

Here’s a trailer for the fim:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNynI9mp-_M]

Teaching American Studies in Torino, as I am for the next two weeks, is an eye-opening experience.  I feel a bit as if I am a native informant, who has to try to undermine the inaccurate views of my students about the United States. One of the foremost of these is the myth that the U.S. is the land of opportunity.

My first class this week will focus on The Monster, Michael W. Hudson’s encyclopedic account of the depredations of the subprime mortgage industry in the U.S. over the last two decades. The industry that, in cahoots with Wall Street banks like Lehman Brothers and using arcane financial instruments like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) invented in order to profit from the subprime mortgage market, wrecked the global economy.

The sordidness of the subprime mortgage industry is impossible to overestimate. It was run by completely unscrupulous capitalist bosses who purposely targeted working class people of color, people who had finally managed to build up a bit of equity through government-backed mortgage schemes in the decades after the New Deal and the Second World War. Equity, mind you, that was radically less than what the average white suburban family was able to build up in the same period. Here’s an excellent video that gives a sense of the unequal (racialized) landscape of housing in the U.S.:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW764dXEI_8]

The subprime mortgage industry targeted working class people of color, siphoning their hard-earned housing equity into an insane Ponzi scheme built on virtually impossible to penetrate financial instruments like CDOs and Credit Default Swaps. The result was a complete crash of the global economy. Here’s a video that very nicely explains how all of these arcane financial instruments worked?

[vimeo http://vimeo.com/3261363]

Underlying this crisis of credit reminds us that, of course, the assault on working- and middle-class wages begun by global financial elites in the mid- to late-1970s, led, particularly, by Ronald Reagan in the U.S. and Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. As elites clawed back more and more of the wage gains and other social benefits win during the period since the Great Depression and the Second World War, life for the average person became more and more difficult.

What this led to was the financialization of everyday life. The 99%, in the Occupy parlance, were forced to live more and more off credit (and women had to enter the workforce in order to maintain middle class standards of living). Slowly, people came to think of life itself in financial terms, as a kind of risky investment.

One area in which this shift is particularly apparent is higher education, which went from being seen as a right that was provided to the people free of charge through public higher education systems like the City University of New York and the University of California systems, to being seen as an investment that people had to pay for through tuition charges. This was a Faustian deal, though, since it only made sense – if it ever made sense – when the economy was doing well and this “investment” could be payed down quickly after snagging a well-paying job. Now that unemployment is high for young people, high tuition rates in universities (including public ones) seems more like a scam than a just exchange.

There was a good article in the New York Times today about a couple of French economists who have shown that inequality in the US is nearly as bad as it was during the Great Depression. This is no news break to Occupy activists, but one suspects that the American Dream myth is keeping most people in the U.S. in the dark about this fact, not to mention many people around the world, who continue to think of the U.S. as the land of milk and honey. Here are some amazing charts from the article that demonstrate spiraling income inequality:

It will take tremendous push-back in order to turn this horrible situation around. We’re just at the beginning of such efforts, but the Occupy movement has already initiated some very creative and brave responses to the economic crash. Here is a video of folks from Occupy Foreclosures who block house auction proceedings with choral singing:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9CmCKYlNYQ]

The pranksters at Occupy also recently produced a beautiful video that, in Situationalist terminology, “detourn”s West Side Story to cover many of the issues I’ve touched on in this post:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wGZRJG4ZJE]

Here is the final press statement from the Climate Justice Now! Campaign on the events in Durban:

 COP17 succumbs to Climate Apartheid

Antidote is Cochabamba Peoples’ Agreement

Durban, S. Africa –Decisions resulting from the UN COP17 climate summit in Durban constitute a crime against humanity, according to Climate Justice Now! a broad coalition of social movements and civil society. Here in South Africa, where the world was inspired by the liberation struggle of the country’s black majority, the richest nations have cynically created a new regime of climate apartheid

“Delaying real action until 2020 is a crime of global proportions,” said Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International. “An increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees Celsius, permitted under this plan, is a death sentence for Africa, Small Island States, and the poor and vulnerable worldwide. This summit has amplified climate apartheid, whereby the richest 1% of the world have decided that it is acceptable to sacrifice the 99%.”

According to Pablo Solón, former lead negotiator for the Plurinational State of Bolivia, “It is false to say that a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol has been adopted in Durban. The actual decision has merely been postponed to the next COP, with no commitments for emission reductions from rich countries. This means that the Kyoto Protocol will be on life support until it is replaced by a new agreement that will be even weaker.”

The world’s polluters have blocked real action and have once again chosen to bail out investors and banks by expanding the now-crashing carbon markets – which like all financial market activities these days, appear to mainly enrich a select few.

“What some see as inaction is in fact a demonstration of the palpable failure of our current economic system to address economic, social or environmental crises,” said Janet Redman, of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. “Banks that caused the financial crisis are now making bonanza profits speculating on our planet’s future. The financial sector, driven into a corner, is seeking a way out by developing ever newer commodities to prop up a failing system.”

Despite talk of a “roadmap” offered up by the EU, the failure in Durban shows that this is a cul-de-sac,  a road to nowhere. Spokespeople for Climate Justice Now! call on the world community to remember that a real climate program, based on planetary needs identified by scientists as well as by a mandate of popular movements, emerged at the World People’s Summit on Climate Change and Mother Earth in Bolivia in 2010. The Cochabamba People’s Agreement, brought before the UN but erased from the negotiating text, offers a just and effective way forward that is desperately needed.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

On technology

“The technology discussions have been hijacked by industrialized countries speaking on behalf of their transnational corporations,” said Silvia Ribeiro from the international organization ETC Group.

Critique of monopoly patents on technologies, and the environmental, social and cultural evaluation of technologies have been taken out of the Durban outcome. Without addressing these fundamental concerns, the new technology mechanism will merely be a global marketing arm to increase the profit of transnational corporations by selling dangerous technologies to countries of the South, such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology or geoengineering technologies.”

On agriculture

“The only way forward for agriculture is to support agro-ecological solutions, and to keep agriculture out of the carbon market,” said Alberto Gomez, North American Coordinator for La Via Campesina, the world’s largest movement of peasant farmers.

“Corporate Agribusiness, through its social, economic, and cultural model of production, is one of the principal causes of climate change and increased hunger. We therefore reject Free Trade Agreements, Association Agreements, and all forms of the application of Intellectual Property Rights to life, current technological packages (agrochemicals, genetic modification) and those that offer false solutions (biofuels, nanotechnology, and climate smart agriculture) that only exacerbate the current crisis.”

On REDD + and forest carbon projects
“REDD+ threatens the survival of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities. Mounting evidence shows that Indigenous Peoples are being subjected to violations of their rights as a result of the implementation of REDD+-type programs and policies,” declared The Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities against REDD and for Life.

Their statement, released during the first week of COP17, declares that “REDD+ and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) promote the privatization and commodification of forests, trees and air through carbon markets and offsets from forests, soils, agriculture and could even include the oceans. We denounce carbon markets as a hypocrisy that will not stop global warming.”

On the World Bank and the Global Climate Fund

“The World Bank is a villain of the failed neoliberal economy,” says Teresa Almaguer of Grassroots Global Justice Alliance in the U.S.

“We need a climate fund managed by participatory governance, not by an anti-democratic institution that is responsible for much of the climate disruption and poverty in the world.” “The Green Climate Fund has been turned into the Greedy Corporate Fund,” said Lidy Nacpil, of Jubilee South. “The fund has been hijacked by the rich countries, on their terms, and set up to provide more profits to the private sector”

On the Green Economy

“We need a climate fund that provides finance for peoples of developing countries that is fully independent from undemocratic institutions like the World Bank. The Bank has a long track record of financing projects that exacerbate climate disruption and poverty” said Lidy Nacpil, of Jubilee South. “The fund is being hijacked by the rich countries, setting up the World Bank as interim trustee and providing direct access to money meant for developing countries to the private sector.  It should be called the Greedy Corporate Fund!”

Climate policy is making a radical shift towards the so-called “green economy,” dangerously reducing ethical commitments and historical responsibility to an economic calculation on cost-effectiveness, trade and investment opportunities. Mitigation and adaption should not be treated as a business nor have its financing conditioned by private sector and profit-oriented logic. Life is not for sale.

On climate debt

“Industrialized northern countries are morally and legally obligated to repay their climate debt,” said Janet Redman, Co-director of the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies. “Developed countries grew rich at the expense of the planet and the future all people by exploiting cheap coal and oil. They must pay for the resulting loss and damages, dramatically reduce emissions now, and financially support developing countries to shift to clean energy pathways.”

Developed countries, in assuming their historical responsibility, must honor their climate debt in all its dimensions as the basis for a just, effective, and scientific solution. The focus must not be only on financial compensation, but also on restorative justice, understood as the restitution of integrity to our Mother Earth and all its beings. We call on developed countries to commit themselves to action. Only this could perhaps rebuild the trust that has been broken and enable the process to move forward.

On real solutions

“The only real solution to climate change is to leave the oil in the soil, coal in the hole and tar sands in the land. “ Ivonne Yanez, Acción Ecologica, Ecuador

Compare this scathing language with the official press release from the UNFCCC today:

Durban conference delivers breakthrough in international community’s
response to climate change

(Durban, 11 December 2011) – Countries meeting in Durban, South Africa,
have delivered a breakthrough on the future of the international
community’s response to climate change, whilst recognizing the urgent need
to raise their collective level of ambition to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to keep the average global temperature rise below two degrees
Celsius.

“We have taken crucial steps forward for the common good and the global
citizenry today. I believe that what we have achieved in Durban will play a
central role in saving tomorrow, today,” said Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, South
African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation and President
of the Durban UN Climate Change Conference (COP17/CMP7).

“I salute the countries who made this agreement. They have all laid aside
some cherished objectives of their own to meet a common purpose – a
long-term solution to climate change. I sincerely thank the South African
Presidency who steered through a long and intense conference to a historic
agreement that has met all major issues,” said Christiana Figueres,
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).

In Durban, governments decided to adopt a universal legal agreement on
climate change as soon as possible, but not later than 2015. Work will
begin on this immediately under a new group called the Ad Hoc Working Group
on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.

Governments, including 38 industrialised countries, agreed a second
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol from January 1, 2013. To achieve
rapid clarity, Parties to this second period will turn their economy-wide
targets into quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives and
submit them for review by May 1, 2012.

“This is highly significant because the Kyoto Protocol’s accounting rules,
mechanisms and markets all remain in action as effective tools to leverage
global climate action and as models to inform future agreements,” Ms.
Figueres said.

A significantly advanced framework for the reporting of emission reductions
for both developed and developing countries was also agreed, taking into
consideration the common but differentiated responsibilities  of different
countries.

In addition to charting the way forward on reducing greenhouse gases in the
global context, governments meeting in South Africa agreed the full
implementation of the package to support developing nations, agreed last
year in Cancun, Mexico.

“This means that urgent support for the developing world, especially for
the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, will also be
launched on time,” said Ms Figueres.

The package includes the Green Climate Fund, an Adaptation Committee
designed to improve the coordination of adaptation actions on a global
scale, and a Technology Mechanism, which are to become fully operational in
2012 (see below for details).

Whilst pledging to make progress in a number of areas, governments
acknowledged the urgent concern that the current sum of pledges to cut
emissions both from developed and developing countries is not high enough
to keep the global average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.

They therefore decided that the UN Climate Change process shall increase
ambition to act and will be led by the climate science in the IPCC’s Fifth
Assessment Report and the global Review from 2013-2015.

“While it is clear that these deadlines must be met, countries, citizens
and businesses who have been behind the rising global wave of climate
action can now push ahead confidently, knowing that Durban has lit up a
broader highway to a low-emission, climate resilient future,” said the
UNFCCC Executive Secretary.

The next major UNFCCC Climate Change Conference, COP 18/ CMP 8, is to take
place 26 November to 7 December 2012 in Qatar, in close cooperation with
the Republic of Korea.

Details of key decisions that emerged from COP17 in Durban

Green Climate Fund

•       Countries have already started to pledge to contribute to start-up
costs of the fund, meaning it can be made ready in 2012, and at the same
time    can help developing countries get ready to access the fund, boosting
their efforts to establish their own clean energy futures and adapt to
existing        climate change.

•       A Standing Committee is to keep an overview of climate finance in the
context of the UNFCCC and to assist the Conference of the Parties. It will
comprise 20 members, represented equally between the developed and
developing world.

•       A focussed work programme on long-term finance was agreed, which will
contribute to the scaling up of climate change finance going forward    and
will analyse options for the mobilisation of resources from a variety of
sources.

Adaptation

•       The  Adaptation Committee, composed of 16 members, will report to the
COP on its efforts to improve the coordination of adaptation actions at a
global scale.

•       The adaptive capacities above all of the poorest and most vulnerable
countries are to be strengthened. National Adaptation Plans will allow
developing countries to assess and reduce their vulnerability to climate
change.

•       The most vulnerable are to receive better protection against loss and
damage caused by extreme weather events related to climate change.

Technology

•       The Technology Mechanism will become fully operational in 2012.

•       The full terms of reference for the operational arm of the Mechanism
– the Climate Technology Centre and Network – are agreed, along with a
clear procedure to select the host. The UNFCCC secretariat will issue a
call for proposals for hosts on 16 January 2012.

Support of developing country action

•       Governments agreed a registry to record developing country mitigation
actions that seek financial support and to match these with support. The
registry will be a flexible, dynamic, web-based platform.

Other key decisions

•       A forum and work programme on unintended consequences of climate
change actions and policies were established.

•       Under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, governments
adopted procedures to allow carbon-capture and storage projects.        These
guidelines will be reviewed every five years to ensure environmental
integrity.

•       Governments agreed to develop a new market-based mechanism to assist
developed countries in meeting part of their targets or commitments
under the Convention. Details of this will be taken forward in 2012.

This panel was hosted by RIGAS, the Italian Network for Environmental and Social Justice. They believe that there is a real need for discussion among the various different social networks in order to work together to get out of the present crisis.

Three speakers will present: Ivonne Yanez of Acción Ecológica; Lea; Trevor Ngwane, founder of the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee; Guiseppe de Riga of A Sud (Italy); Rafael Quispe ; Nnimo Basi.

Initial questions: how can we build a new theory bringing together social and enviornmental justice with the objective of creating a new society; how can we build a social movement capable of having impact on the present crisis.

Trevor Ngwane spoke first. He began by explaining that we can only win through solidarity as the only way forward. In this sense, the Occupy Wall Street slogan “We are the 99% resonates.” The anti-apartheid struggle was won through unity of COSATU, the union movement, with UDF, the united democratic front. But more than that, the anti-apartheid movement was an international movement. In the liberated South Africa, we find we face many of the same problems of the apartheid era: the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. In Soweto, after independence, we faced the problem of the commodification of electricity, with the government increasing prices and cutting people off in order to enforce payment. So we acted collectively, but we also engaged in direct action – we reconnected ourselves when they cut us off. There was a similar struggle with water, with the government installing pre-payment meters before we can get access to water. The response was to remove these meters and let the water flow.

We then generalized this under the slogan, “Free basic services for all.” This makes sense to us since many people are unemployed in South Africa. Many of those who work don’t get a living wage because of casualization of labor. Even this university is cleaned by outsourced workers, many of whom will lose their jobs at the end of this month because their contract is ending.

In many other townships in South Africa, you have “service delivery protests.” Township residents burn tires in the road, burn the major’s car and house. These same protests are happening all over South Africa, but the problem is that they are happening in isolation. People’s protests are intended to make them the first ones to receive services. These acts ARE radical, but they also eat away the foundations of solidarity. We also have big strike waves, and particularly in 2010, with the biggest public strikes in our nation’s history. But the tendency is for isolated struggle rather than solidarity. The violence in the strikes compensates for a weakness in solidarity.

We realize, though, that while we call for basic services for all, we don’t want that at the cost of Mother Earth. So we want a shift away from electricity delivered from coal-fired power plants. We therefore feel like we want to link up with environmental movements. We are the reds, and we want to link up with the greens. We also realize that we have to work with the trade unions because we need help to build houses and deliver services for other people.

We were once part of the anti-privatization forum, but it died. The movements that last longest are those with a broad rather than a narrow vision. This is because sometimes the government will buy you off. For example, the government in Johannesburg attempted to stop us by putting a moratorium on cut-offs; luckily we were able to broaden our vision to other issues like education.

Ivonne Yanez was up next. She began by saying that in order to think about the present moment we need to look over our history. In the global North, for example, struggles over land have been important. The struggle over the Tar Sands is partly about land, for example. Another example could be the struggle over labor. In the global South, struggles have been a bit different. Most of all, they have centered on attempts to preserve collective rights. In addition, they have also hinged on anti-imperialism.

Despite a history of misunderstandings, we have found ways to link up movements between global North and South. For example, Accíon Ecológica left Friends of the Earth in 2003 because we felt our struggle was different. But conditions seem different now. We see a huge concentration of power in the 1%. New hegemonies, including the rise of China and Brazil and the other BRIC countries.

What is the context in Latin America? We have socialist governments that are supposedly leaving “the long night of neoliberalism.” But these are still capitalist governments in basic ways. In addition, these countries are more or less continuing to perpetuate continuing degradation of the environment.

We’re also seeing novel social movements emerge, such as the Spanish indignados. In South Africa, the social movements are very strong, but are not articulated to one another and therefore are fighting alone.

So the main point is that we have to find common basic points in order to build an international movement. I don’t believe that climate change should be the thing that is going to unite us. I think that water will unite us. Struggles against shale gas in the US are fundamentally about water, just as struggles for pure water are fundamentally what is at stake in Ecuador. We need to make sure that progress in one area of the world doesn’t come at the expense of people in other parts of the world.

Another common issue is energy. Many of us are fighting to gain access to energy and prevent it remaining in a few hands. Fossil fuels could be a basis for common struggle. For example, I recently received an email from someone in the Occupy Wall Street movement asking about the Yasunization of the world.

Another issue is “climate jobs.” What is a climate job? A South African building solar panels with technology from South Africa and materials from China for a family in Denmark. We need to think this through carefully.

Finally, I want to finish with the notion of the Rights of Nature. As an Ecuadorian, I’m extremely proud that this right is recognized in our constitution. But is it a good idea to have a global coalition around such rights? Perhaps jumping layers could destroy a good cause. The notion of Rights of Nature is one of the most radical concepts of the last 500 years, but if we don’t understand in our communities what these rights are, we may end up in competition rather than solidarity. We need to use this concept to confront capitalism, to confront “ecosystem services,” to confront the Clean Development Mechanism.  Only then will we be able to have an international network, one that will be protected by local communities.

Maybe one other platform could be criminalization. All over the world, more and more people who are struggling against economic and ecological harms are being criminalized.

Finally, it seems to me that our struggle needs to be based on compromise and mutual respect.

Leah Temper of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who works on ecological economics. Arguing for a more activist science. We coordinate EJOLT, a science and society program funded by the EU. What can ecological economics provide to the struggle for environmental justice. Need to put political issues back inside political economy by situating struggles over environmental issues into relation with broader social struggles. Challenging, for example, the argument that in the North we are decoupling development from environmental degradation. This is totally false: exploitation of resources is simply being displaced to other countries. We analyze material energy flows in order to challenge new governance structures associated with new carbon flows. So we look at human appropriation of primary production in order to understand how biofuel directives in the EU are linked to land grabbing in the global South.

What kind of global movement can we create? At AUB, we argue for a degrowth economy. What we want to degrow are the material and energy throughputs of the economy. This involves rethinking work and returning to the commons, a re-commoning of many resources, both on the side of production and consumption. This isn’t about individual consumption decisions, but rather structural transformation of the economy. Our biggest allies are the environmental justice movements taking place in the South. Our biggest challenge is how to make links with these movements. Key here is fighting enclosures taking place in the South because of our consumption in the North.

Guiseppe de Riga of A Sud. The first thing we need to do to build a new social movement is to meditate on the crisis we face. This is a truly unique structural crisis that encompasses all aspects of the system: energy, food, economy, politics. We are not going to overcome this crisis with empty slogans or old simplistic nostrums. In order to build a new international movement we mustn’t separate radical or reformist movement, but rather engage with our specific struggles. There are three major issues to confront: the system of production, means of subsistence, and the patterns of consumption.  All over the world we are facing these three issues: environmental crimes, environmental refugees, etc. What we’re saying is that we need to develop a new model of human liberation. It’s not an issue of climate justice or social justice but democracy – that’s the main core issue of it.

Here’s an example of how democracy is at stake in this issue. We’ve all witnessed the failure of global governance in face of climate change. In Italy, we won a major victory in a referendum against the privatization of water services. We were not supported by any political parties, but rather used constitutional tools to stop the privatization of water. But it didn’t turn out this way. The results of the referendum were never applied. So what should we do now that we see that democracy doesn’t work? What is the point of all this? So the point of all this is how we can create a form of democracy that can involve all citizens. After all, are we here in Durban just as witnesses, or are we going to change the relations of power?

This means that participatory democracy needs to be part of our daily practice. This will allow us to build new languages, new forms of political practice. We also need to transform the energy system and the production system, which means its essential to talk to workers. This process may produce contradictions, but we cannot be dissuaded by such difficulties. We need to have unity in diversity.

To close, many European newspapers stress that productive forces need to hurry up because we don’t have any time. But we also have no time because we live in a society in which everything happens at the speed of light.

Nnimmo Bassey of the International Oil Watch Movement. Good evening. I’ve been yelling “leave the oil in the soil, etc.” all day, and when I got out of the cab, the driver told me to “leave the change in the cab.” We have leaders here in Durban who are nothing more than carbon speculators. So we have all these false solutions receiving the attention of global leaders (or non-leaders). So this critical issue of wealth creation without production, and continuing dispossession of workers, is fundamental for us. It means we need to challenge power frontally. As Bob Marley said, a hungry man is an angry man. Most of the people who go to bed hungry are farmers. Most of these farmers are women. They are forced to sell whatever they produce to pay for other things. So the farmers are organizing to challenge the fat cats who are gaining from farming.

What are we going to do? The Climate Justice Movement must expand its scope. We need to bring all sectors of labor into the movement, because labor will be able to challenge industry. Labor is now really ready to push for a transition away from dirty energy. This is an opportunity we have to make a shift to a new planet.

Raffael Quispe, a Bolivian indigenous leader with CONAMAQ was next, talked about President Evo Morales’s plan to construct a highway through the Amazonian rainforest. There’s a global economic and ecological crisis, a structural crisis of the capitalist model. Today it’s the emerging economies that are the new pro-capitalists, where the new extractive economy is taking hold. Before it was the big oil companies that were extracting oil from our territories, but now it’s quasi-governmental companies that are doing this. The way forward is to create a new global alliance between social movements and social groups. I’ve been to all the COPs – they’re just a distraction. The only thing being talked about there is commodification and how the elites can make money off environmental destruction.  The same thing will happen here. There will be no binding agreements for emissions reductions. So civil society and the social movements need to join together and fight to change the system.

Vilma Mazza of Ya Basta! We’re living through a time of systemic crisis of capitalism. It’s a different phase, as the near total collapse of the Euro suggests. The dictatorship of finance capital is stronger than ever. People wake up to listen to the radio not to get news about the weather but about the market, which is more unstable than the weather. This suggests that we mustn’t just adjust the system but rather transform it. All the mediations that capital put into place before – welfare etc – has been dismantled. All that’s left is the violence of capital. So we need to build a sweeping alternative. We can’t keep carrying on in the same way.

The session ended with a series of Questions and Answers that explored the limits to contemporary trannsformative movements.

Leah Temper mentioned that she has a movie dealing with degrowth.  Here it is:

[vimeo http://vimeo.com/10871269]

I just attended a moving speak-out at which African men and women, farmers, musicians, and youths, told Mary Robinson about the urgency with which they view climate change.

The overarching slogan was, “One Africa, One Voice, One Position.”

All these people spoke with great urgency about how climate change is already impacting them in direct ways, and how they are not responsible for this situation.  All they want, speaker after speaker affirmed, is justice.

The sense of a huge gulf between the elites and ordinary people in Africa couldn’t have been stronger.

Robinson responded by saying that she’s doing her best to persuade big polluting nations to sign up for successor agreement to Kyoto, but she also talked about the need to give the poor people of the world access to renewable technologies so that they too can participate in development.

Robinson was gracious, and her stress on development as a human right was powerful in comparison with the horrorshow going on in COP17. One might debate the adequacy of human rights as a framework, but, given the gravity of the situation, it makes little sense to split hairs.

The huge fly in the ointment, though, is that Robinson continues to argue that development and climate justice can be brought to Africa (and other parts of the world) through markets – and capitalism.  So much of her talk of human rights is just pie in the sky.

COP17 – the 17th annual Conference of Parties, aka the Conference of Polluters – began on Monday in Durban, South Africa.  The Kyoto Protocol, to which most attendee nations (but not the U.S.) are signatories, is widely acknowledged to be in its death throes.

As in previous U.N. climate conferences, civil society organizations are mounting a counter-summit, a step that is particularly important given the significant reduction in the number of NGOs allowed to register for the conference.  But will global civil society be able to exert any influence on the powerful nations of the world? How much traction can a radical anti-capitalist critique of over-development gain under current conditions of global economic crisis? Will rising inter-imperial competition between nations such as the U.S., China, and Brazil spell the end of the Kyoto Protocol and a complete abandonment of all attempts to regulate the world’s increasingly chaotic environment?

Sitting waiting to sort out housing after arriving on a red-eye flight to Durban, I met Dr. Landry Mayigane, a young veterinarian from Rwanda who is one of the organizers of the youth delegation to COP17.  He said that the young people from around the globe whom he helps to organize are feeling very pessimistic about the current meeting.

According to Landry, there is little hope that any substantial forward progress is going to come out of a meeting held under the current global economic downturn.  The point here is pretty obvious: global elites are taking the current economic crisis a pretext to impose austerity rather than – as they should – an opportunity to facilitate a just transition to a truly sustainable society.  One way that such a transition might be effected is through a Million Climate Jobs initiative – a campaign being spearheaded, at least in organizational site, by a guy I ran into last night: Jonathan Neale.

He also talked about how disillusioned many civil society organizations became after the Copenhagen climate summit.  The huge mobilization resistance groups engaged in there failed to produce any meaningful movement, and, it could be argued, the situation has deteriorated significantly in terms of international negotiations since then.  For example, Landry noted that just two days ago, the Canadian government announced that it is going to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol.

The evening ended with me sitting bleary-eyed through a meeting of the Climate Justice Network as they debated whether to back a press conference to be organized by five prominent groups (e.g. Friends of the Earth – Africa). There was quite a lot of debate about whether to move forward with this initiative given the fact that many in the People’s Space cannot get into the conference; significant numbers of people expressed concern about the impact on the People’s Space of holding meetings “inside.”  Where, some wondered, would “outside” be if “inside” was so sanctioned?  This debate I think underlines how marginal social movements (and the 99% in general) are to the entire UN process as presently constituted.

Today there was a totally unnerving interview on Democracy Now today with former evangelical Christian heavyweight Frank Schaeffer. Schaeffer is the son of Francis Schaeffer, one of the nation’s foremost evangelical leaders in the 1970s and 1980s and a key proponent of Dominionism: a movement which aims to return the U.S. to governance according to the Bible.

This is, Schaeffer argues literally the equivalent of revolutionary Iran’s attempt to establish Shar’iah law, or rule according to the Koran. As Schaeffer points out, what the Dominionists are engaged in is an attempt to return the country to a neolithic system of laws that advocate complete subservience of women to their husbands, the stoning to adulterers, and the killing of homosexuals.

Pretty insane, right? But, as the segment on Democracy Now details, one of the top Republican candidates for president, Michele Bachmann, is actually a firm believer in Dominionism,  In fact, in a recent profile in The New Yorker magazine, Bachmann states that she entered politics after watching Francis Schaeffer’s film, “How Should We Then Live?”, which was directed by his son Frank.

It’s really shocking that such extreme and flagrantly bigoted views could now be so close to the mainstream of U.S. politics. Most Americans of course have little idea that the ideological zealotry of the Tea Party is directly linked to Dominionist positions that go back to before the Cold War, to the Great Depression, when the economic crash was seen as divine punishment for a sinfully secular nation and when the New Deal and, indeed, all forms of federal government, including progressive taxation, were seen as creeping Communist attempts to destroy Christianity.

Centrist leaders of today like President Obama just don’t get it: they’re dealing with people who believe that the federal government must be abolished in order to preserve the Christian way of life. This is why groups like the Tea Party can continue to act like an oppressed minority while simultaneously holding the entire nation to ransom over otherwise trivial agreements such as raising the debt ceiling.

Given the transformation of the U.S. over the last forty years by an increasingly powerful Christian evangelical insurgency bent on obliterating two hundred years of struggles for gender, racial, and class equality, maybe it’s time to consider a practical step. Maybe we should start taxing religious organizations.

Right now the U.S. is the only democracy in the Western world which allows religious institutions to be completely tax free. In addition, individuals can make whatever donations they want to such institutions and have these donations be tax deductible. This of course is a huge drain on the federal coffers at a time when everyone seems worried about our national debt. But, even more importantly, it’s a massive clandestine subsidy for increasingly extreme religious forces in the U.S.

Aside from these contemporary economic considerations, this state of affairs is also a direct contravention of the Constitution. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Establishing religious organizations as tax-free institutions is a direct contravention of this directive since it facilitates the establishment of religion in the most direct manner possible.

Unlike other non-profit institutions, religious institutions in the U.S are not subject to I.R.S. audit and public scrutiny. Since the “faith-based initiatives” of the George W. Bush administration, more and more public money is siphoned through religious organizations that are not answerable to the public in general, but rather intent on making converts to their own narrow view of the world.

The U.S. is degenerating more and more into a theocracy. Isn’t it about time that we stopped this appalling slide?