OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS - Ibase · OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS BASES FOR BUILDING A POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA Published by the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses

OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONSBases for building a Post-neoliberal agenda

REALIZATION

PARTNERSHIPS

Planeta Porto Alegre

OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONSBases for building a Post-neoliberal agenda

PUBLISHED BY IBASE

Rio de Janeiro, January 2006

POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA 2003–2005

OVERCOMING CAPITALISM IS POSSIBLE. THAT IS WHY WE ARE PREPARED TO

RE-INVENT IT

REALIZATION

The Brazilian Institute of Social and EconomicAnalyses (Ibase)

INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION

Cândido Grzybowski (Ibase)Gert Peuckert (Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation)

EXECUTIVE COORDINATION

Antonio MartinsMoema Miranda

FACILITATORS

Guacira de OliveiraIvo LesbaupinNelson Delgado

RESEARCH TEAM

Maurício SantoroPatrícia Rangel (intern)

PARTNERSHIPS

Action Aid BrasilArticulación Feminista MarcosurAttac BrasilPlaneta Porto AlegreRosa Luxemburgo Foundation

OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONSBASES FOR BUILDING A POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA

Published by the Brazilian Institute of Social andEconomic Analyses (Ibase)

GENERAL COORDINATION

Cândido Grzybowski

EXECUTIVE COORDINATION

Iracema DantasMoema Miranda

FINAL TEXT

Antonio MartinsGuacira de OliveiraIvo LesbaupinNelson Delgado

PARTNERSHIPS

Action Aid BrasilArticulación Feminista MarcosurAttac BrasilPlaneta Porto AlegreRosa Luxemburgo Foundation

EDITING

AnaCris Bittencourt

PHOTOGRAPHY

Samuel Tosta/Arquivo Ibase-WSF 2003

RESEARCH

Maurício SantoroPatrícia Rangel (intern)

PRODUCTION

Geni Macedo

GRAPHIC DESIGN AND DIAGRAMMING

Guto Miranda/Dotzdesign

CD-ROM

Paulo Costa

OFFICE STAFF

Ana Cristina XavierMaria Inês GouvêaRozi Billo

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

James Mulholland

FINAL REVIEW

Maurício Santoro

PHOTOLITH/PRINTING

Grafitto Gráfica Editora

EDITION

500 printed copies, 500 CD-ROM copies

THE POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA PROJECT 2003-2005

REQUESTS FOR COPIES

IbaseAv. Rio Branco, 124, 8º andar – Centro20040-916 Rio de Janeiro/RJBrazilTel: + 55-21 2509-0660 Fax: + 55-21 3852-3517<[email protected]> < www.ibase.br>

Opening – map of our dreams and doubts

Presuppositions – two logics in dispute

Transition – in quest of a new paradigm

Strategies – from “conquering” the Stateto autonomy

Bibliographical References

Appendix: list of seminar speakers

SUMMARY

4

12

18

28

33

33

MAP OF OUR DREAMSAND DOUBTS OPENING

What long-term significance should be ascribed to the new ways of do-ing politics that were articulated at the World Social Forum? Did theycontain, even in embryo form, a new project for overcoming capitalism?Or are these large international meetings merely big festivals for criticiz-ing neoliberalism and – in this case – pleasantly and usefully gatheringpeople together who resist so as to keep the torch of utopia aflame butare incapable of generating something really new?

Furthermore, at the moment when Latin America witnesses the re-ap-pearance of governments that at least partially face the neoliberal logic(and even outline alternatives to it), one wonders whether the role of theWorld Social Forum is drawing to an end? Could it be that its historicalgreatness is summed up in its having once more taken up the idea of"another possible world" at a time when doctrinaire thinking was stron-ger? Should we, now that this stage is over, re-concentrate our socialforces on "conquering" the power of the State?

6 THE BRAZILIAN INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES (IBASE)

THE THEORETICAL DEFICIT WE ARE PREPARED

TO FACE

For years, questions like these have in different

ways engaged the minds of the people who at-

tend the WSF. Although from the very begin-

ning efforts have been made to formulate theo-

ries on the new practices articulated in the meet-

ings in Porto Alegre, it seems clear that a great

theoretical deficit persists. The world of the So-

cial Forum still fails to reflect systematically on

itself – which limits the possibility of generaliz-

ing successful experiences, detecting and rem-

edying deficiencies, generating synergies and even

affirming new identities.

In 2003, Ibase and the Rosa Luxemburgo

Foundation drew up the post-neoliberal Agenda

– a small contribution to overcome this deficit.

The initiative took the form of a series of semi-

nars. During the various editions of the Social

Forum, or at other meetings of civil society, activ-

ists and intellectuals connected to the so-called

"new movements" were invited to reflect and de-

bate on these matters.

One seminar was held in 2003 and five in 2004.

Dozens of speakers attended these meetings, and

part of their interventions is registered in about

30 texts compiled in the CD that accompanies

this booklet.

THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUMRE-OPENED THE POSSIBILITYOF A NEW WORLD.THE AGENDA DARED TOIMAGINE IT

OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS – BASES FOR BUILDING A POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA 7Post-Neoliberal Agenda

In 2005 the project took a new form. Instead of presenting their opin-

ions to an audience, the participants were invited to gather on two occa-

sions in the municipality of Rio Bonito (at the foot of the Serra do Mar

range in the State of Rio de Janeiro), for in-depth encounters to discuss the

World Social Forum.

EXAMINING THE QUESTIONS THAT INTRIGUE THE WSF

Activists and intellectuals who accepted the proposal made by Ibase and the

Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation were willing to debate for three days some of

the most intriguing questions that arose at the Forum: how to promote in

the era of globalization a redistribution of the wealth produced socially (and

on planetary scale) but increasingly more concentrated? How to deal with

the depletion of politics and re-invent democracy, transforming institutions

and at the same time acting outside them? What ways are available to over-

come the notion of "development" that is so marked by the idea that human

beings are alien to nature and need to "conquer it"? Is it possible to create

standards of consumption and production for the purpose of ensuring a

materially and spiritually dignified life in harmony with nature – rather than

the endless competition of companies in quest of maximum possible prof-

its? How to articulate social change together with individual transformation

so as to open the way to more solidary and less possessive forms of relations

between men and women?

The dynamic of the work was based on stimulating each of the partici-

pants to present original theses which were submitted to the critical pe-

rusal of the others. In this case too, some of the presentations have their

written versions compiled in the CD. Throughout the debates, some points

of view were naturally widely shared. These were registered by the facilita-

tors Guacira de Oliveira, Ivo Lesbaupin and Nelson Delgado and make up

the main text of this book.

WHEN WHAT IS STILL TO BE BUILT HOLDS PROMISES

It is not a matter of indicating eventual strategies capable of "unifying"

the efforts of social change debated in the WSF process. On the contrary:

the most promising and revolutionary aspect of the political culture ex-

pressed in Porto Alegre is the fact that a path is opened towards a new

project of social emancipation – in other words, overcoming capitalist

relations. One of the marks of this proposal is the fact that the bases on

which the formulation of "common strategies" used to be supported are

being questioned.


The supposed existence of "principal subjects" in the struggle for social

change is one of these bases. This was asserted as an answer to some of the

key characteristics of capitalism between the 18th century and the first half of

the 20th: production concentrated in increasingly bigger units, use of coer-

cion as the principal method for domesticating the working class, formation

of an enormous salaried army –workers in particular. Now we know that

such a scenario corresponds to a specific phase of the history of capitalism

rather than to the nature of the system.

Even so, despite the intense internal disputes, for a long time there was

a hegemonic tendency in the resistance movements to institute a permanent

hierarchy among the subjects prepared to bring about the change. Due to its

“objective” condition, the working class was a natural vanguard. Besides

under-estimating other subjects, deep down the formula disdained the trans-

forming will of the supposed “vanguard”. Its rebelliousness was not seen as

a choice, but mostly as a reflection of the conditions to which it was submit-

ted. It is as if it were the actor of a script already traced out, with no room for

creativity, merely playing a role drawn by history.

In addition to a special subject, the tradition that prevailed in the 20th

century prioritized – both in the "revolutionary" and the "reformist" fronts

– "conquering" the power of the State. This was the entrance door to

social changes. Though important, the social struggles of daily life were

mainly valorized for allowing "gathering strength" for the moment when a

new social bloc would take over (by means of revolution or elections) the

control of the state levers deemed capable of reproducing the old system,

or of destroying it.

IN THE PAST, A SIMPLIFYING VIEW OF CAPITALISM

The insufficiency of this theoretical design, which was based on overly sim-

plistic oppositions to capitalism (working class versus bourgeoisie, power to

the parties of the majority versus plutocracy) became evident after two cen-

turies. The rationalist/scientistic paradigm of "progress", which saw in na-

ture a hostile force to be tamed, destroyed and/or reduced to the status of

resource and merchandise, was never broken. This resulted and still results

in appalling environmental tragedies.

If some cases (especially those of the Soviet tradition) tended towards greater

equality in access to wealth, there was neither a breaking down of verticalism in

social relations, nor a forging of creative and democratic forms of production

and reproduction of social life. The social control exercised in capitalist countries

through concentration of the means of production in the hands of a small


minority was replaced by another. Now it was exercised by the State, this other

mechanism that alienates (separates) doing from having the power.

The movements that confronted social domination and were targeted

at other power relations besides salaried work, were considered subordinate

(the classic example is feminism). Resolving the questions that they pro-

posed was seen as something that would happen almost automatically fol-

lowing the supposed "essential transformation". Mention was made of "the

new man” (rather than human being), but no attempt was made to create

conditions for individuals to appear who were autonomous, creative, ca-

pable of asserting their individuality and at the same time realizing that this

is only possible as an original contribution in a web of social relations that

reaches far beyond each individual.

WITH THE NEW MOVEMENTS, OTHER VALUES AND PRACTICES

It would be futile to enumerate all the deficiencies. It is far more important

to look at the positive transforming fact: the nascent political culture is in

tune with these questions. There is a multiplicity of new social subjects at

hand – who are practiced in being attentive to such themes. Unlike some

years ago, these discussions are no longer restricted to academic circles and

schools of alternative thinking.

Some time ago, criticizing productivism and scientism joined the envi-

ronmental movements – as well as others. A growing number of move-

ments and persons reject some of the most revered symbols of this para-

digm. In daily life this is expressed by means of opposition to the automo-

bile and disposable goods. But there is increasingly more questioning of the

belief that science is necessarily liberating. This can be seen in the move-

ments that defend ethical standards in scientific research and repel the

mercantilization of knowledge (seeking alternatives to patents) and denounce

abuses against animals in scientific procedures.

The enormous diversity of sectors within the WSF, and the establishing

of non-hierarchical relations among them, show that the idea of main sub-

jects is strongly questioned. To put it better, the Forum has proved capable

of perceiving in both the diversity and identification of those who attend it

common values of an apparently anti-systemic nature.

IN EMERGING THEMES, EMBRYOS OF ANOTHER SYSTEM

Among these ideas is the idea that society needs to be organized according to

a logic in which human dignity and social rights prevail over the profit drive;

that the notion of the common good precludes that of private property; that


the mercantilization of life is something to be stopped and reverted; and that

solidarity is a precious value. Could these not be powerful seeds in the

struggle for a new world, at a moment when a key objective of capitalism is

to turn as many social relations as possible into merchandise?

Also increasingly more present in the self-organized WSF program is the

idea of re-inventing democracy. Institutional and non-institutional mecha-

nisms are valorized, such as Participative Budgets and the permanent creation

of counter-powers to control, restrict and inspect the instituted power. Could

there be a more stimulating sign, precisely when multilateral institutions make

up a form of occult world government in which financial capital tries to domi-

nate the citizens and even the “democratic” forms of power?

The culture of peace is defended exactly when the Empire attempts to

organize international relations based on the law of the strongest and uses

"the fight against terrorism" as a pretext to curb liberties, establish espionage

and poison social relations by inciting ethnic groups against one another.

These new practices, this possible embryo of a new emancipatory con-

ception, is not unaware of the need to coordinate efforts on certain themes –

which entails making choices – at certain moments. At the II World Social

Forum, the largest informal social manifestation of late took place on 15

February 2003 against the invasion of Iraq. In both Porto Alegre and Mumbai,

vigorous international campaigns were mobilized against financial debt, the

WTO and the “free” trade treaties, and in favor of a world that "is not for

sale", among many others.

But this new political culture does not seem willing to relinquish

horizontalism: the valorization of all subjects, the rejection of occasional

"majorities" that cause embarrassment, the certainty that all adhesions to

any campaign, any strategy or tactic are voluntary and need to be constantly

negotiated.


REPRESENTATION IS IN A STATE OF CRISIS. CHANGING THE WORLD IS A DAILY TASK

Above all else, nobody seems willing to delegate their desire and disposi-

tion to change the world. Politics is something that is done every day by

means of choices and autonomous acts. The shift cannot be transferred

to some external political agent, no matter how well intentioned they

may be. For this reason the movements that seek to articulate utopia

with concrete and pragmatic action are increasing in number. If we are in

favor of new terms of exchange in international trade, why not start

right now, picking the products of solidarity economy and commitment

to environmental preservation? If we condemn the fossilization of rela-

tions of affection, why not practice new forms of family? If we want to

get over the phase of salaried work, why not begin by occupying aban-

doned factories and setting up new relations of production at home and

with the rest of the world?

This does not mean that social change should be limited to small ges-

tures, that its ambit cannot go beyond the local, and that attempts at coor-

dinating our actions are non-productive. The opportunity will come for

them, whenever a need felt by everyone does not entail reconstituting, within

the World Social Forum, the old relations of power and alienation.

The theoretical construction will be all the more important in this double

effort to preserve the conquests already made and move forward to make

the discourse of the new all the more effective. As part of this movement, the

Post-Neoliberal Agenda is happy to present the product of its work to the

World Social Forum.

TWO LOGICSIN DISPUTE PRESUPPOSITIONS

Building an agenda to overcome capitalism calls for reinforcing the idea ofsocial rights and the guarantee of a dignified life for each and every humanbeing. This will only be achieved if there is a broad redistribution of wealthand power. We are convinced that society can organize itself based on theperspective that human rights come before the logic of market and State.The debates promoted by the post-neoliberal agenda affirmed the key im-portance of the struggle against the mercantilization of life. In this waythey affirmed the possibility of a counterpoint to the economicist-productivist-technologist-scienticist model of development.

Economic-financial globalization, increasingly more marked by the risk ofsocial and environmental catastrophes, shows that the mode of capitalistproduction – especially in the period of the regime of predominantly finan-cial accumulation – is incompatible with the demands for liberty and dig-nity, peace and human rights made by the most varied social movements.

In the quest for alternatives to neoliberalism, we claim the values of equal-ity, liberty, social justice, citizens´ participation and diversity. We defendsocial relations of reciprocity and solidarity, as well as political, economic,cultural and personal autonomy, including that referring to affective andsexual relations.


COMBINING EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY TO BUILD THE NEW PROJECT

We likewise affirm the need to combine diversity and equality in building a

new paradigm of social change. As Boaventura de Sousa Santos1 puts it, "we

have the right to claim equality whenever difference renders us inferior; and

we have the right to claim difference whenever equality de-characterizes us".

Every democratic policy should promote respect for diversity by means of a

wide-ranging system of individual liberties based on the principle of collec-

tive co-responsibility.

We live in a world in which democracy is being increasingly depleted: over

the last 20 years, on account of the conservative restoration associated with

financial globalization and the predominance of neoliberal ideology, most gov-

ernments across the world have systemically followed the same agenda, regard-

less of the will and electoral option of their people. Social-democratic parties

have been as responsible as liberal parties for implementing the same prescrip-

tion of neoliberal policies. Governments elected by expressive majorities regu-

larly put into practice economic policies that run contrary to their programs.

In this period there has been a strong concentration of political authority

on the international level. As a result, there has been a reduction in the spaces

of democracy won during the previous decades (Aníbal Quijano). There is an

invisible (but very real) government formed by the bloc of the hegemonic

nation-States (G-7), the multilateral financial institutions (IMF, World Bank,

IBD), the WTO and the large multinational corporations that practically im-

pose their decisions on all the other nations. These powers enjoy arbitrary

autonomy. They are accountable to neither nation nor global citizenry. Such

a process produces de-nationalization, less and less autonomy for the periph-

eral States, privatization of these States, and depletion of their democratic roles

– all this for the sake of a veritable recolonization of the world.

1Most of the quotations in this publication refer to talks presented during the cycles ofseminars organized in the scope of the Post-Neoliberal Agenda project: alternatives fordemocratic human and sustainable development between 2003 and 2005. The complete namesof the the speakers and seminars appear in the Appendix and in the CD-ROM. Other quotationsnot included in the Appendix can be found in the Bibliographical References.

IN AFFIRMING RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLEIN AFFIRMING RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLEIN AFFIRMING RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLEIN AFFIRMING RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLEIN AFFIRMING RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLEAND IN RE-INVENTING DEMOCRACYAND IN RE-INVENTING DEMOCRACYAND IN RE-INVENTING DEMOCRACYAND IN RE-INVENTING DEMOCRACYAND IN RE-INVENTING DEMOCRACY,,,,,THE BASES FOR A NEW PROJECTTHE BASES FOR A NEW PROJECTTHE BASES FOR A NEW PROJECTTHE BASES FOR A NEW PROJECTTHE BASES FOR A NEW PROJECTOF SOCIAL EMANCIPOF SOCIAL EMANCIPOF SOCIAL EMANCIPOF SOCIAL EMANCIPOF SOCIAL EMANCIPAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION


IN RE-INVENTING POLITICS, RECLAIMING SOCIAL SOVEREIGNTY

In order to confront this situation, we need to re-invent politics, radicalize

democracy, and reaffirm the fundamental principle that men and women

are capable of constructing history, society and the economy.

Re-inventing politics means demanding an interruption of "the natural

order of domination" through the "institution of the shareless" (Jacques

Rancière). This means instituting social recognition of people who are poor

and deprived of their rights, as subjects of social transformation. It is a

matter of re-inventing politics by submitting it to the principles of a new

democracy. This implies at least three simultaneous movements. First,

reconstructing and enlarging public spaces for political participation where

public, citizenship-minded sovereignty can be affirmed. Secondly, re-politi-

cizing social life, in particular with the radical submission of the economy to

democratic politics. Thirdly, fostering a new subjectivity to stimulate each

social subject to contribute in an autonomous, reciprocal and creative way

towards constantly reproducing and re-inventing social life.

MANY CULTURES. MANY EMANCIPATION PROJECTS. ALL VALID

We give value to intercultural dialogue. We know that the emancipatory

paradigms are varied, with different cosmo-visions and various ways to

organize life and social relations in order to ensure human dignity. For

that very reason, so far the debate on a post-neoliberal agenda has not

followed a pre-conceived model. We place our trust in the process of social

transformation, in the revolutionary potential of the many emancipatory

struggles and in the capacity to forge new meanings based on the confluence

of different views of the world and perspectives for the future. The chal-

lenge is to find the points of articulation between these experiences so as

to build solidarities projects of social diversity in the face of homogenizing

capitalism.

The subject of social change is not unique but rather diverse. Diverse

subjects can be bearers of many identities, and these may be contradictory.

Our identifications are constantly being displaced: we take on different iden-

tities at different moments, so identity changes according to the way the

subject is summoned or represented.

We need to embrace and deal with the theme of subjectivity, which is

directly related to that of identities and also to that of the subjects of the

emancipatory struggle. Building "alternative subjectivities" is the fruit of the

endeavor to articulate personal change with processes of social transforma-

tion and personal intimacy with socially shared experiences of solidarity and


collective co-responsibility. It is necessary to reclaim and valorize enchant-

ment, emotion and desire in opposition to a strictly rationalist and “thingify”-

ing conception of life, both in thinking and science, in planning practice and in

formulating alternatives.

The counter-cultural dimension of this proposal is clear. But the

very re-invention of politics on all levels of social life is linked to building

alternative subjectivities and re-discussing values that seem to introduce

to the dimension of our feelings the excluding logics of societies based on

private property.

VALORIZING INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR EMANCIPATION. NEGATING INDIVIDUALISM

Much can be learned from the feminist movements that avoided

essentialisms and sought to construct alternative subjectivities. They per-

ceive the dimensions of race, class, gender and sexual orientation in an

articulated fashion, as parts of the same system of domination. On doing

so, they reconceptualize the "body", now seen as a political site (Gina

Vargas). Although this effort unfolds into claiming new roles for gen-

ders, it has a far larger and universal liberating dimension. It questions the

androcentric conception of the male provider which implies concealing

women’s contributions – including those translated into caring activities.

Individualism and the notions of liberty associated with it are geared

towards consumption, private property, "free" competition for places of

privilege, and consequently the daily reproduction of the struggle for indi-

vidual integration in liberal society. However, the alternative to this alien-

ating process is not to negate the individual, the historical importance of

his "invention" or role in constructing non-authoritarian and non-ho-

mogenizing societies. We rather believe that affirming the existence of

subjects with rights and responsibilities is one of the bases of the construc-

tion of collective rights.

In this battle, dehumanization and discrimination are arms that an-

nihilate individuals and rob them of the possibility to build themselves

as citizens. In this sense one has to stress the individual aspect of con-

structing citizenship, as a process carried out in each body and each

mind in the daily struggle to overcome the guilt, revulsion, shame, infe-

riority or ignorance attributed to them, and then construct themselves

as subjects with rights.

There is a permanent dilemma between individual and collective inter-

ests, and its solution has always been provisional. But the total distancing

between the intimate and the social, the public and the private, the per-


sonal and the political, favors the neoliberal model based on competition,

image, hierarchization of oppression and inequality and non-committed

individualization.

In fact, it bears noting that the very assurance of all social rights for all

human beings – one of the bases of our proposal – may see its transform-

ing role neutralized if an individualist point of view of social rights comes

to prevail. In this case the logic would be reduced to a repetition of the

notorious "countervailing policies" that reinforce neoliberal hegemony in-

stead of contesting it.

MANY TRANSFORMING SPACES IN GESTATION

And there are many transforming spaces being gestated. These are places

for experimenting new modes of organization and human co-existence, new

forms of the family, innumerable cooperatives for auto-management in

solidarity economy, among many other experiences. Indeed, there are re-

serves of embryonic alternatives conformed according to the decision-mak-

ing capacity of their participants, who lend impulse to collective co-respon-

sibility and social cohesion and undertake solidarity actions.

In this same sense a contribution is made by the new generation of

collective rights (social, cultural, economic, ecological, of people without a

State, etc) who can complement individual rights by incorporating diversity

to democracy and placing in the center of the debate on re-inventing democ-

racy such themes as relating, sharing, committing oneself to the collective,

translation and negotiation (Carlés Riera).

We admit that another society, another policy, another economy are

necessary in order to put limits on the market and allow conditions for

human capacities to achieve full realization. A task that calls for public

policies and power and time. But emergencies do not wait and must be

confronted while bearing in mind the strategic objectives.

In this sense, the commitment to creating, opening or strengthening

spaces of confluence is reaffirmed. That is where alternatives capable of

coping with the initiatives and mobilization of social movements and civil-

society organizations can collectively and systematically be reproduced. In-

deed, one already witnesses this striving for convergence in different spaces

and at different moments. One of its most outstanding expressions is the

World Social Forum.

IN SEARCH OFA NEW PARADIGM TRANSITION

In the debates on building a post-neoliberal agenda, it is fundamental todiscuss the question of who the builders are. The supposed existence ofpolitical subjects who are special protagonists in the struggle for socialchange, and the notion that there exists a hierarchization between thestruggles, are conceptions that still persist in our political field and jeopar-dize dialogue and the overcoming of inequality.

The reciprocal recognition of the presence and pertinence of the proposalsborne by the various political subjects is fundamental for creating political,theoretical and methodological conditions for this collective construction.In the past, delegating the task of social change to a single subject – and de-legitimizing other political agendas that also proposed novelties – led to arepetition of the logic of exclusion and to reproduction of inequality andprivileges. It also caused weakening of the collective propositive capacity.

On the other hand, accepting and promoting the diversity of the politicalactors interested in social change strengthens a democratic constructionfed by multiple visions and capable of formulating alternatives and mobi-lizing different subjects from the local to the planetary sphere.


CREATING SPACES FOR DEBATE, CONFRONTATION OF

IDEAS, COMMUNAL CONSTRUCTION

This obviously does not mean fantasizing that the

political field committed to building alternatives for

social change is immune to conflicts and even an-

tagonism. It means rather the acknowledgement of

the importance of creating spaces that permit the

confrontation of ideas, projects, proposals for alli-

ances, urgencies and priorities, all seeking to over-

come our current theoretical and political inad-

equacy. This deficiency has prevented the various

subjects from understanding and including the per-

spective of equality, both in relations of material and

symbolic production and in interpersonal and in-

tergroup relations.

As emphasized by Jurema Werneck, “it is neces-

sary to discover other discourses and matrices that

will only be new if new transmitters present them-

selves in the new contexts and new scenarios”. The

same challenge includes approaching themes such

as sexuality, reproduction and relations between the

sexes (which were usually considered outside

the central conflict of capitalist exploitation)

and the endeavor to articulate them with national

questions of the productive sphere (Maria Betânia

Ávila).

THE PROGRAMS, METHODSAND EVEN THE SUBJECTS OFTHE OLD PROPOSAL OFSOCIAL CHANGE HAVE FAILED.AND NEVERTHELESS, UTOPIAIS ALIVE


The political conception of these spaces is democratic-radical in the

terms in which Chantal Mouffe defines it. What is desired is “the building of

a ́ we´ in a chain of equivalence between demands in order to articulate them

by means of the principle of democratic equivalence. Because it is not a

matter of establishing a mere alliance of given interests but of actually changing

the very identity of these forces”.

WHEN THE OLD ANSWERS NO LONGER SERVE

Democracy and diversity are the most important of the fundamental ethical

principles of a post-neoliberal agenda. The radicalization of democracy,

articulated with the affirmation of diversity, are fundamental values, not

mere tactical elements. It is true that we need to reflect on the struggles, and

much can be learned from the past. Yet it must be admitted that the old

answers no longer satisfy us because the previous paradigms do not help us

to understand the new reality and face the new challenges.

If we return to the old solutions, we are bound to resort to the same

historical methods adopted before. Focusing the struggle exclusively on

collective property of the means of production inevitably leads to recom-

posing the idea of the single subject, for if we privilege a single cause, we need

a principal subject. The existence of a pre-defined model triggers a process

of struggles with the sole objective of reaching it, thereby wasting significant

emancipatory possibilities (Maria Betânia Ávila).

Marxist analysis, for example, despite its importance, needs other analyses

to complexify even the question of surplus value. The fact that this analysis

ignores the mechanisms by which the system of patriarchal domination

operates makes it impossible to understand a key element of capitalism,

namely exploitation of reproductive (domestic and non-remunerated) la-

bor. This domination is not eliminated by collective appropriation of the

means of production (Maria Betânia Ávila).

ACKNOWLEDGING AND OVERCOMING THE INEQUALITY THAT EXISTS AMONG US

Especially in the Americas, capitalist exploitation is indissolubly associated with

racism, Eurocentrism, slavery and the patriarchal order. Accordingly, in order

to construct a post-neoliberal agenda, it is primordial to acknowledge the con-

flictive and subordinate co-existence of their different matrices (Amerindian and

African) and not just the Western, Eurocentric/ ethnocentric/ racist elements.

It is therefore a question of constructing a space for affirming diversity

capable of recognizing multiple identities, articulating the analytical field of

politics with that of culture and advancing in the dialogue between different


systems of thinking and different ways of projecting the future. This effort

needs to consider the existence of correlated forces within the political field

proper that fights for social change, so that the inequality that exists among

us can be recognized and confronted.

It is the networking between different political subjects and their

emancipatory projects that will enable us to gain radicality. One or the other

political subject will not provide the answer, but rather the whole set that

shares ethical values and is willing to decipher the connections between the

different analyses so as to render the various political conceptions and their

strategies intelligible. By inciting processes of political negotiation and trans-

lation and by challenging thinking to overcome the simple arithmetic of the

sum of the different political forces, through diversity we will be able to reach

more complex results.

INSTEAD OF CERTAINTIES, THE DECISION TO CONSTRUCT COMMON STRATEGIES

In this context, attrition is inevitable. But this what so often promotes shifts

and allows new alignments, new convergences, new syntheses. The territory

is a complex one, with principles but without a model. A field without

certainty, although there does exist the political decision to construct shared

strategies. Certainly uncertainty.

The political procedure adopted to attain social change is as important

as the objective itself. This means that the current exercise of building the

Post-Neoliberal Agenda matters both for the political action it triggers and

for the horizon that it is eventually capable of opening.


In this sense, the way that political alliances are constituted and the

principles they orient are of utmost importance (Gita Sen). The type of

political amalgam capable of promoting paradigmatic changes is qualita-

tively different from that produced in specific circumstances to support one

or another cause. On this point, it is a matter of having more than questions

in common: the same principles must be shared.

In the debates on building a post-neoliberal agenda, we start out from a

critical view of the concept of development and work with the core idea that

the ways of producing wealth and reproducing life must have as subject and

beneficiary “the human being, bearer of rights, free and dignified, with the

means to organize his own life in cooperation and reciprocity with others”

(Nussbaum).

FROM “PROGRESS” TO THE GUARANTEE OF EQUALITY, CULTURE, NATURE

We start off from the conviction that the debate on development is going

through substantive changes. Developmentist thinking, which held the

Third World and its inhabitants to be homogeneous entities and had

unshakable faith in the notion of progress and its capacity to mold soci-

eties, is no longer sustainable. At present the analyses of reality include

questions related to ethnocentrism, democracy, social rights, environ-

ment – in short, to the complexity, contradictions and uncertainties that

characterize the society in which we live.

Although the depletion of the State’s capacity as protagonist, following

neoliberal conservative restoration, accompanied development being ren-

dered unfeasible in the peripheral countries, the relation between State and

development grew far more complex and challenging than earlier concep-

tions admitted. First of all because in these countries the periods of eco-

nomic growth were often associated with authoritarian States (especially in

the 70s). Secondly because development has to be increasingly understood

as a complex process with multiple dimensions that cannot be reduced to

the economic aspect – at the risk of reproducing old models that stand in

opposition to democracy, social equality and cultural diversity and are ex-

tremely destructive in terms of environment.

Besides this, the idea of associating development and nationalism by

means of the fundamental protagonism of the State also needs to be seen in

relative terms because of the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic trans-na-

tional processes that have taken place since last century, as well as the politi-

cal, cultural, ecological, social and economic complexity of the debate on the

notion of development and people’s right to it, and the notions of regional


integration and solidarity among people. In other words, we place our trust

in the possibility of inverting the sense now dominant in globalization, and

stimulate the multiple social subjects engaged in the transformation to look

from a world point of view both at planetary problems and at the specificity

of their own countries.

OPENING CONDITIONS FOR MULTIPLE FORMS OF DEVELOPMENT

The notion of development based on Western ethnocentrist values is being

rejected at the same time as spaces are being sought for other types of knowl-

edge and experience in order to create conditions for the existence of multiple

forms of development.

Criticism of the economicist, productivist and technologist model of

development is deep and radical: in addition to the absolute hegemony

of the Western/Eurocentric matrix of thinking and the inferiorization of

other forms, a denunciation is made of the continuance of the very bases

of inequality and hierarchy among the nations that development was

aimed at stamping out; the poverty, exclusion and subordination among

countries and social groups, which were supposed to be reduced, have

grown worse; the concentration of wealth, and the updating and articu-

lation of different systems of domination (colonial, patriarchal and ra-

cial, among others) that were planned to be abolished; the accelerated

deterioration of the natural and cultural heritage of the people, which

should be preserved.

In the reaction to this criticism, and in order to restore the hegemonic

notion of development, the concept of sustainable development was con-

structed for the declared purpose of bequeathing to future generations the

same resources we have available at present.

The pretension of containing the ecological disaster, however, is al-

ready seen as insufficient (the current levels of devastation have become

unacceptable) and unfeasible in the dominant model (since the rise in

production and consumption are presuppositions of maximization of the

resulting profits and concentration of wealth). These conditions are es-

sential to the reproduction of the system and at the same time the main

cause of environmental deterioration and degradation of living conditions

across the planet, especially in the South.

BREAKING - IN THE LEFT TOO – WITH PRODUCTIVISM

The socio-environmental question is a key component of the current de-

bate on development. To deal with it, the technicism and “economicism”


that still dominate this debate must be confronted, and at the same time

the voracious appropriation and destruction of nature at the hands of the

transnationals interested solely in expanding their profits must be de-

nounced. It is a matter of re-politicizing the questions of technology and

knowledge as an indispensable counterpoint to the predominant

productivist view associated with the interests of maximizing the profits of

transnational corporations.

The problem is that, in the Left field too, the development of the pro-

ductive forces occupies a key position, albeit not very questioned. This

reduces both the proposals and the view of the so-called “progressist” forces

to the limits of the productivist paradigm. The dictatorship of technique is

still perceived by many as a means of liberation.

But changes can already be seen in this field (Michael Löwy, Ecologia e

Socialismo [Ecology and socialism]). There is a new tradition of anti-capital-

ist struggle that rejects the idea that the human being is alien to nature and

that he must defeat it, that the victory of the strongest is valid, and that

competition is an instrument for social and economic progress. Prominent

in this new tradition is the acknowledgement of the existence of multiple

paths and forms of organizing life, its reproduction and the production of

wealth in order to ensure human dignity. In synthesis, the question of

overcoming capitalism begins to be considered from a far broader perspec-

tive than the development of productive forces.

For Aníbal Quijano, the relations of domination, exploitation and

conflict in capitalism affect four basic areas of social existence: 1) work, its

resources and products; 2) sex, its resources and products; 3) collective (or

public) authority, its resources and products; and 4) subjectivity/

intersubjectivity, its resources and products. Overcoming capitalism thus

requires facing the power of control that the system exerts on this complex

of relations.

RENOUNCING LIVING STANDARDS UNFEASIBLE FOR HUMAN BEINGS

A racial criticism of the concept of “development” must acknowledge on

the one hand the need to renounce living standards of living that are unviable

for the whole of humanity. This is actually a question of privileges for a

few people that result in jeopardy for many. On the other hand, nature is

a common good that should be treated in a responsible way, otherwise we

shall end up with travesties of unfair and authoritarian solutions pro-

posed by the powerful and privileged, such as birth control, genocide and

eliminating people.


Likewise, radicalizing the principle of equality means acknowledging the

existence of different forms of oppression that overlap in the real life of each

person and in different social groups, and that human beings and the groups

they belong to need different resources and different possibilities of convert-

ing these into quality of life and citizenship. Critical situations, with deep

historical roots of deprival and impotence, require more than equity in

distributing resources. What is needed is special attention and real support

before obstacles such as those faced by women in different contexts, by

indigenous peoples across most of the world, and by Afro-descendants in

societies with a history of slavery.

Thinking development from the perspective of human rights means

rejecting “economic priorities defined in themselves, incorporating ethical

parameters to efficiency and productivity as the foundations of another

social economy based on solidarity” (José Luis Coraggio).

PUBLIC SPACES ARE NOT NECESSARILY STATE PLACES

A new notion of development means a broad process of dynamic changes

that affects both the models of production, science and technology, and

social, political and economic institutions. Accordingly, a change of atti-

tudes, values and principles is called for – and this requires radical initiatives

to be adopted by the subjects of the change, people and public and private

organizations.

Facing up to the neoliberal radicalism of unrestricted privatization of

the social world demands in counterpart the fight to build and multiply

public spaces in both the national and international sphere. The first asser-

tion is that the public sphere can no longer simply be identified with the state

sphere, for the State was privatized at the same time that it became a funda-

mental instrument in the process of privatization. That is, the attempt to do

away with the fundamental difference between public and private interest or

to impose the ideology that public interest can only be satisfied by means of

private interests, even when expressed in different ways (including partner-

ship with the State).

Above all else, public spaces have to be understood as places to exercise

and demonstrate the autonomy and sovereignty of citizenship in multiple

spheres. In politics, for example, these may be spaces of social control of the

State and recognition of the legitimate intervention of social movements in

political society. Furthermore, public spaces can play an important role in

facing the crisis and legitimacy of politics in the world system, as well as being

privileged places in the struggle to guarantee and universalize social rights.


A NEED FOR COUNTER-POWERS ALSO IN THE ECONOMY

The economy too is a sphere of counter-power (control and regulation) to

the established power of capital, corporations and international financial

organizations, but also as a space to build social economy, promote public

services, social control and democratization of State economic policies,

affirmation of the indispensability of public goods and preservation of the

environment.

On the world level, these spaces are reserved for formulating an agenda

that expresses the yearning for planetary citizenship and intervention in the

institutions and mechanisms necessary for the fight for democratic gover-

nance of the world system. Such an agenda will have to face the contempo-

rary manifestations of questions concerning two cleavages that founded

and constitute the international capitalist system: center and periphery, and

war and peace.

FROM "CONQUERING" THESTATE TO AUTONOMY STRATEGIES

Given the de-politicization of social life promoted by neoliberal globalization,a post-neoliberal agenda must first of all propose a re-invention of politics.It is necessary to re-establish political debate in the public space in orderto recover the plurality of perspectives and the acknowledgement of newsocial actors, to formulate the notion and practice of representation and toreturn the economy to the decision-making power of the community ofcitizens, because the economy has to do with their work and the wealththat they produce. In short, it is indispensable to rebuild the priority ofpolitics over economics. Re-inventing politics is at the same time radicalizingdemocracy, by placing society under the control of its members, makingpopular sovereignty effective and democraticizing the public sphere anddaily social life.

In the words of Chico de Oliveira, “it is urgent to create new forms of doingpolitics (...) to create a new space of conflict, a new space capable of sayingwhat the representative system is no longer able to say”.

It is necessary to create a popular counter-power by articulating socialmovements, networks of movements, organizations of active citizenship,religious entities, and other entities that represent civil society. These willbe the foundations to promote strategies based on the diversity of pointsof view and emancipatory proposals, whenever the situation calls for aposition to be taken and whenever possible anticipating the facts.


A CITIZENS’ COMMITTEE TO CONTROL THE

CENTRAL BANK

Participation is not simply the exercise of the right

of opinion: it is the exercise of the right to influ-

ence decisions. It is necessary to establish the “so-

cial control of the public sphere (by institutional

and non-institutional means)” (Daniel Aragão).

One example would be the need to organize a

"Citizens’ Committee " to control and inspect

government policies and economic institutions

(for example the Central Bank (Oliveira). This

movement should especially promote access to

the public sphere for sectors that are traditionally

excluded from it (women, indigenous groups,

homosexuals and young people, among others).

It is necessary to strengthen international

public counter-power in order to face neoliberal

hegemony, the “financing fever” of the economy

and the world policy of "war on terror". Numer-

ous movements, often started on a national scale,

have developed internationally in this sense: the

World Social Forum revived hope. This is our

common political space, but it is not the only one,

and we must strengthen our intervention in this

space. It is necessary to reinforce the dynamic

triggered by the WSF, which generated a veritable

galaxy of social forums all over the world. We

have to encourage building participative world

networks to perform this counter-power func-

tion. In the days we live in, it is no longer possible

to consider counter-hegemonic resistance and

social emancipation only in national terms. In

fact, this tendency is already underway and is

strengthened by the growing interaction of move-

ments and networks on the world level.

CHANGING THE WORLDBY PERMANENTLY CREATINGNEW SYSTEMS OFCOUNTER-POWER


Citizens try to interfere – and have in effect interfered – in institutional

policy by organizing pressure groups, campaigns and social movements. In

Latin America several movements have managed to impose the will of the

people. In some countries, social mobilization has managed to overthrow

governments. In some cases, the governments that take over succeed in re-

sisting neoliberal policies and try to find alternatives – in this case arousing

the wrath of the conservative opposition, the market media, international

financial institutions and the government of the United States.

STRENGTHENING THE COUNTERWEIGHTS TO GLOBALIZING POWER

It is also necessary to strengthen mobilizations that contest the dominant

policies of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. It is necessary to strengthen

world institutions that counterbalance this dominant power (the People’s

Court, the Foreign Debt Court, and so on). It is necessary to gradually forge

ways of governing the world democratically, ways that foster dialogue be-

tween civil society and the State instead of putting all the emphasis on the

latter. The perspective of this process should be to affirm human rights and

to acknowledge diversity.

It is fundamental to criticize the logic of terror and war: we must fight

against all forms of militarization and defend the heritage of human rights

and the dignity of human life. At the same time it is necessary to face the logic

and practice of fundamentalisms which in the name of God, the market and

tradition defend one single and immutable form of thinking as the norm for

the whole of society. In all these cases, it is the rights of women that are most

jeopardized.

In some countries, local or municipal governments are being developed

based on broad public participation, even on the decision-making level.

This is the case of the Participative Budget – initiated in Brazil but already

existing in other countries – which represents an advance in the conception

and practice of democracy, seeing that it articulates the already existing rep-

resentative democracy with forms of direct participation by the population

that affirm citizens’ decisions on public affairs and citizens’ rights to trans-

parency and accountability. Another example is the experience of building

public power in Chiapas (Mexico), where the indigenous community is be-

ing enabled to express its citizenship.


BY MEANS OF THE COMMUNITY, “DEMOCRATIC

PRODUCTION HAS ALREADY BEGUN”

Aníbal Quijano draws our attention to these new

practices: "Democratic production is already be-

ginning. (...) All over the world, forms of author-

ity that we could call community are beginning to

appear, produced and controlled by the electors.

This is the path and the goal. In the face of the

tendencies of imperial domination, reciprocity in

the organization of work and community is also

growing as a structure of public authority. (...)

This reciprocity consists precisely in the social-

ized interchange between work and the work-force,

its resources and products. And the community

as structure of authority is without any doubt the

form of socialization or full democratization of

the control of generation and management of

public authority." (Quijano).

Together with these innovative experiences of

participative democracy, there is an endless num-

ber of experiences, practices and initiatives coming

from different social sectors – women, workers,

solidarity economy, gays, lesbians and trans-

sexuals, ecological organizations, blacks – creating

new forms of social change, inclusion, respect for

rights, solidarity and social justice. Nonetheless,

many such experiences are unknown to almost ev-

erybody because of the ignorance dictated by the

leading means of communication (cf. "Sociologia

das ausências e das emergências [The sociology of

absences and emergencies] ", Sousa Santos). It is

absolutely crucial to lend visibility to these initia-

tives. It is essential to overcome the limits that the

dominant media tries to impose on us.

OVERCOMING LIMITS THAT THE “MARKET MEDIA”

TRIES TO IMPOSE ON US

A fundamental element for sustaining the

neoliberal project is its ideology, which has man-

aged to convince even a good part of the public

sectors that liberty means guaranteeing liberty for

capital. This ideology develops the “utopia” of

happiness as a result of individual progress. Even

a significant part of the trade-union movement

eventually succumbs to the limited benefits to be

gained within such a system and acts corporatively

only because of class interests. Within this situa-

tion, citizenship takes on a new meaning as inser-

tion in the market and access to consumption.

At this point we have to stress the importance

of the means of communication: over the last 30

years the media has proved to be a fundamental

instrument in spreading “one-way thinking”. The

power of the media has had a determining weight

in constructing the neoliberal mentality: from in-

dividualist culture to consumerism, from de-le-

gitimizing the social State to exaltation of the mar-

ket as the sole legitimate regulator of society. We

must think of a broader strategy not only of alter-

native communication but also and especially en-

gage in an intense international fight to democra-

tize the means of social communication, especially

the great media, and television channels in particu-

lar. It is necessary to launch a big campaign de-

nouncing the appropriation of the media by oli-

gopolies as an attempt against freedom of the press,

as a form of totalitarianism.


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCESHALL, Stuart. A identidade cultural na pós-modernidade. 8. ed. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2003.

MOUFFE, Chantal (Ed.). Dimensions of radical democracy: pluralism, citizenship, community.

London: Verso, 1992.

QUIJANO, Aníbal. Colonialidad del poder, globalización y democracia.

In: Vários autores. Tendencias basicas de nuestra epoca: globalizacion y democracia. Instituto de

Estudios Diplomáticos e Internacionales Pedro Gual. Caracas, 2001.

RANCIÈRE, Jacques. O desentendimento: política e filosofia. São Paulo: Editora 34, 1996.

SANTOS, Boaventura de Sousa. Por uma concepção multicultural de direitos humanos. Lua

Nova, São Paulo, n. 39, 1997.

1st EDITION - I BRAZILIAN SOCIAL FORUM

Belo Horizonte, 6-9 November 2003

Participants: Cesar Benjamim, Cândido Grzybowski, Guacira de Oliveira, Paul Siger, Lena Lavinas, J.Carlos

Assis, Juarez Guimaraes, Leonardo Avritzer, Mark Ritchie and Mayra Paula Espina.

2nd EDITION – IV WORLD SOCIAL FORUM

Mumbai, India, 6-21 January 2004

Participants: Andreas Trunschke, Cândido Grzybowski, Cezar Alvarez, Carol Burton, Laura Tavares, Suzanna

Georges, Ulla Lötzer, Gita Sen, Dot Keet, Antonio Madariaga, Erhard Crome, Adriano Campolina and Marcio

Pontual.

3rd EDITION – CIVIL SOCIETY FORUM IN UNCTAD

São Paulo, 14-16 June 2004

Participants: Jurema Werneck, Vitor Quintana, Francisco de Oliveira, Daniel Aragão, Pedro Santana, Jocélio

Drummond, José Antonio Moroni, Constanza Moreira, Harriet Friedmann, José Luís Fiori, Renato Maluf and

Graciela Rodrigues.

4th EDITION – SOCIAL FORUM OF THE AMERICAS

Quito, Ecuador, 25-30 July 2004

Participants: Alberto Orgulhoso, Aníbal Quijano, Alejandro Grimson, Aresio Valiente López, Daniel Tietze, Evrim

Baba, José Luis Coraggio, Lilian Celiberti, Roberto Espinosa, Moema Miranda, Boaventura de Sousa Santos and

Norma Sanchis.

APPENDIXPARTICIPANTS IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA 2003-2005

5th EDITION – CHILEAN SOCIAL FORUM

Santiago, Chile, 19-21 November 2004

Participant: José Cademartori, Nelson Delgado and Maurício Santoro.

6th EDITION – NORTHEASTERN SOCIAL FORUM

Recife, 24-27 November 2004

Participants: Rodrigo Simões, Ana Cristina Fernandes, Magnólia Said, José Aldo dos Santos, John Holloway

and Evelina Dagnino.

7TH EDITION – WORLD SOCIAL FORUM

Porto Alegre, January 2005

Participants: Ivo Lesbaupin, Guacira de Oliveira, Nelson Delgado, Tobias Pflüger, Ulla Lotzer and Andreas

Trunschke.

I SEMINAR OF THE POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA

Rio Bonito, 20-22 May 2005

Participants: Ana Esther Ceceña; Ana Garcia; Ana Xavier; Antonio Martins; Maria Betânia Ávila; Cândido

Grzybowski; Carlés Riera; Clair Hickman; Dulce Pandolfi; Evelina Dagnino; Gert Peuckert; Giampiero Rassimeli;

Guacira de Oliveira; Gustavo Marin; Itamar Silva; Ivo Lesbaupin; José Antonio Moroni; José Luis Coraggio; Jorge

Romano; Jurema Werneck; Maurício Santoro; Michael Brie; Moema Miranda; Nelson Delgado; Patrícia Rangel;

Pedro Santana; Ricardo Gebrim; Robert Grosse; Rona dos Santos and Teivo Teivanien.

Coordination: Cândido Grzybowski (Ibase-Brazil), Gert Peuckert (Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation, Germany),

Moema Miranda (Ibase-Brazil), Nelson Delgado (CPDA/UFRRJ-Brazil), Ivo Lesbaupin (Iser-Brazil), Guacira de

Oliveira (Cfêmea-Brazil) and Antonio Martins (Attac-Brazil).

II SEMINAR OF THE POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA

Rio Bonito, 13-16 October 2005

Participants: Ana Garcia; Alejandra Sarda; Antonio Martins; Cândido Grzybowski; Carlés Riera; Dulce Pandolfi;

Fernanda Carvalho; Fernando Cardim; Gert Peuckert; Guacira de Oliveira; Ivo Lesbaupin; José Luis Coraggio;

José Luís del Roio; Maria Inês de Carvalho; Maurício Santoro; Moema Miranda; Nelson Delgado; Patrícia

Rangel; Pedro Santana; Rona dos Santos and Gina Vargas.

Coordination: Cândido Grzybowski (Ibase-Brazil), Gert Peuckert (Rosa Luxemburgo Foundation, Germany),

Moema Miranda (Ibase-Brazil), Nelson Delgado (CPDA/UFRRJ-Brazil), Ivo Lesbaupin (Iser-Brazil), Guacira de

Oliveira (Cfêmea-Brazil) and Antonio Martins (Attac-Brazil)

Documents

OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS - Ibase · OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS BASES FOR BUILDING A POST-NEOLIBERAL AGENDA Published by the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analyses