Michael Albert, International Anti-Authoritarian Festival, University of Fine Arts, Athens, 20090528

Report by Despina Papageorgiou

On social movements and the flaws of the Left

Why the great majority that suffers under capitalism does not mobilise for change? Why the Left, which preaches against the system, cannot become o pole for social change and it cannot massively mobilise people? Are the citizens ignorant of harsh reality? If not, what else could be happening?

According to Michael Albert, people are no idiots. They know that the system stinks. They just have been persuaded that this is deterministic, that there is no alternative; that, finally, this is the best they could have, at least at this life. And this belief is the cornerstone of capitalism. People are suspicious, they even sometimes feel pity -like talking to Don Kihotis- towards somebody who would invite them to join him and change the world – as if he was suggesting  a fight for stopping ageing.

And what does the Left do about this? It writes books -which they would construct a pile reaching moon- analysing in an endless repetition, how rotten the system is. But that people know, Albert says. What they don’t know is the alternative. The vision they are called to fight for. And this vision, as well as the strategy needed for its realisation, the Left haw the responsibility to provide. But it doesn’t do so. Who, then, is going to distort hiw/her "comfortable" life for a vision so blared that it maybe is non-existent?

People go along by avoiding incite to injustice. Why risk their "hapiness" to tilt at windmills?

Albert, in his (self)critisism, included what he called arrogance of the Left. The Left has organised in in-groups, in which their members like to discuss their ideas – something narcissistic and elitist. They are arrogant toward things that working people do, from watching the sports to eating in Mc Donalds – which only differ from other business in that they provide cheap food, which mainly working class consumes. Leftists say that religious people are idiots. And then we are wondering why we cannot communicate with them.

The Left writes in a language for intellectuals. If it believed that its ideas should be shared by everybody, they would come out in a communicative language.

If the Left believed that it can change the world, it wouldn’t circulate left ideas in an in-circle. Leftists would go to places that working people go -stadiums, football bars etc- and they would discuss with them, trying to communicate the vision. But the Left does not have a concrete vision and a strategy to realise it. So it avoids presenting its arguments where it believes they would be rejected. A taxi driver defends his favorite sport in a better way than we defend out movements, says Albert.

The bad news is that the Left doesn’t do what it can. The good news is that the Left doesn’t do everything it can. Because, if it does, Albert says, it could achieve what most people think unrealisable: mobilise people and revert the system.

December ’08 (Greece)- May ’68 (France): Parallel stories

What about the Greek December uprising? What was it? A beautiful firework which faded out as suddenly as it lightened the sky? Why did Greeks lived this uprising? And then returned, like been lobotomised, to their conservative reality, which from that point on became even more conservative?

The Greek December uprising awakened memories of May 1968 in France, says Albert. In both cases, the uprising sparked "suddenly" and faded out "suddenly". In both cases, the uprising was sparked by an accidental incident. And the outbreak was so enthusiastic that its wave embraced many. The great momentum turned the outbreak into a massive movement. Hope was born. Revolution was in the air. And people believed that something could really change.

Days and weeks were gone by. The movement walked the road of the revolution. It had strength and dynamism. But it had two vital flaws: lack of organisation and lack of a plan – organisation and plan should have matured the two preceding decades. And the wanna be revolutionaries started wondering: "What if we win? What will we do then?" Chaos and fear. When you go to the airport and you don’t really know where you want to go, you may land someplace you don’t like.

Lack of organisation brought violence. Because of violence, the movement started losing supporters. If the movement was organised, there would be no violence. We would also have more activity which would persuade people that this movement can really change society. Hope would generate activity, activity would sustain hope, which would breed then more activity. But something like that didn’t happen.

This is, according to Albert the hidden story behind the Greek December uprising.

On violence

Albert believes that there are very few cases in which violence cannot be avoided. Violence is used not only when people are too lazy too organise -as Howard Zinn said- but also when people are afraid to organise. You don’t use violence to revert the system, because the system prays that it would be "obliged" to use violence, where it has a great advantage. The police and the army can easily crash a demonstration or a movement by using violence. You have to find smarter ways to fight.

Cops are not the enemy. They are just working people. Would you like to do something really radical? Albert asks. And he answers: Go join the police and change it.