Articulating the web of transnational social movements
Chris
Chase-Dunn, Anne-Sophie Stäbler
Ian
Breckenridge-Jackson and Joel Herrera
Institute for Research on World-Systems
University of California-Riverside chriscd@ucr.edu
To be presented at the World Congress of Sociology in Yokohama, July
17, 2014. An earlier version was presented at the Global Studies Conference March 1, 2014 Orfalea
Center for Global and International Studies; University of California, Santa
Barbara. This is IROWS Working Paper #84 available at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows84/irows84.htm
draft v. 7-25-14; 12060 words
Abstract: How can
the New Global Left coalesce to once again address emergent global crises? Our
research on transnational social movements and global civil society
investigates the potential for a network of radical social movements to come
together to play an important role in world politics in the coming decades. The
histories of united and popular fronts are particularly relevant to
contemporary and near-future situations. The world-systems perspective sees the
evolution of global governance and the capitalist world economy as driven by a
sequence of world revolutions in which local rebellions that are clustered
together in time pose threats to the structures of global power. Our study
seeks to understand how this is happening in the early 21st century.
This paper studies the potential for transnational social movements and progressive regimes to transform the capitalist world-system into a more humane and democratic world society within the next fifty years. In order to investigate this potential we focus on the interconnections between existing movements and the processes by which movements have merged, collaborated and articulated in the past. We also discuss the potential for the formation of capacious organizational instruments that can have consequences for the nature of the world-system in the next decades. The general logic of coalition formation is considered and the literature on coalitions within and among social movements is reviewed. The focus here is on the whole world polity, but the much larger literature on movement coalitions within national societies is considered with an eye to implications for understanding processes of convergence and divergence among transnational social movements. The histories of united fronts and popular fronts are considered as to their relevance to the contemporary and near future situation. The contentious relationship between antisystemic social movements and reformist and antisystemic governments is also considered. And we hazard some guesses about which of the existing social movement coalitions might be able to forge a more formidable assault that could seriously alter the existing institutions and structures of the world-system.
The
comparative evolutionary world-systems
perspective studies the emergence of complex and hierarchical human societies
over very long periods of time, comparing small-scale regional world-systems in
which all the humans are nomadic hunter-gatherers with the global networks and
complex institutions of the contemporary system (Chase-Dunn and Lerro 2014). Social change has always importantly involved
social movements. [1] New cults emerged to redefine ontology and
the moral order, to construct new forms of authority or to contest or resist
authority.
Norman Cohn (1970; 1993) contends that
millenarianism and eschatology emerged first with Zoroaster and then diffused
through Judaism to Christianity. But studies of cargo cults and revitalization
movements such as the ghost dance DuBois (2007) suggest that apocalyptic
beliefs may have already existed in at least some small-scale societies as part
of their repertoires of contention.
Chiliastic stories about the old world coming to an end and the new
world beginning are powerful motivators of risky behavior of the kind that
makes social movements go, both in the past and in the present.
Social movements are
hard to study because, even more than other social phenomena, they are
complicated and messy. Todd Gitlin (2012:141) puts it
this way in his 2012 study of the Occupy Wall Street movement:
Movements are
social organisms, living phenomena that breathe in and adapt to their
environments, not objects frozen into their categories while taxonomists poke
and prod them. They come, go, mutate, expand, contract, rest, split, stagnate,
ally, cast off outworn tissue, decay, regenerate, go round in circles, are
always accused of being co-opted and selling out, and are often declared dead.
In
this paper we will focus on transnational social movements in the context of
global civil society in order to investigate the potential for a network of radical social
movements to come together to play an important role in world politics in
the next few decades. We know that important institutional changes in the
modern world-system have been spurred by social movements in the past. The New Deal was given a powerful shove by
the labor movement, including socialists, communists and anarchists, in the
1930s. The problem addressed here is how
a powerful coalition of antisystemic movements[2]
might once again become an important force in the context of the crises that are
emergent in the 21st century.
The
world-systems perspective sees the evolution of global governance and the
capitalist world-economy as importantly driven by a sequence of world
revolutions in which local rebellions that were clustered together in time
posed powerful threats to the rule of the “great powers” and predominant global
elites (Wallerstein 2004). Successful contenders among those global
elites who wanted to maintain their privileges and power, or those that sought
such heights, had to figure out how to organize a
modicum of world order in the context of often-powerful rebellions from below.
The Protestant Reformation was such a world revolution in the 16th
century and it played an important part in the rise of Dutch hegemony. The world revolution of 1789 included the
French Revolution, but also the successful independence struggles in the United
States and Haiti, and then in most of the colonies in Latin America. The world revolution of 1848 broke out mostly
in the capitals of Europe to challenge monarchies and to assert the
self-determination of nations, but it had echoes in the new Christian sects
that emerged within the United States and even as far as the Taiping Rebellion
in China. The world revolution of 1917 included the Russian revolution, but
also the Mexican and Chinese revolutions, the Arab uprising of 1916, and gave
impetus to the great wave of decolonization struggles in Asia and Africa that
climaxed after World War II. In the world revolution of 1968 students mobilized
in the U.S., Mexico, France, Italy and China to protest both the Old Left and
the middle class values of the welfare state and consumerism (Gitlin 1993; Chase-Dunn and Lerro
2014).
In 1989 important
movements in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China challenged Communist
regimes in the name of democracy. And, starting in 1994 with the Zapatista
revolt in Southern Mexico, another world revolution has emerged to contest
global justice, continued warfare, autocratic rule, and corporate capitalist
austerity policies. This last may end up with the moniker of “2011” when the
Arab Spring swept through the Middle East and on to Spain, Greece and the
Occupy Wall Street Movement (Gitlin 2012; Mason
2013). [3]
The focus of this
paper is on the New Global Left, which is a component of the larger global
civil society of actors who are consciously participating in world politics.
Some players within the New Global Left are trying to change the nature of
world society as a whole, while others are simply trying to defend themselves
against larger forces. And a significant group is trying to create local
communities that are constructed to redress some of the problems that global
capitalism has created. The New Global
Left is just the latest incarnation of a global left that has been engaging in
world politics for centuries.
Each world revolution reflects the nature of
contemporary contradictions, the ideological heritages of earlier world
revolutions, and the institutional structures that are predominant during its
historical period. World revolutions are
complicated because local and national struggles have different and often
unique characteristics due to the different histories of each local community
and national society, and because people in different zones of the larger system,
e.g. in the Global North and the Global South, often have different interests
and experiences. Nevertheless, each
world revolution takes on a particular character of its own that is due to the
nature of the constellation of movements that make it up, and the nature of
contending movements and the actions and ideologies of the authorities that are
challenged. And the nature of each global left is a moving target that must be
reassessed as the world revolution proceeds.
Contemporary “global
civil society” is composed of all the individuals and groups who knowingly
orient their political participation toward issues that transcend local and
national boundaries and who try to link up with those outside of their own home
countries in order to have an impact on local, national and global issues (Stäbler 2014).[4]
The New Global Left is that subgroup of global civil society that is critical
of neoliberal and capitalist globalization, corporate capitalism and the
exploitative and undemocratic structures of global governance (Santos 2006;
Steger et al 2013). The larger global
civil society also includes defenders of global capitalism and of the existing
institutions of global governance as well as other challengers of the current
global order. The New Global Left is the
current incarnation of a constellation of popular forces, social movements,
global political parties and progressive national regimes that have contested
with the great powers and global elites for centuries. The existing
institutions of global governance have been shaped by the efforts of competing
elites to increase their powers and to defend their privileges, but also by the
efforts of popular forces and progressive states to challenge the hierarchical
institutions, defend workers’ rights, access to the commons, the rights of
women and minorities, the sovereignty of indigenous peoples and to democratize
the local, national and global institutions of governance (Chase-Dunn and Lerro 2014).
Our notion of the
New Global Left includes both civil society entities: individuals, social
movement organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), but also
political parties, party-networks and progressive national regimes. In this
paper we will discuss the relationships among the movements and the progressive
populist regimes that have emerged in Latin America in the last two decades.
These regimes are an important part of the New Global Left, though it is
well-known that the relationships among the movements and the regimes are both
supportive and contentious (Chase-Dunn, Morosin and
Alvarez 2014; Herrera 2014).[5]
The boundaries of
the progressive forces that have come together in the New Global Left are fuzzy
and the process of inclusion and exclusion is ongoing. The rules of inclusion
and exclusion that are contained in the Charter of the World Social Forum,
though still debated, have not changed much since their formulation in 2001.[6]
The New Global Left
has emerged as resistance to, and a critique of, global capitalism. It is a
coalition of social movements that includes:
·
old social movements that emerged in the 19th
century (labor, anarchism, socialism, communism, feminism, environmentalism,
peace, human rights) along with
·
more recent incarnations of these and movements
that emerged in the world revolutions of 1968 and 1989 (queer rights,
anti-corporate, fair trade, indigenous as well as
·
even more recent ones such as the climate justice movement, slow food-food
rights, global justice-alterglobalization,
anti-globalization, health-HIV and alternative media.
The explicit focus on the Global South and global justice is somewhat
similar to some earlier incarnations of the Global Left, especially the
COMINTERN, the Bandung Conference and the anti-colonial movements. The New
Global Left contains remnants and reconfigured elements of earlier Global
Lefts, but it is a qualitatively different constellation of forces because:
o there are
new elements,
o the old
movements have been reshaped, and
o a new
technology (the Internet) has been used to try to resolve North/South issues
within movements and contradictions among movements.
There has also been a learning process in which the earlier successes
and failures of the Global Left are being taken into account in order to not
repeat the mistakes of the past. The relations within the family of antisystemic movements and among the populist regimes are
both cooperative and competitive. This needs to be brought out into the open in
order that the cooperative efforts may be enhanced so that global collective
action for restructuring the world-system may be more effective.
Collective Action and Coalition
Theories
Many theoretical
approaches in social science are relevant for understanding the process of
coalition formation. Exchange theory predicts that parties that benefit one
another should be more likely to engage in cooperative behavior. Balance theory
predicts that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Balance of power theory
predicts that coalitions in a triad of competing players are most likely to form
among the weaker players in opposition to the strongest player. All these theories presume a level of unified
rational action that is unlikely to be present when the subjects of analysis
are social movements. But they are nevertheless suggestive.
A good summary of
the main elements involved in coalition formation among social movements is
that by Sidney Tarrow (2005). Regarding coalitions within and between
social movements, Tarrow contends that the most
common purposes of these are to combat a common threat or to take advantage of
an opportunity; hence, the often-temporary nature of coalitions. The common
threat or existence of opportunity is what gives rise to the coalition and
allows it to exist (see also Van Dyke 2003; Van Dyke and McCammon
2010). According to Tarrow four elements are
necessary to maintain a coalition:
1.
Members must frame the issue that brings them
together with a common interest.
2.
Members’ trust in each other and believe that
their peers have a credible commitment
to the common issue(s) and/or goal(s).
3.
The coalition must have a mechanism(s) to manage
differences in language,
orientation,
tactics, culture, ideology, etc. between and among the collective's
members
(especially in transnational coalitions).
4.
The shared incentive to participate and,
consequently, benefit.
Cooperative action and coalitions vary in
intensity and longevity. At one extreme are mergers that involve covenants in
which the former parties lose their separate identities and create a new
integrated and structured organization. At the other extreme are temporary
alliances for specific limited purposes in which the parties maintain their
separate identities and organizations.
Zald and
McCarthy (1987) use organizational analysis, especially based on the necessity
for social movement organizations to obtain resources, to consider the factors
that are involved in conflict and cooperation among social movements. They make
an important distinction between inclusive and exclusive social movement
organizations and discuss how this affects competition and cooperation. Social
movement industries are defined as congeries of social movement organizations
that pursue the same or similar goals (Zald and
McCarthy 1987:161). They also distinguish between sympathizers and constituents
and between beneficiaries and altruistic benefactors. And they consider the
situational and organizational factors that affect cooperation and
competition among social movement organizations.
Transnational social movements have big
challenges that more local movements have to a much lesser extent. There is a global culture in formation (Meyer
2009; Chase-Dunn 1998), but many big cultural differences between nations,
classes, and ethnic groups remain. People in different parts of the
world-system have different problems and different interests. Thus all
transnational movements have huge problems of communication and value
differences, differences in modes of political expression, differences in the
relative importance of issues, and differences in the availability of
resources. All these factors undermine identification and trust. These
differences exist within each social movement industry (Zald
and McCarthy 1987), and between social movement industries. Nevertheless
transnational social movements emerged in earlier centuries when these problems
were even more daunting and yet they managed to form powerful coalitions that
were significant players in world politics. The current availability of less
costly technologies of communications and transportation has proven to be a
great opportunity for organizing movements internationally.
Ruth Reitan (2007) addresses the issue of types of solidarity among global activists.
Conscience
constituents are direct supporters of a social movement organization who do not
stand to benefit directly from the accomplishment of that organization’s goals
(McCarthy and Zald
1977). According to Reitan two forms
of solidarity emerge among those distant from the immediate consequences that
are the focus of the movement: altruistic solidarity and reciprocal
solidarity. Altruistic solidarity occurs
when “sympathy with the suffering of
others who are deemed worthy of one’s support seems to be the prevailing
affective response among those who choose to act” (Reitan
2007:51). Altruistic solidarity is characterized by low risk
activism that may be largely apolitical, suppress contentious action, and even
reproduce inequality. In her research on emergency food providers, Poppendieck
(1999:231) argues that charitable altruism is “a gift, offered with
condescension and accepted in desperation, that is necessitated by incapacity
and failure” and maintains social distance between the giver and receiver.
Further, Poppendieck
(1999:9) identifies the “‘moral safety valve’ function of
charitable programs [in] relieving the discomfort of the privileged and thus
the pressure for more fundamental action.”
On the other hand, “reciprocal
solidarity” emerges when “a perceived connection between one’s own problems or
struggle and that of others tends to lead to empathy with another’s suffering
and a sense that its source is at least remotely
threatening to oneself” (Reitan 2007:51). Reciprocal solidarity is characterized by pluralism and
mutual cooperation between conscience constituents and beneficiary constituents
in pursuit of structural change. Conscience constituents engaged in reciprocal
solidarity may attempt to unpack privilege in order to understand their position(s)
in larger systems of power that tend to recreate themselves in social movements
(Eichstedt 2001; McIntosh 2007; Paulsen and Glumm 1995). These stark distinctions, however, are largely
analytical, as “movements today are comprised of identity, reciprocal, and
altruistic solidarities alike, in different mixes towards different outcomes” (Reitan 2007:56).
Reitan
recognizes the importance and validity of both altruistic and reciprocal
solidarity, but also considers their limitations. She tells the story of
Jubilee 2000, a coalition of churches in the Global North who began a campaign
of debt relief for countries in the Global South who had become hugely indebted
to banks in the Global North in the last decades of the 20th
century. Jubilee 2000 was based mainly
on altruistic solidarity with somewhat weak participation from the Global
South. But, when the campaign succeeded in bringing banks to the table for
negotiations about debt relief, the leadership of Jubilee 2000 made compromises
that were seen as betrayal by the activists from the Global South, who then
formed their own organization, Jubilee South.
This story is meant to show the limitations of altruistic solidarity and
the necessity for activists from the Global South to have their own autonomous
organizations. A related issue is the
sometimes contentious relationship between NGOs (organizations with budgets and
paid staff) and social movement organizations that rely on mass memberships and
volunteer (unpaid) leadership.
Reitan (2007) tells the story of
Via Campesina, a global union of small farmers, that rejected participation by NGOs after these
were seen as attempting to steer the organization. Via Campesina
opted to restrict membership to farmers only, even excluding friendly
participant-observing sociologists as well as NGOs.
Related to the
discussion of altruistic solidarity is the discourse about cosmopolitan
identity. Yanacopolous and Smith discuss this as
follows:
“As
organizations increasingly working across national borders and addressing
transnational issues – such as development – NGOs could be seen as the
expression of a key cosmopolitan norm. In seeking to communicate global ideas
and persuade individuals to respond to the welfare of the 'distant other',
development NGOs could be seen as promoting a post-national cosmopolitan agenda
which challenges difference and which seeks to change dominant attitudes and
dispositions. Underlying these connections is a contestable notion of NGOs as
values-based organizations seeking 'alternatives' which better address poverty
and injustice” (Yanacopolous and Smith 2008: 301)…. “...despite the
apparent resonance between NGOs and cosmopolitan norms, NGOs'
cosmopolitanism is currently somewhat ambivalent.” (ibid: 303).
And,
Perhaps
more significant is the critique of the ways NGOs - and the development
industry more generally - has proclaimed universal values that are in effect
firmly rooted in the particular Western liberal traditions and histories from
which NGOs have emerged. This, then, reproduces Van der Veer's (2002) notion of
a colonial cosmopolitanism in which the desire to empathize and understand the
'other' is part of a system of controlling and managing the 'other'. A second
problem with this proclamation of universal values allied to an engagement with
the distant 'other' has been the way it has largely been realized in terms of
charity towards the 'other' as opposed to justice (Yanacopulos, 2007) (Yanacopulos and Smith
2008:307).
There has been a lively debate within the cosmopolitan
tradition concerning the relative merits of charity vis-a-vis justice-based approaches. Obviously, one of the problems with NGOs and their adoption
of global civil society since the 1980s is that it fits nicely into the
neoliberal New Policy Agenda (McIllwaine 2007; Eschle and Stammers 2004). In the US context,
the nonprofit industrial complex (the domestic version of NGOs) has been
criticized for depoliticizing potential activists by turning them into passive
service recipients. On the other hand, service provisioning can also
be understood to “improve the daily lives of constituents, as well as to build
solidarity, political analysis, self-determination, and loyalty” and therefore
complimentary or constitutive of activism (Luft 2009).
More
recently Reitan (2012a:324) has discussed the 'frayed
braid' composed of the three strands of the historic global left (liberalism,
marxism, and anarcho-autonomism), pointing out
that in the current setting, these strands have not broken apart as they did in
previous world revolutions. Reitan contends that the
different strands of the braid have learned from the past. She also says ,
there is “a desire for building intermovement
solidarity and broader alliances while retaining intra-movement identity and
autonomy.” (Reitan 2012a, 324).
And further
… activists are reflecting on and debating together,
hybridizing, experimenting with and challenging the limits of these traditions
in unique ways. Groups and individuals inspired by each tendency hone their
tactics, refine positions, and strengthen identities, while simultaneously
seeking alliances, coordinating actions, and articulating nascent strategies
with a wide range of others. Throughout this mobilization cycle they have
sought to dialogue, build trust, craft consensus declarations, and act in
coalitions when possible or in parallel affinity blocs when not. While
tensions are ever present, activists make ongoing efforts to mitigate, manage,
bridge, or downplay them toward joint action—or at the very least to not work
at cross-purposes.” (Reitan 2012a, 325)
Reitan (2012b) also
addresses the issues involved in the upscaling of transnational social
movements – moving from the local to the transnational level of
organizing. She says
rather than simply an exodus—i.e.
‘spillover’ or ‘spillout’—from one movement to
another, or a distinct transnational movement arising spontaneously, key
bridge-building organizations have proven crucial in shifting down to harness
nascent activist energies by brokering new ties and reinvigorating old ones as
well as frame extending between emerging and extant concerns, in order to scale
back up as a broader transnational movement for Global Peace and Justice (Reitan 2012b, 337).
Reitan
writes that:
the
process of transnational coalescence entails bridge-builders...who, when
faced with a new bellwether or trigger issue, temporarily scale down (i.e.
internalize, or loop back) to the local, national, or macroregional
levels, but with the aim to scale up again to the transnational level of
contention as a broader movement. To do so, they use various framing tactics
while brokering new ties and diffusing information among existing and new
activists, particularly frame extension, in order to foster transnational
coalescence...between ‘new’ and ‘old’ issues and movements (Reitan
2012b, 338).
Reitan also
discusses the “rooted cosmopolitans” named by Sidney Tarrow
(2005:42). These are activists “whose
relations place them beyond their local or national settings without detaching
them from locality.” “Thus, rather than being rootless cosmopolitans these
bridge-builders are among the most committed and seasoned activists, with
expertise, leadership experience and ready access to domestic-level material
and symbolic resources” (Reitan 2012b:339). These are the activists featured in Keck and Sikkink’s (1998) analysis of “transnational advocacy
networks” and they pinpoint one of the motives for upscaling (going
transnational). This is the so-called “boomerang effect” in which social
movement activists use their ties abroad to bring pressure on reticent local or
national authorities.
This discussion also reminds us of Wallerstein’s (2004) mention of the importance of
‘synergists” who participate in, and link, different social movements with one
another, as well as the study of such bridgers by
Carroll and Ratner (1996).
Justice Globalism as an Ideological
Constellation
Manfred Steger, James Goodman and Erin K. Wilson
(2013) present the results of a systematic study of the political ideas
employed by forty-five NGOs and social movement organizations associated with
the International Council of the World Social Forum. Using a modified form of
morphological discourse analysis developed by Michael Freeden
(2003) for studying political ideologies, Steger, Goodman and Wilson analyzed
texts (web sites, press releases and declarations) and conducted interviews to
examine the key concepts, secondary concepts and overall coherence of the
political ideas expressed by these organizations as proponents of “justice
globalism.” Steger et al see three main contending ideological constellations for the
contemporary “global imaginary”: market globalism (what others have called
neoliberalism), political Islam and justice globalism. Their study is mainly about the conceptual
and policy content of justice globalism but, since several of the key concepts
are also used by market globalists, (democracy, justice, human rights,
development) the ways in which the uses of these terms are distinguished from
their meanings in the neoliberal discourse are an important part of the efforts
made by justice globalists to clarify their approach. Steger et al also utilize Freeden’s
(2003) notion of “decontestation” whereby central
concepts are reinforced by metaphors and narratives that establish greater
consensus about their meanings.
The key concepts of justice
globalism extracted by Steger et al
(2013: Table 2.1 pp. 28-29) are:
·
participatory
democracy,
·
transformative
change,
·
equality of access
to resources and opportunities,
·
social justice,
·
universal rights,
·
global solidarity and
·
sustainability.
The meanings of
each of these concepts have emerged in an on-going dialectical struggle with
market globalism. Steger et al
discuss each of these and evaluate how much consensus exists across the
forty-five movement organizations studied. They claim that there is a
relatively impressive degree of consensus, but their results also reveal
on-going contestation. For example, though most of the organizations seem to
favor one or another form of participatory democracy, there is also awareness
of some of limitations of participatory democracy, and different attitudes
toward participation in representative democracy.
The important
notion of “horizontality” is not examined in detail, but it is well-known that
networks of equal and leaderless individuals are preferred to formal or
informal hierarchy within movements.
Some of the
organizations studied by Steger et al
eschew participation in established electoral processes, while others do not.
Steger et al highlight the importance of “multiplicity” as an approach that values diversity
rather than trying to find “one size fits all” solutions. They note that the Charter of the World
Social Forum values inclusivity and the welcoming of marginalized groups. But Steger et al do not give much attention to the issue of prefiguration
--“building the new society inside the shell of the old,” though this stance
has found wide support from many important global justice social movement
organizations. The Zapatistas, the
Occupy anarchists, and many in the environmental movement are engaged in
efforts to construct the sustainable alternative world that they want to see
rather than trying to change the whole system. Also not much attention is given
to the notion of community rights in the human rights discourse, nor to the idea that nature (“mother earth” has rights as proposed
by the World People's Conference on
Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2010.
The discussion of global solidarity emphasizes the centrality of what Ruth Reitan (2007) has called “altruistic solidarity” – the
identification with poor and marginalized peoples – without much consideration
of solidarity based on common circumstances or identities. Steger et
al do, however, mention the important efforts to link groups that are
operating at both local and global levels of contention.
Steger et al also designate five central
ideological claims that find great consensus among the global justice
activists:
- Neoliberalism
produces global crisis,
- Market-driven
globalization has increased worldwide disparities in wealth and well-being,
- Democratic
participation is essential for solving global problems,
- Another
world is possible and urgently needed, and
- People
power not corporate power.
These assertions shape the policy alternatives
proposed by global justice activists. The Steger et al study is a useful paragon of how to do research on political
ideology and it provides important insights into what we have called the New
Global Left.
The Social Forum Surveys
Our research on the World Social Forum has produced maps
of the network of movements that are involved in the social forum process (see
Figure 1). This is probably a fair
representation of the structure of the left wing portion of global civil
society. The University of
California-Riverside Transnational Social Movement Research Working Group has
conducted four paper surveys of attendees at Social Forum events. [7]
We used previous studies of the global justice
movement by Amory Starr (2000) and by William Fisher and Thomas Ponniah (2003) to construct our original list of eighteen
social movement themes that we believed would be represented at the January
2005 World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre,
Brazil. We also conducted a survey at the WSF in Nairobi, Kenya in 2007 in
which we used most of these same movement themes, but we separated human rights
from anti-racism and we added eight additional movement themes (development,
landless, immigrant, religious, housing, jobless, open source, and autonomous).
We used this same larger list of 27 movement themes at the US Social Forum (USSF)
in Atlanta in 2007 and in Detroit at the USSF in 2010.
We studied changes and continuities in the relative sizes of movements and changes in the network centrality (multiplicative coreness) of movements. Relative movement size is indicated by the percentage of surveyed attendees who claimed to be actively involved in each movement theme. We asked each attendee to check whether or not they identified with, or were actively involved in each of the movement themes[8] with following item on our survey questionnaire:
(Check all of the following movements with which you (a) strongly identify with and/or (b) are actively involved in:
(a) strongly
identify:
(b) are actively involved in:
1. oAlternative
media/culture
oAlternative media/culture
2. oAnarchist
oAnarchist
3. oAnti-corporate
oAnti-corporate
4. oAnti-globalization oAntiglobalization
5. oAntiracism
oAntiracism
6. oAlternative Globalization/Global Justice
oAlternative Globalization/Global Justice
7. oAutonomous
oAutonomous
8. oCommunist
oCommunist
9. oDevelopment aid/Economic development oDevelopment aid/Economic development
10.oEnvironmental
oEnvironmental
11.oFair Trade/Trade
Justice
oFair Trade/Trade Justice
12.oFood Rights/Slow
Food
oFood Rights/Slow Food
13.oGay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer Rights oGay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer Rights
14.oHealth/HIV
oHealth/HIV
15.oHousing
rights/anti-eviction/squatters
oHousing
rights/anti-eviction/squatters
16.oHuman
Rights
oHuman Rights
17.oIndigenous
oIndigenous
18.oJobless workers/welfare
rights
oJobless workers/welfare
rights
19.oLabor
oLabor
20.oMigrant/immigrant
rights
oMigrant/immigrant rights
21.oNational Sovereignty/National
Liberation oNational Sovereignty/National Liberation
22.oOpen-Source/Intellectual Property
Rights oOpen-Source/Intellectual Property Rights
23.oPeace/Anti-war
oPeace/Anti-war
24.oPeasant/Farmers/Landless/Land-reform
oPeasant/Farmers/Landless/Land-reform
25.oReligious/Spiritual
oReligious/Spiritual
26.oSocialist
oSocialist
27.oWomen's/Feminist
oWomen's/Feminist
28.oOther(s), Please list
___________________ oOther(s), Please list _________________
Figure 1:
The Network of Movement Linkages at the 2007 World Social Forum in Nairobi
The UCINet QAP
routine produces a Pearson’s r correlation coefficient that shows the degree of
similarity between two dichotomized affiliation network matrices. The Pearson’s
r coefficient varies from -1 (a perfectly negative linear relationship between
two variables) and +1, a perfectly positive linear relationship. The Pearson’s r correlation coefficient
between the USSF 2007 and the USSF 2010 movement affiliation matrices was
0.74. This is a rather strong positive
correlation and is slightly larger than was found between the World Social
Forum meeting in Nairobi and the U.S. Social Forum meeting in Atlanta, which
was 0.71 (Chase-Dunn and Kaneshiro 2009). It is unsurprising that the Atlanta
USSF network would be more similar to the Detroit USSF than it would be to the
Nairobi WSF, but the surprise is that the national and global affiliation matrices are
so similar. This implies that there is a fairly similar structure of network
connections among movements that is global in scope and that the global level
network is rather close to the network produced when activists from grassroots
movements within the U.S. come together. This is the movement of movements
within which we hope to help construct a more effective instrument. [9]
Fronts
The history of broad-based left wing movement
coalitions in earlier periods is relevant for understanding articulation
processes in the contemporary world revolution.
The 3rd International (COMINTERN) was a complex of red
networks assembled to coordinate the political actions of communists in the
years after World War I. It was in this context that a transnational group of
communist intellectuals claimed to lead the global proletariat in a world
revolution that was intended to transform capitalism into socialism and
communism by abolishing large-scale private property in the means of production
(Hobsbawm 1994).
The COMINTERN adopted its own statutes at its
second congress in 1920. It was led by an Executive Committee and a Presidium.
The statutes stated that congresses with representatives from all over the
world were to meet “not less than once a year.” The COMINTERN also organized
and sponsored a number of other “front organizations” – the Red International
of Labor Unions, the Communist Youth International, International Red Aid, the
International Peasants’ Council, the Workers’ International Relief and the
Communist Women’s Organization (Sworakowski 1965;
COMINTERN Electronic Archive).
The COMINTERN was founded in the Soviet Union,
the “fatherland of the proletariat,” and so it is often depicted as having been
mainly a tool of Soviet foreign policy. There is little doubt that this became
true after the rise of Stalin. In perhaps the most blatant example, Stalin
tried to use the COMINTERN to get Communist Parties all over the world to
support the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939. But during Lenin’s
time the COMINTERN held large multinational congresses attended by people with
at least forty languages as their native tongues. The largest of these
congresses had as many as 1600 delegates attending. Sworakowski
(1965:9) says,
After some attempts at restrictions in the
beginning, delegates were permitted to use at the meetings any language they
chose. Their speeches were translated into Russian, German, French and English,
or digests in these languages were read to the congresses immediately following
the speech in another language. Whether a speech was translated verbatim or
digested to longer or shorter versions depended upon the importance of the
speaker. Only by realizing these time-consuming translation
and digesting procedures does it become understandable why some congresses
lasted as long as forty-five days.[10]
The COMINTERN was
abolished in 1943, though the Soviet Union continued to pose as the protagonist
of the world working class until its demise in 1989. Paul Mason (2013) reminds us of the
importance of threats from other social movements that pose challenges that drive
former sectarians to try to be more inclusive.
The United Front originated as an effort by Communists to create an
alliance with other socialists, peasants and all workers. The Popular Front was an even broader
coalition that included all those who were willing to oppose fascism, including
capitalists and their parties. These
efforts have usually been seen as manipulative moves by communists to
infiltrate and control other movement organizations, but David Blaazer’s (1992) study of Popular Front leaders in Britain
shows that many of the non-communist participants were not ignorant dupes of
the communists. They were committed democrats and socialists who were willing
to work with communists in order to mobilize the fight against fascism (see
also the essays in Graham and Preston, 1987).
The anti-anticommunism of the New left in the world revolution of 1968
was another example of an inclusive social movement that was willing to
overlook a bad history in order to combine forces with former competitors (Gitlin 1993). So the
unfrayed braid observed by Reitan
had earlier incarnations.
But the general point made by Mason stands. The
forces of divergence in the global left of the 1930s were partly overcome by
the clear and present danger of the rise of a great wave of fascism (Goldfrank 1978). Of course in the midst of all this
cooperation the Trotskyists proclaimed a Fourth International in 1938 (James
1997). And after the demise of fascism
that resulted from the outcome of World War II, the left fragmented again in
most countries. Maoists in China managed
to put together a coalition strong enough to beat the Nationalists and to
govern the new Peoples Republic. But in
other countries this produced a new fissure between the Maoists and other
elements of the left.
Does this history of
fronts have implications for the present and the near future? Might there be a
21st century functional equivalent of fascism that could drive
elements of the New Global Left closer together, or serve as a driving force
for the organization of new capable instruments of global political
activity? Here we should distinguish
between what social movement scholars call counter-movements[11]
versus other contending movements
that have goals that are very different from the New Global Left but are not
responses to it. Counter-movements are movements that emerge to counter-act and
oppose the efforts of other movements (Snow and Soule (2010:82) William I. Robinson
(2013) contends that recent developments in response to the growth of
resistance from below and the disarray caused by the various contemporary
crises of global corporate capitalism constitute the rise of “21st
century fascism” in the guise of a globally coordinated police state. Others
have spoken of “surveillance capitalism” and the “national security state.”
Such a development could become such a large threat that the divergent elements
in the New Global Left might be forced to forge a strong and organized
response. Some of the horizontalists and prefigurers would need to compromise their principles in
order to put together more pragmatic and better organized instruments with
which to counter 21st century fascism.
Regarding contending movements from below, the obvious candidate mentioned by Steger, et al is political Islam. Interestingly, there has been little discourse within the New Global Left regarding political Islam. Cosmopolitans want to uphold the freedom of religion and to protest racist attacks on innocent Moslems. The New Global Left has, at least so far, been willing to let the neoliberals carry the ball regarding gender discrimination, female genital mutilation, and other issues. But the events in Egypt and the other Middle Eastern Arab Spring situations make it obvious that the issues involved must eventually be confronted. Inclusive diversity and multiplicity must eventually reach their limits. That said, it is unlikely that political Islam will play a role analogous to that of 20th century fascism in provoking a stronger alliance of movements of the New Global Left.
States and
Social Movements
Our concern for
capacity (and muscle) in world politics suggests the importance of a discussion
of the contentious current relationship between antisystemic
social movements and reformist and antisystemic
regimes such as those that have been elected in many Latin American countries. We
agree with Patrick Bond (2013) that many of the semiperipheral
state challengers to the hegemony and policies of the United States (the
so-called BRICS)[12]
seem mainly to be trying to move up the food chain within the capitalist
world-system rather than trying to produce a more democratic and sustainable
world society. Revolutions are needed within these polities to produce regimes
that will be effective agents of transformative social change. This said, transnational social movements should be prepared to work
with progressive regimes that emerge in order to try to change the rules of the
global economic order (Evans 2009; 2010).
It is well-known that many transnational
movement organizations scorn politics-as-usual and resist efforts by
progressive regimes to provide resources and leadership to movements. Autonomism makes this a basic principle and the World
Social Forum Charter proscribes individuals from attending as representatives
of governments. This is part of the
anti-elitism of the culture of grass roots movements. President Lula of Brazil and President Chavez
of Venezuela had to give their speeches at a venue near to, but not part of,
the World Social Forum meetings in Brazil.[13] When nineteen prominent
leftist academics tried to issue a declaration in the name of the World Social
Forum at end of the meeting in Porto Alegre in 2005 they were widely
denounced as elitists. This is related
to the horizontalist stance that has been strong in
the Social Forum process since its emergence. The activists want leaders to
“bubble up from below.” The Zapatistas of Chiapas take this position. Similar
elements were widespread in the student movements of the 1960s (Gitlin 1993). Facilitators were preferred over
grandstanders. The New Left critique of the Old Left was heavily based on a
rejection of the goal of taking state power, which tended to become an end in
itself and to corrupt the transformative projects of movements. This shows an
awareness of what Robert Michels termed “the
oligarchical tendencies of political parties.”
The “leaderless”
discourse of the Occupy Movement was another incarnation of horizontalism.
Horizontalism is constituted by a strong commitment
to the value of each unique individual, and the equality of individuals, and to
the empowerment of marginalized groups. In this sense it is redolent of the
global moral order described and analyzed by John W. Meyer (2009). Radical individualism has been an important
feature of millenarian religious and political movements since medieval times
(Cohn 1970).
A comparative
world historical perspective on state/movement relations would stress the importance
of the effects that earlier world revolutions had because of the emergence of
regimes in the semiperiphery that explicitly
challenged and the existing world order and the global rule of capital.[14]
The rise of the Bolshevik Regime in Russia, as well as strong labor movements
within the core states, spurred the New Deal and social
democracy to save capitalism by reforming it. In the world-systems perspective
states are organizations that claim sovereignty but that are
actually interdependent parts of a larger polity – the interstate system. A
movement that attains state power in a modern national state has not conquered
the whole system. It has taken over an institution that is part of a larger
system.
This explains
much about the policies of the so-called communist states that came to power in
the 20th century. They engaged in semiperipheral
protectionism in order to industrialize and they invested huge resources on
military capability in order to prevent conquest by capitalist core
states. It is entirely understandable
why social movements should seek to maintain their autonomy from states, but
the ideology of non-participation in “politics-as-usual” could benefit by
recognition of the functionality of coordination between radical and reformist
social movement organizations. Radical
movements that threaten to transform the whole social order increase the
likelihood that enlightened conservatives will make deals with less radical and
more legitimate social movement organizations and NGOs.[15] This is how it has worked in the past and how
it is likely to work in the future.
Awareness of this dynamic should be useful to social movement
organizations, promoting greater tolerance and collaboration between radicals
and reformists.
The Global Class
Structure
Analysts
of an alleged global stage of capitalism contend that a transnational
capitalist class has recently emerged and that global capitalism is also
producing a newly transnationalized working class (e.g.
Sklair 2001; Robinson 2006). This analysis has the
implication that class struggle should now be occurring at the global level.
World-systems analysts have been studying the system-wide configuration of
classes over the past several hundred years (Wallerstein
1974; Amin 1980) but whether or not recent changes are seen in long-run
perspective, there have obviously been important recent changes and these have
implications for analyzing potential movement that might emerge in response to
recent crises. The analysts of global capitalism have talked about “the peripheralization of the core” as a way of describing the
attack on core workers and unions that has been carried out by neoliberals. The
casualization of labor and the growth of the informal sector has been an
important phenomenon in both core and non-core countries since the rise of Reaganism-Thatcherism.
Beverly Silver’s (2003) study of waves of labor unrest shows that the
export of the industrial proletariat from the core to the semiperiphery
produced militant labor movements in the new regions of industrial manufacturing
in the semiperiphery.
Savan Savas Karataşlı, Sefika Kumral,
Ben Scully and Smriti Upadhyay ( 2014) study the recent wave of unrest that spread around the globe from 2008 to 2011,
building upon Silver’s (2003) studies of labor unrest using protest and labor unrest data coded from
major news sources. They provide a
useful review of efforts in the social science literature to analyze this
global cycle of protest. They note that most analyses underplay the significance
of the role of wage-earners in these protests. They use their coded protest
data to examine the extent to which this recent wave of protests indicates a
recurrence of past forms of unrest or whether the current period represents a
different pattern.
Silver (2003) divides labor protest
into two categories: Marx-type and Polanyi-type. Marx-type unrest refers to
offensive struggles of new working classes in formation, whereas Polanyi-type
unrest refers to the defensive protests of workers whose previous gains are
being undermined as well as resistance against proletarianization
(Karatasli et al 2014).
The authors
find that, along with a mix of Marx-type unrest[16] and Polanyi-type unrest[17], which are part of the
older cyclical process of capitalism making and unmaking livelihoods,[18] a third type of unrest,
driven by what Marx called stagnant relative surplus population[19],
also played a large part in the protests of 2011 and presents a “secular trend in which capitalism destroys more
livelihoods than it creates over time.” The growing number of this third type
of worker, composed largely of those who can work but are unable to be absorbed
by the productive capacity of the economy, and their presence in protests and
social movements that have continued in the aftermath of 2011, gives credence
to the idea that the problems faced in regions of unrest are chronic and
enduring. This growing excluded segment of the population is an important force
in these movements and the secular increase in this section of the working
class poses a critical challenge to the capitalist system.[20]
Karatasli et al
2014 criticize those who focus discussion of “the precariat”
(e.g. Standing 2011; see also Korotayev and Zinkina 2011)) of middle-class workers whose job conditions
and incomes have declined and on educated young people who cannot get a job
commensurate with their expectations and face large education-related debts (“graduates without a future”)[21] It would seem that both these and the less
educated young who cannot find employment could be understood as different parts
of the stagnant relative surplus population. Karatasli
et al (2014) strongly demonstrate
that workers have played a large role in the 2011 protest wave, and they
correctly note that this has often been overlooked by other analysts of these protests.
Contenders
for Articulation
Which
of the existing transnational social movements and movement coalitions that
have come out of the Social Forum process could plausibly emerge as central to
the formation of a more capacious coalition of the New Global Left that could strongly
challenge the global rule of capital in the 21st century? We agree
with Steger et al that a coherent
ideological framework already exists. And our survey findings support the
optimism from Ruth Reitan and Jackie Smith (Smith and
Wiest 2012) regarding the existence of already
functioning collaboration within the Social Forum process and elsewhere. But we
also see the need for stronger and more capable instruments to play a role in
world politics in the emerging period of crises. Where might such a force for articulation
come from?
Workers
(Again)
Could a
reconfigured movement based on workers rights and global unionism come out of
the global precariat that has been produced by
neoliberal capitalist attacks on labor unions and the welfare state? Peter
Waterman has proposed a Global Labor Charter that is intended to mobilize such
a coalition and Guy Standing (2014) proposes charter for the precariat.
Mike Davis (2006) has suggested that the
informal sector workers of the Global South might step forward as a historical
subject, and William I Robinson (2006) has theorized the emergence of a
transnational working class that has been created by the processes of global
capitalism. Austerity politics by neoliberals might provide the basis for such
a movement, and elements of an anti-austerity coalition seemed to be operating
in the European Summer and the Occupy Movements. Perhaps a reconfigured version
of the Old Left notion of the world working class as the midwife of a possible
other world might yet be able to articulate the anti-systemic movements. Social
movement unionism and experiments in cross-border organizing have had some
successes as well as notable failures. But in a deepening crisis these efforts
might yet pan out.
The precariat
also includes the unemployed educated seen by Mason as the main participants in
the recent waves of popular protest demonstrations that have emerged since the
Arab Spring. The educated unemployed (or underemployed) are also burdened with
large debts incurred when neoliberals shifted much of the cost of public higher
education on to students. In the context of growing levels of income and wealth
inequality within many core countries (Picketty 2014)
this would seem to prepare the ground for social movements in which radicalized
middle class elements might once again ally with the urban poor and workers, as
they did in the world revolution of 1848 (Mason 2013).
Feminists
Maria Mies
(1986) argued that women and the marginalized peasants and workers of the
Global South formed an exploited and potentially revolutionary subject that
could rise to challenge global capitalism. Ecofeminists
have emphasized the complementarities of a kinder gentler approach to nature
and the politics of women. Socialist feminists have noted the growing important
of female labor in all the world’s regions and the leadership shown by global
feminists in confronting and partially resolving North/South differences among
women (Moghadam 2005). Anarchists such as David Graeber
(2013) have noted that many of the processual
innovations that were utilized in the Occupy Movement came out of feminist
practices.[22] Feminists have links with many of the other
movements, as shown by the results of our research on the network of social
movement connections in Figure 1 above.
Climate Justice
Arguably the most imminent crisis
produced by contemporary global capitalism is the onrushing arrival of
anthropogenic climate change. The environmental movement has strong links with
some elements of the labor movement, with global indigenism,
and with feminism (mentioned above). Patrick Bond (2012) has written convincingly of the
emerging centrality of the climate justice movement. Climate justice emerged
from the environmental justice movement, which was a combination of
environmentalism and human rights and anti-racism. It has long been noted that the poor are the
first to suffer the effects of pollution and environmental degradation. Steger et al (2012) devoted an entire chapter
of their study of justice globalism policy implications to the “climate crisis”
and Ruth Reitan and Shannon Gibson (2012) studied
three climate activist networks that participated in the Copenhagen climate
summit in 2009, supporting the notion that climate justice has great potential
as a unifying framework for the New Global Left.
Of course there are other
possibilities for the role of articulator.
We have cited Reitan’s (2012b) consideration
of the peace movement. The emerging context of crises will be an important set
of forces that will favor some frames over others. The order, speed of onset,
and interaction of different kinds of crises will also favor either a more
reformist global Keynsianism versus a more radical restructuring of political and
economic institutions.
Conclusions
As
a famous East Asian revolutionary said, ‘the situation is excellent.”
Capitalism is in crisis again and the forces of progress are moving to try to
create a more humane, democratic and sustainable world society. A coherent social science perspective exists with
which to analyze the structures and institutions of the system (the comparative
evolutionary world-systems
perspective) and a coherent political ideology, justice globalism, has come out
of the Social Forum process. What is needed now is organization. Climate
justice, feminism or a new version of the workers’ movement could be frameworks
for uniting those who want to build a new society within the skeleton of the
old with those who want to reorganize the whole system. That would be a serious
instrument.
Bibliography
Amin,
Samir 1980 “The class structure of the contemporary imperialist system.” Monthly
Review 31,8:9-26.
__________2008.
“Towards the fifth international?”
Pp. 123-143 in Katarina Sehm-
Patomaki and Marko Ulvila (eds.) Global Political Parties.
London: Zed Press.
Anderson, Perry 2005 Spectrum.
London: Verso
Anheier,
Helmut and Hagai Katz 2003 “Mapping Global Civil
Society” pp. 241-258 in Mary
Kaldor, Helmut Anheier and Marlies Glasius (eds.) Global
Civil Society 2003. New
York:
Oxford University Press.
Bandy, Joe and Jackie Smith 2005 Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational
Protest and the
Neoliberal Border. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Beck, Colin J. 2011 “The world cultural origins of
revolutionary waves: five centuries of
European contestation. Social
Science History 35,2: 167-207.
Benjamin, Medea and Andrea Freedman 1989 Bridging the Global Gap: A Handbook to
Linking
Citizens of the
First and Third Worlds.
Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
Blaazer,
David 1992 The Popular Front and the Progressive
Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Bond, Patrick 2012 The
Politics of Climate Justice: Paralysis Above, Movement Below Durban, SA:
University
of Kwa-zulu Natal Press
___________ (ed.) 2013 Patrick Bond Brics in Africa: anti-imperialist, sub-imperialist of in
between? Centre for
Civil Society, University of Kwa-Zulu-Natal.
Boswell, Terry and
Christopher Chase-Dunn 2000 The Spiral of
Capitalism and Socialism:
Toward Global Democracy. Boulder , CO : Lynne Rienner
Burawoy, Michael. 2012. “Our Livelihood Is at
Stake—We Must Pursue Relationships
beyond the University.” Network: Magazine of British Sociological Association, Summer
Brookes, Marissa 2013 “Varieties of power in
transnational labor alliances: an analysis of
workers’ structural, institutional and coalitional power in
the global economy” Labor
Studies Journal 38(3):181-200.
Calhoun,
Craig. 2013. “Occupy Wall Street in Perspective.” British Journal of Sociology 64 (1): 26–38.
Carroll William K and J. P. Sapinski Embedding
Post-Capitalist Alternatives: The Global Network of Alternative Knowledge
Production
Journal of World Systems Research Volume 19, Number 2, Pages
211-240
Castells, Manuel 2012 Networks of outrage and hope
: social movements in the Internet age Cambridge:
Polity Press
Chase-Dunn,
C. 1998 Global Formation, Chapter 5,
“World culture, normative integration and
community”
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Little field.
Chase-Dunn, Christopher and Ellen Reese 2008 “Global party formation in world historical
perspective” in Katarina Sehm-Patomaki and Marko Ulvila (eds.) Global
Party
Formation.
London: Zed Press.
Chase-Dunn, C. and Matheu Kaneshiro 2009 “Stability and Change in the
contours
of Alliances Among movements in the social forum process” Pp. 119-
133 in David Fasenfest (ed.) Engaging Social Justice. Leiden:
Brill.
Chase-Dunn, C. and Bruce Lerro
2014 Social Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the
Present. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Chase-Dunn,
C. and
R.E. Niemeyer 2009 “The world revolution of 20xx” Pp. 35-57 in
Mathias Albert, Gesa Bluhm, Han Helmig, Andreas Leutzsch, Jochen Walter (eds.)
Transnational
Political Spaces. Campus Verlag:
Frankfurt/New York
Chase-Dunn, C. and Ian Breckenridge-Jackson 2014 “The Intermovement
Network in the
U.S. social forum process: Comparing
Atlanta 2007 with Detroit 2010”
Chase-Dunn, C. Alessandro Morosin and Alexis Álvarez 2014 “Social Movements and
Progressive
Regimes in Latin America: World Revolutions and Semiperipheral
Development”
in Paul Almeida and Allen Cordero Ulate (eds.) Handbook of Social
Movements across Latin
America, Springer
Chase-Dunn C.
and Ellen Reese. 2007. “Global Party Formation in World Historical
Perspective,”
in Global Political Parties , Pp. 82-120 edited by
Katarina Sehm-
Patomaki and
Marko Ulvila. London: Zed Books.
Cohn, Norman 1970 The Pursuit of the Millennium:
Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical
Anarchists of the Middle
Ages.
New York: Oxford University Press
____________1993
Cosmos, Chaos and the World to Come: the Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
COMINTERN
Electronic Archive http://www.comintern-online.com/
Coyne,
Gary, Juliann
Allison, Ellen Reese, Katja Guenther, Ian
Breckenridge-Jackson,
Edwin Elias, Ali Lairy,
James Love, Anthony Roberts, Natasha Rodojcic, Miryam
Ruvalcaba,
Elizabeth Schwarz, and Christopher Chase-Dunn 2010 “2010 U.S. Social Forum Survey
of Attendees: Preliminary Report “Irows Working Paper # 64 at https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows64/irows64.htm
Curran, Michaela, Elizabeth A. G. Schwarz* and C Chase-Dunn 2014 “The
Occupy
Movement in
California” in Todd A. Comer ed. What Comes After Occupy?: The
Regional
Politics of Resistance. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
https://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows74/irows74.htm
Davis,
Mike 2006 Planet of Slums. London:
Verso
della Porta,
Donatella. 2005 “Multiple Belongings, Tolerant
Identities, and the Construction of ‘Another Politics’:
Between
the European Social Forum and the Local Social Fora,” Pp. 175-202 in Transnational Protest and Global Activism,
edited by Donatella della
Porta and Sidney Tarrow. Lanham, MD: Rowman
& Littlefield
Du Bois, Cora 2007 [1939] The 1870 Ghost Dance. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press
Eichstedt, Jennifer L. 2001. “Problematic White Identities and a Search for Racial Justice.” Sociological Forum
16(3):445–70.
Eschle, Catherine and Neil Stammers. 2004. “Taking Part:
Social Movements, INGOs, and Global Change.”
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Volume 29: 333-372.
Evans, Peter B. 2009 “From
Situations of Dependency to Globalized Social Democracy,”
Studies in Comparative
International Development 44:318–336
____________ 2010 “Is it Labor’s Turn to
Globalize? Twenty-first Century Opportunities and Strategic Responses”
Global Labour Journal (1)3: 352-‐379.
Fisher, William F. and Thomas Ponniah (eds.). 2003.
Another World is Possible: Popular Alternatives
to Globalization at the World Social Forum. London: Zed Books.
Freeden, Michael 2003 Ideology: A Very Short
Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman,
Jo 1970 “The tyranny of structuralessness” http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Fukuyama, Francis 2013 “The middle class revolution” Wall Street Journal, June 29
Gill,
Stephen 2000 “Toward a post-modern prince?:
the battle of Seattle as a moment in the
new politics of globalization” Millennium
29,1: 131-140
Gitlin, Todd 1993 The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage.
New York: Bantam Books
__________ 2012 Occupy Nation.
New York: HarperCollins
Goldfrank, W.L. 1978 “Fascism and world economy” Pp. 75-120 in Barbara Hockey
Kaplan
(ed.) Social
Change in the Capitalist World Economy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Graeber, David 2013 The Democracy Project: A History, A Crisis, A
Movement. New York:
Spiegel
and Grau
(Random House).
Graham, Helen and Paul Preston (eds.) 1987 The Popular Front in Europe New York:
St.
Martin’s
Press
Hall, Thomas D, James V. Fenelon, Ian
Breckenridge-Jackson, Joel Herrera and Christopher Chase-Dunn 2014
“The global indigenous movement and the larger
web of antisystemic movements” Paper to be presented
at the
annual meeting of the Social Science History Association, Toronto, November
Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2012. Declaration. New York: Argo Navis Author
Services
Herrera, Joel S. 2014 “Neoliberal
Reform and Latin America’s Turn to the Left”
honors thesis,
University of California-Riverside. Submitted for publication
Herkenrath, Mark 2011 Die Globalisierung
der sozialen Bewegungen: Transnationale
Zivilgesellschaft
und die Suche nach einer gerechten Weltordnung. Weisbaden: VS
Verlag
Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1994 The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991. New York:
Pantheon.
Hochschild, Adam 2005 Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the
Fight to Free an Empire’s
Slaves. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
James, C. L. R. 1997 Revolutionary
Marxism: Selected Writings 1939-1949. Brill
Juergensmeyer, Mark
2003 Terror in the Mind of God.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Johnston, Hank and Paul
Almeida (eds.) 2006 Latin American Social
Movements: Globalization,
Democratization
and Transnational Networks.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2008 Networking
Futures : the Movements Against Corporate
Globalization
Durham,
N.C. : Duke University Press
Kalleberg, Arne L 2009 “Precarious Work, Insecure Workers: Employment
Relations in
Transition” American Sociological Review 74,1: 1-22
_____________2011 Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized
and Precarious Employment
Karatasli, Savan Savas, Sefika Kumral,
Ben Scully and Smriti Upadhyay 2014“Class,
Crisis,
and the 2011 Protest Wave:
Cyclical and Secular Trends in Global Labor Unrest” in
Immanuel Wallerstein,
Christopher Chase-Dunn and Christian Suter (eds.) Overcoming
Global
Inequalities. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Karides, Marina, Walda
Katz-Fishman, Rose M. Brewer, Jerome Scott and Alice Lovelace
2010 The United States Social Forum: Perspectives of a Movement.
Chicago: Changemaker
Keck, Margaret E. and Katherine Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy
Networks in
International
Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Korotayev,
A.V., and J.V Zinkina. 2011.
“Egyptian Revolution: A Demographic Structural Analysis.”
Entelequia, Revista Interdisciplinar (13): 139–170.
Krinsky, John and
Ellen Reese. 2006. “Forging and Sustaining Labor-Community
Coalitions:
The Workfare Justice
Movement in Three Cities.” Sociological Forum 21(4): 623-658.
Lindblom, Charles
and Jose Pedro Zuquete 2010 The Struggle for the World: Liberation
Movements for the 21st
Century. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Luft, Rachel E. 2009. “Beyond Disaster Exceptionalism: Social Movement developments
in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” American
Quarterly 61(3):499–527.
Lynd, Staughton and Andrej Grubacic 2008 Wobblies
and Zapatistas: Conversations on Anarchism,
Marxism and
Radical History. Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Mason, Paul 2013 Why Its Still Kicking Off Everywhere:
The New Global Revolutions London:
Verso
Martin, William G. et al, Making Waves: Worldwide Social Movements,
1750-2005. 2008
Boulder,
CO: Paradigm
McCarthy,
John D., and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social
movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal
of Sociology 82(6):1212–41.
McIlwaine,
Cathy 2007 “From local to global to transnational civil society:
reframing
development
perspectives on the non-state sector.” Geography
Compass, Volume 1,
Number 6: 1252 –
1281.
McIntosh, Peggy. 2007. “White Privilege and Male Privilege.”
Pp. 377–84 in Race,
ethnicity, and gender: selected readings, edited by Joseph F Healey and Eileen
O’Brien.
Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.
Meyer, David S. and Sidney Tarrow (eds.) 1998 Social Movement Society: Contentious
Politics for a
New
Century.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Meyer, David S. and Catherine Corrigall-Brown
2005 “Coalitions and political context: U.S.
movements
against wars in Iraq” Mobilization 10:
327-344.
Meyer, John W. 2009 World Society:
The Writings of John W. Meyer. New York: Oxford University Press.
Obach,
Brian K. 2004 Labor and the Environmental Movement: The Quest for Common
Ground. Cambridge,
MA: MIT
Press.
Paulsen, Ronnelle, and Karen Glumm. 1995. “Resource Mobilization and the
Importance of Bridging
Beneficiary and
Conscience Constituencies.”
National Journal of Sociology 9(2):37–62.
Martin, William G. et al 2008 Making Waves:
Worldwide Social Movements, 1750-2005. Boulder,
CO:
Paradigm
Mies, Maria 1986 Patriarchy
and accumulation on a world scale : women in the
international division of
labour , London: Zed Books
Milkman, Ruth, Stephanie Luce and Penny Lewis 2013 “Changing
the subject: a bottom-up
account of Occupy
Wall Street in New York City” CUNY:
The Murphy Institute
Moghadam, Valentine M. 2005 Globalizing
Women: Transnational Feminist Networks. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
___________________2012. “Anti-systemic Movements Compared.” In Routledge
International
Handbook of World-Systems Analysis , edited by
Salvatore J. Babones and
Christopher Chase-Dunn New York: Routledge.
Morrow, Felix 1974 [1936] Revolution and Counter-revolution in Spain. New York: Pathfinder
Press.
Poppendieck, Janet. 1999. Sweet Charity?: Emergency Food and the End of Entitlement. New York:
Penguin
Patomaki, Heikki 2008 The Political Economy of Global Security. New York: Routledge.
Picketty, Thomas 2014 Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Pleyers,
Geoffrey. 2010. Alter-Globalization.
Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Reitan, Ruth 2007 Global
Activism. London: Routledge.
___________. 2012a. “Introduction: Theorizing
and Engaging the Global Movement:
From Anti-Globalization to Global Democratization.” Globalizations
Volume 9,
Number 3: 323-335.
___________. 2012b. “Coalescence of the Global Peace and Justice Movements.”
Globalizations
Volume 9, Number 3: 337-350.
____________
and Shannon Gibson 2012 “Climate change or
Social Change?
Environmental and Leftist
Praxis and Participatory Action Research” Globalizations
9,3:395-410.
Revolutionary
Communist Party 2010 Constitution for the
New Socialist Republic in North America.
Chicago: RCP Publications
Robinson, William I 1996 Promoting Polyarchy:
Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
______________2013 “Policing the global crisis” Journal of World-Systems Research Volume
19, Number 2:193-197
________________2006 Latin America and Global Capitalism.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University
Press.
______________2014 Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity.
Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Press.
Rose, Fred 2000 Coalitions Across the Class Divide: Lessons
from the Labor, Peace, and Environmental
Movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Santos, Boaventura de
Sousa 2006 The Rise of the Global Left London: Zed Press.
Schaefer, Robert K. 2014 Social Movements and Global Social Change: The Rising Tide. Lanham,
MD:
Rowman and Littlefield
Silver, Beverly. 2003. Forces of Labor: Workers’ Movements and Globalization since 1860.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
Sklair, Leslie.
2001. The Transnational Capitalist Class.
Malden, MA: Blackwell
Smith, Jackie and Dawn Weist
2012 Social Movement in the World-System
New York: Russell-Sage
Smith, Jackie, Marina Karides,
Marc Becker, Dorval Brunelle, Christopher Chase-Dunn,
Donatella
della Porta, Rosalba Icaza Garza, Jeffrey S. Juris, Lorenzo Mosca,
Ellen
Reese,
Peter Jay Smith and Rolando Vazquez 2014 Global
Democracy and the World
Social Forums. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Publishers; Revised 2nd edition.
Snow, David A. and Sarah A. Soule 2009 A Primer on Social Movements New York:
Norton.
Stäbler, Anne-Sophie 2014 “An
analytical reflection on global civil society”
Standing, Guy. 2011. The
Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. New York:
Bloomsbury Academic.
____________2014
A
Precariat Charter : From
Denizens to Citizens New
York: Bloomsbury
Starr, Amory. 2000. Naming the Enemy: Anti-corporate
Movements Confront Globalization. London: Zed Books.
Steger, Manfred, James Goodman and Erin K. Wilson 2013 Justice Globalism: Ideology, Crises, Policy.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Struna, Jason 2013 “Global Capitalism and Transnational Class Formation” Globalizations
10,5: 651-658
Sworakowski, Witold
S. 1965 The Communist International and Its Front Organizations. Stanford,
Calif., Hoover Institution
on War, Revolution, and Peace.
Tarrow, Sidney 2005 The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge
University Press
Tattersall, Amanda 2010 Power
in Coalition: Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Van der Veer,
P. 2002 “Colonial cosmopolitanism” Pp. 165-179 in S. Vertovec
and R.
Cohen
(eds) Conceiving Cosmopolitanism New York:
Oxford University Press
Van Dyke, Nella 2003“Crossing movement
boundaries: Factors that facilitate coalition protest by
American
college students,1930-1990.” Social Problems 50(2):226–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.226
Van Dyke, Nella and Holly J McCammon (eds.)
2010 Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and
Social
Movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Yanacopulos, Helen 2007 “Cutting the Diamond:
Networking Economic Justice”
paper presented
at the Institute for International, Comparative, and Area Studies
(IlCAS), University of California, San Diego, 25-27
January.
________________ and Matt Baillie Smith. 2008 “The Ambivalent Cosmopolitanism of
International NGOs.” Pp. 298-315 in Anthony Bebbington, Samual Hickey and
Diana Mitlin
(eds.) Can NGOs Make a Difference? The
Challenge of Development
Alternatives, London: ZED Books
Wagar, W. Warren 1992 A Short
History of the Future. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974 The Modern World-System, Volume 1. New York: Academic
Press
_________________1990 “Antisystemic
movements: history and dilemmas” in
Transforming the Revolution edited by Samir Amin, Giovanni Arrighi, Andre Gunder
Frank
and Immanuel Wallerstein. New York: Monthly Review Press.
_________________2004 World-Systems Analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press
Waterman, Peter “Toward a global labour
charter for the 21st century” http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/4278.html
Wright, Erik O. 2010 Envisioning Real Utopias. London: Verso
World Party Web Site http://wsarch.ucr.edu/archive/praxis/wp/index.htm
Zald, Mayer N and John D. McCarthy 1987 “Social
movement industries: competition and
conflict”
Pp. 161-184 in Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy
(eds.) Social Movements
in and Organizational Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.