With the introduction of neoliberalism from the 1980s onwards and the reversal of the development agenda a decade later, a new dichotomy emerged. All those concerned with what was then called ‘the Third World’ were divided into two categories: those who, in line with the old agenda, were still striving for a better world and thought in terms of North-South relations and geopolitics stood in contrast to those who became more pragmatic and focused on local and achievable agendas. The world-improvers versus the life-improvers.

Where do we stand today, thirty-five years later?

The life-improvers certainly have a great deal of positive results to show. A village that now has a small school or a hospital, clean fuel, food security—you name it. The many initiatives in both the North and South involving the commons and/or the social and solidarity economy have the great advantage of helping people directly, empowering them and enabling them to escape poverty. Through cooperatives, local production, democratic participation, and co-determination, that better world can be created on a small scale.

The world’s do-gooders are nowhere to be seen. The vast bloodshed caused by the brutal wars in Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, Sudan, Lebanon, eastern Congo, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and the many other conflicts around the world is enough to make one’s heart sink. All the already imperfect rules devised after the Second World War to maintain peace have been thrown overboard. Lives no longer matter. Some countries can bomb, occupy, and sanction other countries with impunity.

The power dynamics between North and South, which were slowly but steadily reshaped—from Bandung to BRICS—seem to have been reduced in one fell swoop to a ‘friend’ and ‘foe’ dichotomy. You are either on our side or you are not. Today, it is not the rich countries fighting amongst themselves; it is rich against poor and poor against other poor. Diplomacy and negotiation have become dirty words; conflicts are now fought out with weapons.

Add to that the rapidly advancing climate change that causes more forest fires and floods year after year. More and more ‘tipping points’ are being crossed without humanity taking stock of it. We simply carry on with our lives, because ‘it’s not my stove that will make the difference.'

The fact that, in the meantime, both poverty and, even more so, inequality continue to grow is barely noticed and does not trouble the affluent class. We have the SDGs; our consciences are soothed. Even the World Bank supports ‘social protection,' so isn’t it simply a matter of time before everyone can lead a decent life?

The do-gooders of the world have lost the battle. And because the life-improvers carry on working pragmatically and realistically, showcasing their results in glossy brochures every year, a widespread sense of satisfaction, indifference, and powerlessness is taking hold in rich countries. We’re doing what we can. We’re doing a good job.

No alternatives

Anyone who consults the literature on ‘development’ will read a great deal about all manner of 'alternatives,' ‘radical ecology,' ‘radical democracy,' ‘towards a new civilization' … either utterly utopian and unachievable or within reach and therefore acceptable. Most of these 'alternatives,' however, also apply at the local level and change little or nothing about the battlefield that is the world today. A ‘new multilateralism,' certainly, but are there any countries willing to stick their necks out for it?

The search for a global alternative is hampered by the sharp criticism of anything deemed ‘Western’ or potentially inspired by it. Decolonial thinking has yielded a wealth of new and useful insights but is itself often highly Eurocentric, attributing all evil to that single white source. It overlooks the ‘agency’ of the Global South, the sources of inspiration provided by that same oppressed South, and the exchange of knowledge and insights that has existed all along, despite all the cruelties and oppression of colonization.

Within the Marxist tradition, differences of opinion and sectarianism are never far away. People often cling to an analysis that is undoubtedly the best for understanding capitalism but that offers no further framework for understanding and changing the digital world of the 21st century. As Walter Weyns explained, an ‘expert’ is still needed to present the ‘correct interpretation’ to the followers. It is painful when an international antifa conference is organized and, once again, the various factions of the left make it difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a common analysis.

It is equally painful when non-Marxist thinkers present their often highly valuable analyses, only to be rejected outright. I am thinking of Karl Polanyi and the Lisbon Group at the time with their study on the limits of competition. I am thinking of Thomas Piketty’s ‘incorrect definitions' and of the harsh criticism following the death of Jürgen Habermas. As if these thinkers had not made useful contributions to understanding and changing the world.

Denis Clerc, one of the founders of the excellent French journal ‘Alternatives économiques,' wrote a doctoral thesis at the age of ninety on the thinkers of the nineteenth century, those who remained in Marx’s shadow. It is highly enriching and often innovative literature that could genuinely help us move forward. Just think of Flora Tristan, who inspired Marx himself.

Solidarity and good intentions

I received a request from the United States to respond to a proposal for a possible ‘social strike’ against authoritarian governments. Given the weakness of the trade unions in the US, such a broader action might stand a better chance.

That is undoubtedly true, but what is it that people want to achieve? To bring down a government and replace it with what? Have people forgotten how the Arab Spring ended in Tunisia and Egypt? And now that war is being waged against Iran, how did the ayatollahs come to power? And how is Gen Z being used today by political forces that prefer to work behind the scenes?

In short, there are certainly good ideas circulating, but have they been sufficiently thought through?

It is particularly heartening to see how much solidarity there is in all our societies. The many campaigns for Gaza, for Cuba, the reception of Ukrainian refugees, you name it. So there is certainly great potential for action in all our countries. And yet … nothing changes. All these initiatives, the best we have to offer, do not lead to political action; the widespread resistance to existing policies results in protests against minor aspects of those policies. We are angry about the bombing of a girls’ school in Iran and at the same time wonder where we can still fill up with cheap petrol. Powerlessness coupled with a dose of indifference. Meanwhile, European governments cloak themselves in a thick cloud of hypocrisy and inaction.

And on the rare occasions when resistance is actually channelled, such as at the World Social Forum, people are afraid of becoming ‘political’ themselves. It remains a festival of ‘civil society,' utterly harmless.

So what then?

Change can come about in many different ways. It can happen through a well-thought-out strategy, a sudden event or gradual adjustments, or through external intervention in a country, to name but a few possibilities.

It is certainly always good to know where one is heading. For the left, this today generally goes no further than 'Down with capitalism.' And for the Greens, 'Down with growth.' Can change still come from the ‘old left,' however detestable capitalism may be?

Intersectional thinking has already yielded many new insights. There is, of course, a conflict of interests between North and South, but above all there is a global class conflict that cannot be resolved without simultaneously considering the climate or gender equality.

With the current shift from neoliberalism towards authoritarianism and even fascism, a broad section of society is being sidelined, the middle classes are under threat, and a filthy-rich oligarchy dictates what the political class can and may do. There are countless examples of financial and other forms of intervention in elections, and it appears that it was Chevron that suggested to Trump that Delcy Rodriguez might as well remain in power in Venezuela.

A better world certainly requires more than what a social and solidarity-based economy can achieve. A framework is needed in which that economy can take its rightful place. For we need both those who seek to improve the world and those who seek to improve lives.

Can we learn to think differently? What is needed is a world in which we can live together, not merely as friends, but as friends and enemies who realize that they must inevitably coexist. It is a world in which compromises and conflict-resolution mechanisms are sought, a world in which processes that are harmful by definition are eliminated, regulated, and tamed.

For more than twenty years now, work has been underway to improve the UN’s multilateral framework. It is time to turn all that work into something very concrete and to reaffirm certain elements of that common framework: the equality and equal rights of all people.

One of the harmful processes is undoubtedly what is today called the ‘global casino,' the financial capitalism that has colonized every aspect of our daily lives, from food to housing and pensions. Mechanisms are available to address this, just as the shameful levels of inequality can be curbed. In her latest book, Ann Pettifor offers concrete proposals on how this can be achieved. Polanyi teaches us how markets can be embedded within society. For we need not allow ourselves to be poisoned by pesticides in our food.

How can political legitimacy be restored? Can politics regain its noble purpose of caring for the whole, with a genuine democracy offering a voice and a say to everyone?

It is no coincidence that some populist initiatives, such as those of Pim Fortuyn or Volodymyr Zelensky, approached their public with ‘at your service’—we are here to work for you, society. There are, of course, other mechanisms possible: public services with accessible and affordable healthcare, social housing, and income and care security for everyone. A great deal of thought is still needed on this point, for it is certain that today’s welfare states will not survive the crisis. The trade unions play a vital role in this as the only enduring organized social force, but they too will have to re-examine their role.

Neoliberalism has polarized society, but under liberalism, the underprivileged were still supported. This is disappearing under authoritarianism; today, there remains only contempt—and racism—for the underprivileged in society—'They'll just have to adapt.' Social Darwinism is resurfacing: 'They might as well disappear; the strongest will survive.' People are being humiliated and spat upon. This causes material wounds, but above all psychological wounds that populism seeks to heal. That is why not only material redistribution is needed, but above all, people must reclaim their dignity. If people are not economically embedded, they will strive for a cultural identity.

This means away with the facile and empty slogans, not because they are wrong but because they do not help us one iota. Down with capitalism and imperialism! Long live the revolution! Long live socialism! That last term has been so delegitimized and reviled in large parts of the world that it no longer holds any appeal. This, of course, says nothing about what a socialist policy might look like. It is no coincidence that in Mexico the talk is mainly of ‘humanism’ in the context of a social-democratic policy that buries neoliberalism.

Today, the processes of change are in the hands of the right. How this can be changed again is the key question for all progressives, for young people whose world it is and must be. The emancipation of people remains an urgent task that can only be achieved within a common framework. Within such a framework, diversity can be nurtured. It is a global task.

We must hope that a disaster does not have to happen first before the vast potential that is available is realized