BHRIGUPATI SINGHthe most revered anticolonial leaders in world history. But matters are rarely so straight-
forward. Consider the first line of Thoreau’s ‘‘Civil Disobedience,’’ often quoted by Gan-
dhi: ‘‘I heartily accept the motto,—‘That government is best which governs least.’ ’’^37 Does
the opposition to contemporary neo-liberalism hinge on a generalized demand for a re-
turn to national protectionism? It would seem so listening to several key participants of
the WSF, such as the Brazilian and the Indian organized left, or Jose Bove and the Via
Campesina group from France. Would Gandhi and Thoreau, then, seem neo-liberal in
comparison? (And what significance does the phrase ‘‘self-reliance’’ have, in Emerson’s
inflection of it?) Keep in mind that, with the mutual implication of sense and nonsense,
the same phrases can also be empty, or poisonous. (A finance minister, for instance,
announces a cut in agricultural subsidies, declaring that it will ‘‘foster self-reliance.’’) The
problem would hinge on what it means to be governed ‘‘least.’’ At the bare minimum,
one could say that the efforts of the WSF are directed toward ensuring some form of
accountability, or care, or the possibility of upward mobility, for those who find them-
selves on the receiving end of large-scale, profit-oriented economic processes.
But a trickier problem arises here regarding NGOs and international activists, the
other relatively distinct set of major players internal to the WSF, alongside the organized
left. Consider that, alongside its predatory qualities, neo-liberalism also produces an inter-
national welfare mechanism. The World Bank itself funds large-scale initiatives in social
forestry, health, education, and disaster management, through both national governments
and NGOs. Are these to be entirely mistrusted? (In Gandhian or Emersonian terms, as
we have been describing them, the question would return to a consideration of a ‘‘way of
life,’’ although that would be a digression at this point). Whatever the case may be, it
would seem harder to organize a protest against a global ‘‘poverty alleviation’’ or ‘‘corpo-
rate social responsibility’’ program. A more obdurate radical might say that these are mere
discharge mechanisms, the palliative measures of capitalism, gently releasing tensions,
rather than letting them build up (although the question would arise, build up toward
what?). If one gives up the idea of a final, decisive battle to redeem this earth, once and
for all (re-read the lyrics of ‘‘The Internationale’’), then, we could ask, in what way are
recurrent tensions built up, and how are they discharged? A state of equilibrium in one
milieu might be the result of a great strain on another. This becomes particularly germane
when we consider that many of our daily requirements, say, petroleum or wheat, are
fulfilled by intense pressure on finite resources, often necessitating transfers over great
distances. How does one disrupt the ordinariness of a society that has lost the tools, or
gained too many, by which to estimate its own needs and the effects it is having on others
and on itself, and on the earth as a whole? Secularism is supposed to be the realm of
doubt, but no faith is stronger, or less prone to actual skepticism among its adherents
today, than neo-liberal democracy.
What is a faith? A translatable and mobile set of bodily practices, habits, modes of
dress and social organization, the direction of thought, forms of leisure, the training of
PAGE 380380.................16224$ CH19 10-13-06 12:35:53 PS