By Éric Toussaint
The currently dominant trend, imposed for some 25-30 years, consists of the continuation of the neoliberal and imperialist capitalist offensive. These policies apply in both the more industrialized and developing countries.
Two great opposing trends are at work on the international stage
Although very weak on a world scale, an opposite movement, whose epicenter is in Latin America, has developed since the late 1990s. This opposite trend is expressed in several ways: the election of presidents who proclaim a break with neoliberalism (a cycle that began with the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998) or at least a correction thereof: the suspension of the payment of the external public debt with private creditors by Argentina from the end of December 2001 to March 2005; the adoption of new democratic constitutions by the constituent assemblies of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador; the consolidation of civil and political rights and progress in economic, social and cultural rights; the beginning of the recovery of public control of large state companies (Venezuelan oil - PDVSA),  of natural resources (water, oil and natural gas in Bolivia) and essential services (production / distribution of electricity and telecommunications in Venezuela); the failure of the FTAA (a free trade agreement that Washington intended to impose on all of America); the launch of ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas) and the development of trade and exchange agreements between Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia; the strengthening of Petrocaribe, which allows non-oil-exporting Caribbean countries to buy Venezuelan oil at a 40% discount with respect to the world market price; Bolivia's departure from CIRDI (or ICSID, International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes), World Bank tribunal; the expulsion of the permanent representative of the World Bank in Ecuador; the announcement of the end of the US base in Manta (Ecuador) scheduled for 2009; the launch of the Bank of the South.
This counter-trend would be inconceivable without the great popular mobilizations that in Latin America have opposed the neoliberal offensive of the 1980s (April 1985 in Santo Domingo, February 1989 in Caracas) and that later erupted periodically in various corners of the planet. The survival of Cuba, despite the blockade and the aggressions of Washington, has also contributed to the birth of this counter-trend, because it is a living example of the possibility of confronting the world's leading economic and military power. in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan it also plays a fundamental role, because it makes it difficult for the United States to carry out a direct military intervention in Latin America while it has to maintain a very important expeditionary force in the Middle East and Central Asia. 
We are at the gates of 2015, the year in which the timid Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) must be achieved  set by the United Nations in September 2003: we are barely a few years apart and the outlook is very disturbing.
Obviously, the living conditions of a significant part of the world's population are degrading, both in the most industrialized countries and in other parts of the planet. This degradation concerns income, employment, health, food, the environment, education and access to culture. It also concerns the application of the fundamental rights of individuals, either as individuals or as collectivities. The degradation is manifest at the level of ecological balances, in relations between States and peoples, with recourse to military aggression by the great powers. The United States is not the only aggressor, it has allies in Europe, where several countries participated - or are still participating - in the aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan. Without forgetting the State terrorism exercised by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people, in particular, and the intervention of the Russian authorities against the Chechen people.
The episodes of barbarism are presented every day before our eyes
Goods, services, capital and information circulate unhindered on the planetary level, while the inhabitants of impoverished countries are prevented from going to rich countries. Granting capital and merchandise total freedom of movement and denying it to human beings constitutes an expression of contemporary barbarism.
In Western Europe and the United States, what is particularly disgusting is the denial of justice to asylum seekers.
It is particularly disheartening to hear from so many political leaders, even from the left, accredit the idea that it is not possible to accept all the misery in the world and that, therefore, according to this perspective, it is ultimately legitimate to reject the right of asylum en masse in Northern countries, rather than collectively expel people deprived of this right or prohibit them from entering the national territory. Think of the people killed by bullets trying to get around the European Union barriers in the Spanish enclaves in Morocco in 2005. Think of the thousands of people who lose their lives trying to cross the Strait of Gibraltar or to reach the islands Canary Islands. These facts are obviously not typical of Europe. We know what happens on the southern border of the United States, on the Rio Grande.
Meanwhile, the concentration of wealth for the benefit of a tiny minority of the world's population reaches heights never equaled in the history of mankind. Some thousands of American, European, Chinese, Indian, and African capitalists concentrate a fortune greater than the annual income of half the inhabitants of the planet. This too is barbarism.
The gulf between rich countries and poor countries is constantly deepening. It is something unacceptable.
These forms of degradation of this denial of justice cannot be annulled if the political course is not reversed.
2015 is the deadline for too modest millennium goals, none of which point to the root of the problems: inequality in the distribution of wealth  and the logic of private profit. In many countries, not only is there no approach to the millennium goals, but there is also a departure from them. This fact is very disturbing and, of course, it is necessary to ask whether there are sufficiently powerful forces capable of counteracting the current historical trend.
This trend dates back more than thirty years, that is, a whole human generation. Pinochet's military coup in Chile in 1973 served as a laboratory for the application of neoliberal policies that progressively became general in Western Europe —with Margaret Thatcher in 1979—, in North America — during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, from 1981 to 1988 — and on the rest of the planet, especially with the capitalist restoration in Russia and China.
The advent of historical opposition forces
Are there historical forces capable of opposing this progressive domination of neoliberalism? The answer is yes. While for some the origin was the battle of Seattle against the WTO in 1999, it seems more appropriate to consider many other earlier dates as milestones on the path of resistance to neoliberal globalization. In this sense, the year 1989 is important: at the beginning, this date was perceived only as the year of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which by the way has historical importance. The fall of the wall corresponded to the end of the caricature of socialism that was the Stalin bureaucratic regime, a wild version of socialism, which is an emancipatory project. But 1989 was also the year of the huge popular uprising in Venezuela, on February 27, against the application of the structural adjustment plan conceived by the IMF and the regime in power. The changes that have taken place in Venezuela for 10 years cannot be understood if this date, February 1989, is not taken into account. That same year the bicentennial of the French Revolution was commemorated and the impressive mobilization against the G7 took place. in Paris, under the banner of the struggle for the cancellation of the Third World debt. 
Second milestone in the growth of resistance to neoliberal capitalism: 1994. Three important events took place that year:
1. On January 1, 1994, the Zapatista rebellion broke out in Chiapas. In it an actor who has fought for centuries against the Spanish occupier and the oppressive regimes that succeeded him was manifested. This indigenous people (the Mayans) expressed fundamental demands. In a universal language he addressed the entire planet in the voice, above all, of Subcomandante Marcos. This fact far exceeds his person and his personal characteristics. It has become the expression of a deeper movement, as the Indians of Chiapas are not the only ones interested in this combat: those of Ecuador, joined especially within the Confederation of Indigenous Nations of Ecuador (CONAIE), and, In 2001, Evo Morales, an Aymara, a political and union leader, was the first indigenous leader elected president of a Latin American country. 
The year 1994 is thus marked by the explosion of the struggle of a native people who questioned the free trade agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, as well as the agrarian counter-reform imposed by the neoliberal president Carlos Salinas de Gortari.  The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) declared war on the Mexican government in a "peaceful" manner, without bloodshed. Specifically, the EZLN affirms: "We rebelled and took up arms, but we wish we didn't have to use them." It is not the last guerrilla experience of the 20th century, but the first experience of a new type of guerrilla movement of the 21st century.
2. Also in 1994, the 50th anniversary of the founding of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was "celebrated". The event was celebrated with an extraordinary concentration of protest in Madrid. This demonstration, whose slogan was "The other voices of the planet", later inspired French social movements that, in the mobilization against the G7 in Lyon in 1996, organized collectives with this name.  The Spanish initiative brought together NGOs, movements such as the "Platform 0.7", in which some young people fought for their country to allocate 0.7% of its GDP to public development aid, to the CADTM [9 ] as well as unions, feminist movements, environmentalists. Already then, on the occasion of this counter-summit, a series of movements joined forces that, later, would meet in Seattle in 1999, later in Porto Alegre in 2001, etc.
3. Third important moment of 1994: the outbreak of the «Tequila» crisis, again in Mexico. It should be remembered that in 1993-1994 there was talk of the Asian miracle, the Mexican miracle, the Czech miracle among the eastern countries. There was talk of emerging countries and great successes. The Tequila crisis shook all of Latin America. It was the beginning of a great financial crisis that hit Southeast Asia successively in 1997-1998, Russia in 1998, Brazil in 1999, Argentina and Turkey in 2000-2001.
Although 1989 marks the beginning of a massive and tenacious resistance throughout Latin America against neoliberal policies, 1994 constitutes a crucial moment in terms of the expression of new forms of resistance, new alliances, and the crisis of the liberal model, and 1999 made visible on a world scale and in real time the possibility of victoriously fighting against the WTO, a planetary organism that symbolizes the will to transform all human relationships into commodities. These milestones are part of a broader assembly of resistances, as well as social and political recomposition.
New resistance everywhere
In the course of the 1990s, after a first period led by the Pinochets, the Thatchers, the Reagans and others, new forms of resistance emerged in various corners of the globe. Thanks to various actors who spoke at the time, the void left by the crisis of the traditional labor movement began to be filled.
Under construction in the 19th century and consolidated later, little by little, the labor movement dominated the scene of the emancipation struggles in the 20th century in most of the countries of the planet. The struggles of the Resistance during the Second World War and Liberation, the conquests after the victory against Nazism and Fascism were largely led by this movement, supported by solid bastions of the industrial working class. Battered by the neoliberal offensive of the 70s and 80s, he entered into crisis. Almost all the leaderships of the large trade union organizations have become bureaucratized and adapted to the capitalist system to such a degree that they essentially act as a brake on struggles and radicalization. New unions emanating from splits of large traditional organizations play a role of goads but it is difficult for them to gain strength because they are opposed by powerful obstacles. Within the large unions, some sectors further to the left than the central bureaucracy also play a healthy role. That said, though weakened and anesthetized, public and private sector wage earners regularly engage in wide-ranging struggles. This is the case of Western Europe, where there are large social mobilizations in which the trade union movement actively participates (Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain…). Thus, in the autumn of 1995, in France, the wage earners set in motion and got rid of the prime minister, Alain Juppé, which in the clean and jerk caused Lionel Jospin to withdraw France from the hitherto secret negotiations on the Multilateral Investment Agreement (AMI), capturing an important project of the neoliberal offensive. This is also the case in several countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa and North America.
In this way, actors who until then remained in the shadows appeared in the 90s. It would be on the planetary stage where they would impose peasant movements: creation of the Landless Movement in 1984 in Brazil, formation of the international organization Via Campesina in 1982, emergence of the emblematic figure of José Bové from Seattle, consolidation of the union movement of the coraleros, coca growers, led by Evo Morales in Bolivia, and many struggles of peasant movements in India, South Korea and other places on the planet.
Who would have imagined in the 60s, in the industrialized countries, that the peasants were going to play the role of spur of the new anti-globalization fight? This movement has become an extremely important actor in the resistance to the neoliberal offensive and to the commodification of the world, to the patent of life. In particular, it has made claims on common goods: water, land, seeds ... These claims or these values are not new, but the way of presenting them is, because traditionally the conquests of Liberation, the consolidation of public services did not present the commons issue as a claimed objective. Although after the Second World War access to certain common goods had been improved, after the neoliberal offensive this access had deteriorated and the need for its defense, or its reconquest, was then understood.
Likewise, you have to take into account indigenous movements because the native peoples were also seen going on the offensive. In Bolivia, for example, from the 1940s to the 1960s, the vanguard of the Bolivian people were the mining Indians and their unions. Having closed a large part of the mines in the 1980s, it was mainly these Indians-turned-coca growers and their unions that constituted a movement that was both peasant and indigenous. Miners, retired or having lost their jobs, have been seen to face common with the indigenous peasants: a new alliance was established.
One could also speak of women's movement launched with the World March of Women in the year 2000; of various youth movements that acquired great amplitude in the early 2000s (Peru,  | Mexico,  | United States,  | Italy,  Spain,  | France,  | Greece, [ 16] Chile,  etc.)
Among the new forces are also the "new proletarians" or new excluded. The riots of the banlieues of France in November 2005 (which had a slight extension in Belgium and Germany) and, to a lesser extent, at the end of November 2007 they were a revolt of new proletarians. It is not about those who are exploited in a factory in an industrial setting, although a part of them are. The youth from the peripheries who rose up in the autumn of 2005 are proletarians in the full sense of the term: they do not own their work tools, they must try to rent their arms and brains to live and support their family. They live in precarious conditions and are often victims of racism.
A challenge: union with the rebels
The youth of the banlieues they are a kind of new proletariat that seeks and finds ways to express itself with suitable modes of action. The form this revolt takes (hundreds or thousands of burning private cars) can be regretted, but it constitutes a fundamental challenge for organized citizen movements, for union movements, to be able to make an alliance with this type of rebellion. It is not easy, but in the fragmented scenario in which we live, if this alliance is not carried out, it is not seen how, in the countries of the North, the actors who oppose the neoliberal offensive could really win. In Western European or North American countries, those who are lucky enough to have a job or a guaranteed retirement and the energy to fight because they are still in top shape (people who reached retirement age 40 or 50 years ago , they did not have the same possibilities) they have to promote a new social alliance. If wage earners between 20 and 60 years of age and retirees from organized sectors do not find the means to make an alliance together with the voiceless, with the new proletarians, to constitute a powerful protest movement, of a fundamental questioning of society, it will be difficult, in the most industrialized countries, to make a radical change.
Indeed, a change always depends largely on the young generation, the one in schools, in the universities, the one who is out of work or already working. The youth expressed themselves victoriously in France in the framework of the movement against the CPE (first job contract) in the spring of 2006, and also expressed themselves in the banlieues.
Multiple revolutionary upheavals have rocked the world since the 18th century
In the 18th and 19th centuries, great revolutionary upheavals occurred in various parts of the planet. The revolutions of the late 18th century in France, North America and Haiti that had considerable and lasting international repercussion, especially in Latin America, where the wars of independence broke out in the early 19th century. In 1848, the revolutionary explosion spread through several countries in Europe. Three years later, it was China's turn. In 1851 the rebellion of the Taiping against the Qing dynasty began. « From the earliest days they proceeded to redistribute land, emancipating women and preaching a form of communities in which certain commentators have subsequently wanted to see a form of indigenous socialism."Says historian Christopher Bayly.  A few years later, in 1857, a rebellion against the British occupation broke out in India. Started by the mutiny of the sepoys, indigenous soldiers integrated into the Bengal army and the East India Company, the rebellion lasted two years and took radical forms. While the European governments agreed to suppress the revolutionary wave in Europe, while London crushed the rebellion in India and together with Washington offered the Chinese power their help to quell the Taiping revolution, on the side of the non-peoples. there was as yet no international organization capable of relating these struggles to each other in order to reinforce them.
Shortly before the spring of 1848, in the course of which a true European revolutionary dynamic developed, Karl Marx had launched ' a specter runs through Europe"He was referring to communism. With Friedrich Engels and various political forces he launched the creation of the International Association of Workers. From the middle of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th century, four Internationals were created. 
In the 20th century, revolutions shocked Russia in 1905 and 1917; Mexico in 1910-1917; Germany between 1918 and 1923; Italy in 1918-1919; Spain in 1934 and 1936; China in 1949; Cuba in 1959; Algeria in 1954-1962; Nicaragua in 1979, etc. The neoliberal offensive and capitalist restoration in the former Soviet bloc and in China have greatly reduced the revolutionary prospect. But the pockets of resistance to neoliberalism and capitalism were not extinguished. In the 1990s, a resistance movement emerged that has managed to internationalize.
The World Social Forum process
The new emerging alliance is manifested in part in the process of the World Social Forum, which has new characteristics with respect to the international organizations of the left of the preceding historical periods. It is clearly less radical than the four internationals established in the last two centuries. The trauma caused by the bureaucratic degeneration of twentieth-century socialist experiences, from the gulag to capitalist restoration in the bloc of "real socialism" has a lot to do with it. The force of the neoliberal offensive must also be taken into account. The World Social Forum constitutes a milestone in the constitution of a vast international resistance movement, which is in full evolution. This movement is heteroclite and lacks an epicenter. Not all components of multiform resistance are necessarily recognized in the World Social Forum.
There is nothing miraculous about the World Social Forum
That said, the World Social Forum should not be analyzed solely in its innovative and positive aspects, because it has limitations that are increasingly evident. First of all, as has been said before, it does not represent the entire set of global resistance movements. Two examples: the Zapatistas in Mexico do not participate in the Forum; resistance struggles in China have no relationship with the Forum. Furthermore, the notion of alternative strategy is only in its infancy and the old debate between reformists and revolutionaries has not ended. Should we break with the system or just improve it and make it apply regulatory mechanisms with a humanized capitalism? This debate is always present and will surely resume with energy. You can divide the movement that is currently the expression of an alliance of different movements, more or less radical, on the basis of a letter of principles. [twenty]
In general, these movements agree on a series of basic demands that go from the Tobin tax to the cancellation of the Third World debt, passing through the fight against tax havens, the rejection of patriarchy, the will for peace and disarmament, the right to sexual diversity ... But if you agree to fight together on these demands, how can we achieve these objectives, not to mention other more fundamental and radical goals? This other possible world that we proclaim and that we would like to see realized without delay so that the new generations can really live it (not just dreaming about it or proclaiming the desire) what is it? Strategic discussions must be held to this end. We cannot ignore it. A negative evolution is on the way to mortgaging the future of the WSF. The success of the various world meetings, which brought together tens of thousands of participants and delegates each time (in some cases, more than 100,000 participants, as in Mumbai in 2004 and Porto Alegre in 2006), transformed a part of the protagonists in event organizers and fundraisers. His vision of the alternative is largely limited to the humanization of neoliberal globalization. Social movements and international campaigns themselves, permeated by the debates between radicals and moderates, do not have sufficient weight in terms of the future of the WSF. The mountain is in danger of giving birth to a mouse and the WSF that of getting bogged down in organizing a succession of meetings.
Where can change come from?
Among the forces acting in favor of change, resistance movements are manifested in all geographical sectors of the planet, even in a country that is, for the moment, completely outside the social forum process: China. This country is on the way to being the scene of extremely important struggles, which do not cease to remember the period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Faced with a savage capitalism, there are emerging forms of worker and citizen resistance that evoke those that Europe and America knew a century ago. A fundamental difference is likely to make the birth of a revolutionary project in China more difficult: both socialism and communism suffer tremendous discredit, because it has been in their name that the authorities have ruled the country until now. The discredit that weighs on socialism is terrible, the loss of references is evident and the aversion towards politics can be long-lasting.
In fact, the much-desired change can come from anywhere in the world.
Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador: actors of change
But if there is talk of a revolutionary change, at this moment the South seems to be a more propitious framework than the North. What today seems to be the most innovative and could bring us closer to great changes are the Venezuelan, Bolivian and, more recently, Ecuadorian experiences. Of course, they must be analyzed critically and not idealized. Deviations are possible, the risk of not heading towards a true redistribution of wealth haunts these experiences, which are subject to strong resistance from capitalists both from within and from abroad, not counting the pressure of the governments of the most industrialized countries. and of his allies in the region (the regimes of Álvaro Uribe in Colombia and Alan García in Peru). These three experiences are not limited to the role of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa, although their figures are important. So far they represent a positive role in the process and are the expression of powerful movements underway in their respective countries. For Evo Morales would not be where he is without the great mobilizations of Cochabamba in April 2000 against the privatization of water, and the even broader movement of January-February and October 2003 against the privatization of natural gas. Chávez would not have acceded to the presidency in 1998 if there had not been the huge revolt against the IMF in 1989 and the vigorous resistance of Venezuelans. Rafael Correa would not have been elected without the preceding ten years of struggle, which caused the downfall of four right-wing presidents. [twenty-one]
All three are an example because the movement found expression in them on the government side. The three governments have taken the initiative from the point of view of the commons: the Bolivian regained control of gas, oil and water, the Venezuelan assured public control of oil production and put the oil rent at the service of a new social project within the framework of a regional redistribution. Venezuela signed agreements with non-exporting countries in the region and sells hydrocarbons to them at a lower price than the international market. On the other hand, Cuba, which contributed 20,000 doctors who work voluntarily in Venezuela to provide free health care to the population, has developed very interesting cooperative relations with this country and with Bolivia. It is a form of barter between these countries, endowed with different capacities, different histories and different political models. Ecuador is in the process of constitutional reform, which can lead to a significant advance in democracy in the country. In turn, the Ecuadorian president repeatedly affirmed his willingness to question the payment of illegitimate debts and to set up a comprehensive audit commission of the external and internal public debt.
The experience of these three Andean countries is not really without interest. The reference to the combat of Simón Bolívar  marks the will to relate the current experience with the revolutionary actions of the past, establishing them in the Latin American reality. Se percibe también una decidida voluntad de reivindicar las luchas de emancipación libradas por los pueblos nativos, especialmente la rebelión encabezada por Túpac Amaru,  así como tuvo a su frente a Túpac Catari.  En fin, el aporte de los africanos a la riqueza cultural de países como Venezuela, Bolivia  y Ecuador es reconocido cada vez más.
Torcer el curso de la historia a favor de la emancipación de los oprimidos
¿De dónde pueden provenir las fuerzas capaces de invertir el curso de los últimos treinta años? Unas experiencias ejemplares, tales como las de Venezuela, de Bolivia y de Ecuador, confluirán otras de América del Norte, de Europa, de África y de Asia. Esta conjunción de las fuerzas del viejo mundo con las del nuevo podría producir un verdadero giro del curso de la historia. Dicho esto, nada está garantizado. Por ello la importancia de que cada uno de nosotros participe en las acciones ciudadanas.
Hacia el socialismo del siglo XXI
No es necesario creer en el desmoronamiento del capitalismo o en la victoria de un proyecto revolucionario para actuar cada día y resistir a las denegaciones de justicia. En la historia no hay nada ineluctable. El capitalismo no se derrumbará por sí mismo. Incluso si una nueva gran experiencia revolucionaria no sea para mañana, es razonable imaginar que volvemos a partir hacia experiencias de tipo socialista que conjuguen libertad e igualdad. Esta idea no goza en absoluto de unanimidad en el movimiento altermundialista del Foro Social Mundial, pero somos muchos los que pensamos que hay que reinventar el socialismo en el siglo XXI.
Más allá de las experiencias traumáticas del siglo XX, más allá de la figura repelente del estalinismo, de lo que pasó en China o en Camboya con Pol-Pot, hay que reanudar el proyecto socialista de emancipación del siglo XIX y los valores revolucionarios del siglo XVIII y aún más lejos, pues las luchas de emancipación de los oprimidos jalonan la historia de la humanidad, de Espartaco a las luchas actuales, pasando por Túpac Amaru y los rebeldes afrodescendientes de Brasil encabezados por Zumbi. Se ha de tener en cuenta los nuevos aportes de múltiples actores y las nuevas reivindicaciones e insertar todo ello en la realidad del siglo XXI. El socialismo del siglo XXI es la unión libre de los productores, es la igualdad hombre/mujer, es un proyecto internacional, una federación de países y de regiones en el marco de grandes entidades continentales y del respeto de los textos fundamentales, de los pactos internacionales, tales como la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de 1948, el Pacto Internacional Relativo a los Derechos Sociales, Económicos y Culturales de 1966, de una serie de instrumentos para la definición de los derechos en el marco internacional y universal escritos y conquistados por las precedentes revoluciones. La concreción de estos derechos fundamentales no se podrá realizar más que con la aplicación creativa de un nuevo modelo de socialismo en el siglo XIX. Este siglo tiene aún más de nueve décadas por delante…
*Éric Toussaint – Febrero de 2008
 La dirección de la empresa pública Petróleo de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), creada a raíz de la nacionalización del petróleo venezolano en los años 70, había favorecido progresivamente los intereses privados y a Washington (en la medida en que una gran parte de los beneficios eran declarados en Estados Unidos por las filiales de PDVSA presentes en este país) hasta el momento en que el gobierno de Hugo Chávez retomó el control en 2001-2002.
 Eso no impide que Washington y varios gobiernos europeos traten de desestabilizar los gobiernos de Bolivia, Venezuela y Ecuador, en particular, apoyando a los sectores capitalistas que en estos países intentan provocar la secesión de los territorios ricos: la burguesía blanca de Santa Cruz en Bolivia, de Guayaquil en Ecuador, de Zulia en Venezuela. Hay que seguir de cerca esta estrategia de la tensión porque puede ganar amplitud. La mayoría de los media tienden a presentar la voluntad de secesión de estos territorios más ricos como el ejercicio de un derecho democrático de los pueblos, mientras que esta acción es manipulada por sectores minoritarios que se oponen a las reformas sociales, porque amenazan sus privilegios y su control del poder y del dinero.
 Para una presentación crítica de los ODM, ver Damien Millet y Eric Toussaint, 60 Questions/60 Réponses sur la dette, le FMI et la Banque Mondiale, CADTM-Syllepse, Lieja-París, 2008.
 Ver el capítulo 6, «Ecuador: los desafíos de la nueva constituyente y de la deuda», discurso del presidente Rafael Correa en las Naciones Unidas, que señala claramente lo inadecuadas que son las OMD.
 Las movilizaciones contra el G7 en París y por la anulación de la deuda se efectuaron en el marco de la campaña «Ça suffat commeci», que se encuentra en la base del nacimiento del CADTM.
 En realidad, Evo Morales tuvo un predecesor, Benito Juárez, presidente mexicano en los años 1860, que repudió la deuda pública externa, lo que le valió la intervención de los ejércitos europeos que impusieron en el poder al emperador Maximiliano de Austria.
 Apoyado por el Banco Mundial y el FMI, Salinas de Gortari había obtenido del Congreso mexicano la reforma de la Constitución mexicana para privatizar los bienes comunales (ejidos).
 También inspiró al Comité para la Anulación de la Deuda del Tercer Mundo (CADTM) el nombre de su revista, Les Autres Voix de la Planète.
| Ver el dossier del CADTM dedicado a la contracumbre en CADTM-GRESEA, Banque Mondiale, FMI, Organisation mondiale du Comerse: ça suffit! Periódico trimestral del CADTM, 3er trimestre 1995, pp 42-74.
 Las luchas estudiantiles en Perú provocaron la caída del dictador Alberto Fujimori en noviembre de 2000.
 Huelga en la universidad UNAM de México desde abril de 1999, que tuvo una duración de 10 meses.
 Luchas estudiantiles en los campus sobre temas sociales y fuerte participación en las movilizaciones antiglobalización y contra la guerra.
 Participación masiva de jóvenes en las movilizaciones antiglobalización y contra la guerra del 2000 al 2004.
 Luchas estudiantiles contra el contrato de primer empleo y diversas reformas universitarias. Lucha de los jóvenes de las banlieues.
 Luchas estudiantiles en los años 2006-2007 contra la privatización de la universidad.
| Luchas de los estudiantes de los liceos, apodados «pingüinos», contra el proyecto de reforma del gobierno socialista de Bachelet en el 2006.
 C.A. Bayly, La naissance du monde moderne (1780-1914), Les Editions de l’Atelier/Editions Ouvrières, París, 2007, p. 245. Según Bayly, la rebelión de los Taiping y la represión causaron 20 millones de muertos. China tenía en 1850 unos 450 millones de habitantes.
 La Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores (AIT), conocida como Primera Internacional, fue fundada en 1864 por iniciativa, principalmente, de Karl Marx y Friedrich Engels. Colectivistas llamados «antiautoritarios» (la corriente internacional de Mikhail Bakunin), colectivistas (marxistas), mutualistas (partidarios de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) se encontraban en ella. Militantes políticos, sindicalistas y cooperativistas colaboraban juntos. La I Internacional se fracturó después de la derrota de la Comuna de París en 1871. En sus estatutos de 1864 (redactados por Marx), la AIT afirmaba que «la emancipación de los trabajadores ha de ser obra de los propios trabajadores». La II Internacional fue fundada por iniciativa de F. Engels, principalmente, en 1889. Influenciada al principio por las ideas marxistas, evolucionó progresivamente hacia posiciones moderadas. Se alcanzó un punto de no retorno cuando los partidos políticos de la II Internacional adoptaron posiciones antagónicas en agosto de 1914 con ocasión del estallido de la primera guerra mundial. Aún existe con el nombre de Internacional Socialista, y la integran los principales partidos socialdemócratas, que van desde el SPD alemán al PSOE español, pasando por el partido del presidente tunecino Ben Alí (ver la página oficial de la Internacional Socialista, http://www.sociaslistinternational.org/maps/french/fafrica.htm ), el Partido Laborista de Israel, la Unión Cívica Radical de Argentina, el FSLN de Nicaragua, el PS francés, etc. La III internacional, fundada por Lenin en 1919 se convirtió gradualmente en un instrumento de la política exterior del régimen estalinista y fue disuelta por J. Stalin en 1943. (ver http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komintern ) La IV Internacional fue fundada en 1938 en Francia por Leon Trotsky ante la degeneración burocrática dictatorial de la URSS y la incapacidad de la III Internacional de luchar eficazmente contra el fascismo y el franquismo. Diversas organizaciones y corrientes internacionales, activas en la resistencia a la globalización, se reivindican de la IV Internacional (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuatriC3%%A8me_Internationale ; ver igualmente http://fr.wikipedia.org/ y www.inprecor.org/ ).
 Ver www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?cd_language=3&id_menu=4
 Abdalá Bucaram en febrero de 1997, Jamil Mahuad en enero de 2000, Gustavo Noboa en enero de 2003 y Lucio Gutiérrez en abril de 2005.
 Simón Bolívar (1783-1830) fue uno de los primeros que intentaron unificar los países de Latinoamérica para constituir una sola nación, unida e independiente. Después de una larga lucha logró liberar Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Bolivia de la dominación española. Considerado un héroe auténtico, su nombre se encuentra vinculado a muchos sitios de toda Latinoamérica.
 En el siglo xvi, el inca Túpac Amaru y sus partidarios combatieron sin desmayo a los conquistadores. Capturado por el ejército español, fue condenado a muerte y descuartizado en la plaza mayor de Cuzco, el 24 de septiembre de 1572.
 El aymará Túpac Katari (1750-1781) puso en pie un ejército de 40.000 combatientes que marcho sobre La Paz en 1781. A las autoridades coloniales les llevó dos años aplastar la sublevación, que gozaba de un amplio apoyo de la población indígena. Los ocupantes españoles lo ejecutaron por descuartizamiento. Antes de morir habría dicho: «A mí sólo me mataréis, pero mañana volveré y seré millones.» Su figura ha inspirado las luchas sociales bolivianas de los últimos años.
 Al respecto, ver el proyecto de Constitución aprobado por la asamblea constituyente en diciembre de 2007.