A submission from Turkey? Worth publishing for this alone. Otherwise check our friends in korotonomedya.

Salvation Isreal writes "

Anarchism and Leftism in Anti-Globalization Movements

Introduction

On November 30, 1999 there was something happening on the streets of Seattle, US. Unionists, students, environmentalists, young activists, socialists, anarchists and many others were on the streets against the global corporates. These ten thousands of activists got together and did not allow the participants of WTO to meet and decide about the future of this world. A world, that belongs to all of us. Once again we remembered Marx’s words: “A spectre is haunting Europe”. Today it’s not only Europe but also the whole world that the spectre is haunting.


Capitalism and with its recent form of regulatory mechanism led to many disasters including ecological disasters. What forms an intensified rally against globalization in the sense that it’s not only the cultures globalizing but also the capital thus the exploitation, is the feeling that something is wrong about it. People started to believe that TINA (There is no alternative) might somehow turn into TMA (there must be an alternative). Unfortunately, global capitalism failed to provide us the alternative with its exploitative mechanism on the third world such as WB, WTO or IMF. Hence, we the people should build up our own alternative.

Before running our own alternatives against the globalization, we should reconsider the roots that the movements stand on. Do we have feasible approaches to count on? This research is mainly focused on two different approaches to anti-globalization movements within this context: Anarchism, Leftism

First, the term globalization, used in this research, mainly refers to “global capitalism”. However, one may see a rigid opposition to globalization in leftism or anarchism, not only in the sense that it erodes the cultures in the name of capital accumulation but also it leads to social corruption. So both approaches consider the social values as being tortured.

Harvey asks what makes capitalism still live and prevail for so long. () Moreover, why does it turn into a form of global accumulation? Capital accumulation has three basic needs.

1-Geographical Expansion and its Possibilities

2-Spatial Reorganization

3-Uneven Geographical Development

Unless these are provided, there would not be an optimized and flexible accumulation. Explicitly, spatial reorganization today, means structural and cultural adjustment of the society. Uneven development is simply the gap between the poor and the rich both on an intra-national and inter-national scale. The other element of this form of capitalism (global) is geographical expansion and this is the synonym for globalization involving market integration throughout the globe.

The common point in the discourse of Anarchism and Leftism is that someone must stop this brakeless train. Globalization, with its strict provisions, inhumane repressions and harsh depressions, civilizes the mankind and harmonizes the behaviours, attitudes; moreover, ideologies with market mechanism. However, during these, it does not show respect to any cultural, religious or ethnical diversity. Today this brakeless train is controlled (!) by Neo-Liberals and imposed via the global institutions such as World Bank, IMF or WTO. All the groups oppose the way the globe is globalizing because the erosion of cultures in the name of market integration cannot necessarily mean the integration of cultures. Cultures are forced to bring themselves in line with the free-market rules at the expense of their extinction and the cultural entities must collapse as soon as possible for faster capital accumulation. The rhetoric quote, “All that is solid melts into air”, explains what I really mean.

********Anarchism as an Anti-Globalisation Movement*********

It would be so naive of one to ask whether anarchism is opposed to this type of Globalisation because this is not about the globalisation of the mankind nor the brotherhood of the human specie but it’s all about money. Neither the globalisation we experience today nor the millennium we’ve had is ours as Daniel Singer argued in his book “Whose millennium: theirs or ours?”. So I change the question with a little sense of humour. Why is the Anarchist Ideology opposed to “our” great opportunity-providing transformation? The complexity of the globalisation phenomenon makes it difficult to answer this question with a simple rhetorical quote. Thus, among the crucial matters for the Anarchist approach to globalisation below, I will concentrate my research especially authority, hierarchy and the state with their new meanings expressed in terms of global capitalism.

Hierarchy

Authority

Property

Liberty

State

Noam Chomsky, in one of his interviews argues that the intellectuals of the West and 3rd World are attracted to the Bolshevik counter-revolution because Leninism is, after all, a doctrine which says that the radical intelligentsia have a right to take state power and to run their countries by force, and that is an idea which is rather appealing to intellectuals. Here we see the distinction between anarchism and other leftist thoughts. There is a discrete separation between the Anarchists and Leftist. This conflict actually became the agenda of the 1st socialist international leading to continuous debates between Marx and Bakunin. The conflict was about the hierarchical structure of ideas. Bakunin, writing in the late nineteenth century, argued that the working class could not use state power to emancipate itself but must abolish the state.

There are different types of Anarchist thoughts, which I believe in that most are formed within the cultural attitudes of the societies. Individualist, Communist and Christian Anarchism are the most known types of this non-system whereas one also has to consider Anarcho-Syndicalists.

The Stamp on the 1st Socialist International was of those Bakuninists “the Communist-Anarchists”. Today as we globalise the earth and the system, Anarchism also changed. At those days of struggle (Before the Bolshevik Revolution) the enemies were the fascist states of the world and the bourgeois class. Nonetheless we do not have (I really doubt when I am saying this) real fascist states to bother about. However, this does not necessarily mean “the end of the history” or “the end of the struggle” for anarchism as Fukuyama argues in one his fabulous (!) articles. The worries of the Anarchism not stayed the same or decreased but actually increased dramatically. There is still a great hierarchical way of governing ourselves. There are still property-based societies and authority lovers. Thus, the mission for Anarchists has just begun.

The Last 30 Years of globalisation tells us a lot about the future life-style. This is why a comparison between today and the past becomes a must. Anarchists of the modern times experienced some empirical consequences of their ideas. Although for most of the people “Anarchy” equalled terror, the happenings in Spain before the fascist Franco’s military intervention had shown that Anarchism was a way of living, a way that could really be carried on. Today, it seems really impossible to experience it again with such a big scale that had been experienced in Spain once. This is not only because of the economic volume of today’s industries but also of people, who think they “own” something to sacrifice; their jobs, their cars, their houses. “Sacrifice” is the keyword that is injected into the blood of the people by the present system. One may argue that those in Spain, who lived and enjoyed the anarchist revolution, did not have Porsches, Computers, and Cellular Phones to give up. This sort of approach would neither be scientific nor be wise enough to understand the dynamics of today’s anarchism. The approach I will hold is rather using the past experiences to understand today and to predict about the future than comparing today’s world with the past.

-----Who are these groups?

The question of identification must be considered with respect to the historical basis (roots) of the recent phenomena. Most of the researchers avoid this kind of approach, over various types of issues, which I think would not be a polite way of analysing anarchism. Anarchism with a history of more than a century (and a history of ages maybe without the name anarchism) has evolved throughout century and formed a brand new ideology however it still involves a lot from most of its ideologists and thinkers.

Today’s young anarchist activist has little to do with the debates between the anarchists and the Marxists of the late nineteenth century. As time goes by and the world evolves, ideas also change within the social context of the life. Anarchism today mainly fights with the authority that is not national anymore. As the power of the capital arose, the need for resistance became important. Throughout the history, especially after the 19th century, the anarchists through different instruments have carried out this resistance. Since the recent enemy is a global one “the Capital”, the fight also needs to enlarge himself on a larger, moreover global scale.

From the beginning of 20s to 40s, anarchism (like the other similar radical ideas) was supplanted by Marxism. This is highly because of the Bolshevik Revolution that was carried out in Soviet Russia. The idea of a better, egalitarian system of living sounded like Marxism anyway. Thus Anarchism, in many countries, was a “skip-it” idea. Marxism would give the freedom. There are many examples who were once Anarcho-Syndicalists but later on became communists moreover became the leaders of the Communist Party of US. Hence anarchism was swept away by the enthusiasm of the Bolshevik Revolution. Soon after that, with Stalin, the left (including anarchists) saw the dictatorship of Georgian tyrant (but not the proletariat) and a powerful state that was based on the idea of public property and industrialization. During these days, some were admirers of the Soviet advances and development. Surely they were not anarchists since they always stood against any authority; be it leftist or fascist.

Anarchism rose again in the form of pacifism during Cold War. The raids against the Cold War were held by anarchists actually though they did not named themselves as anarchists. Also during 2nd world war; anarchists, that were called pacifists for short, held campaigns against war but the Communist Party of US supported the alliance against anti-fascists movements. Hence anarchism, which was left alone and without any leftist support and was very weakened. From then on anarchism seemed as if he was waiting for his day to come onto the surface after these state-left collaboration. This came at the 60s. The youth movements were against any kind of authority and hence the spirit of 60s could be named anarchic within the context of individual sovereignty. Thus Anarchism, though the name was not used often, played significant roles in people’s thoughts. What made things worse was the idea of a sharp and quick revolution demand of the left. People believed that the change could come suddenly. So there came out a tendency towards militarism and as we can all guess it was assumed to be the anarchists who wanted this. Thus, the late sixties became the era of dreams that were actually possible but not with the instruments used. Those times are actually not victorious if to consider the rise of global capital that started to appear just during early 70s. There had been a great restructuring of the economic tools especially in financial formation of the system such as the abolishment of Britton Woods. That was why anarchism should have changed itself and formed a new type of resistance, a resistance to an unknown evil. And it really did it.

70s anarchists were on the scene with environmentalists, ecologists, leftists and others against nuclear weapons’ production, arms race and forest destruction. Actually anarchism at a low-level was in antifascist, feminist, antiwar, antinuclear, and ecology movements. Although these seem as if they have nothing to do with the global capital, it has a lot. The production of guns, gigantic war-machines and chemical weapons has always become important for capital accumulation. Also the destruction of forests for the wood industry was the same case. Both the former and the latter meant, be it in long or short term, the destruction of human beings. Hence the anarchists’ movements started again and did a brilliant work against these. This helped a lot for the nest phase of struggle, the struggle we experience today because anarchists ecologists and other activists drew from pacifism and formed a different kind of non-violent active civil disobedience.

Today, recent anarchist movements has a much more powerful enemy, authority which has a global form. The struggle of the anarchists is not only against states, which once were the only authority against the human self-sovereignty, but also against the global capital. Within these circumstances anarchist activists are against globalisation. Because globalisation means not the globalisation of the man or their ideas but the capital thus globalisation with its recent form feels the need for suppressive authority. A definition of “Authority” declared by an anarchist group in Turkey (Black Fortress:An Autonome in Anarchist Youth Federation-AGF) is:

“Authority is the power that one uses to force his wills and decisions to others. Authority, in a society that is divided into two as the powerful and the weak, is on the side of the most powerful; he serves to strengthen the position of him and to let him be permanent”

-----How are the anarchists formed?

The organic components of these groups are not the same with the old times. Today’s anarchism grows as student activists join the club and nonetheless there are masses sharing the same ideas without joining and naming themselves “anarchists”. Also some other activists such as ecologists, environmentalists or socialists support anarchism, in most of countries. Especially in 3rd world, this support turns into a form of acting as a legal host for anarchists since anarchism as an ideology is not legitimate against the present laws. In these countries anarchists do not name themselves as anarchist communities. In Turkey, like most of the other developing countries, there are provisions and force against anarchist movements even against names. That’s why there are not anarchic communities with the name anarchist since the name anarchy itself is illegal to use. Even though there are these legal provisions and suppressive attitude against anarchism, communities still organize through various instruments. The instruments used are non-hierarchical and defined as horizontal, which reflects some sort of ancient Greek democracy where everyone is free to participate the decision.

Anarchists within the anti-globalisation movement did great work during the protests in Seattle, Prague and other fields of struggle. Especially the anarchists of Oregon and DAN (Direct Action Network) were the most significant groups. Decentralized, non-hierarchical, moreover leaderless networks that use the opportunities provided by millennium technology may simply be called anarchists. These groups really differ from the past anarchist movements such as Wobblies or formally called IWW (International Workers of the World) which was based on the labour initiative actually. Thus the new movements and groups tried to find their basis within the globalisation phenomena, which is responsible for today’s uneven development and poverty across the continents.

Anarchists, as groups or communities, are powerful within the context of anti-globalisation movements since the most active and enthusiastic groups are these ones. But as an ideology or a political thought, every idea needs institutions and so does anarchism. This is why I felt the need for institutional research of anarchism.

-----Do they have institutions for their own ideas?

If I were to study just to answer this discrete question, I would certainly say “yes” however this only would be a touch and go answer. The framework of this study must be emphasized on what these institutions are and how efficient they are. Of course there exist some institutions for anarchist studies but since the dominant system has no common point of view with today’s anarchism, these institutions are not as effective as the other radical structures of the society. The most significant problem that anarchism confronts is the question whether to take violent or non-violent actions. This question has been the most criticized but the core one especially during 70s. At those times, world and the left in general experienced a different form of struggle that was armed and against any fascist or authoritarian approach to human life. The left and anarchism started to debate whether to use arms for the revolution or to resist passively. Anarchism then started to weaken since the use of arms makes a general idea of lawlessness, disorder and panic in the mindset of the public. This was the result of many variables that 3rd world has experienced.

Today, the institutions of anarchism do not likely feels the need for the arms. This is, I think mainly the result of the changing conditions of the enemy. Today the enemy is not a fascist one (though one may disagree with that) and the instruments he uses is not the guns (generally speaking). Thus, anarchists like the other radical activists turned their faces off the armed struggle.

There are some communities that are constructing institutes and there are several civil societies who are though not anarchist but always serve for the aid of young anarchist activists. This is mainly because anarchist movement has always been the servant of the radical change within communities. Regardless of their satisfaction from what they acquire from the state, these groups are increasingly progressive, and hardworking. These institutes work on scholarship to anarchist activists’ studies research within the framework of mutual solidarity. Since some anarchists, who never had the chance (or the will) to earn the money for their bills, lack the support for their non-academic studies and research, these institutes are helpful. This comes from an old tradition, I suppose. The Donations allocated to the institutes are re-allocated to those who study to prove or improve the belief that “A Better World is Possible”.

Also some labour unions likely work as an anarchist institutes especially during strikes. In most of the cases the non-fired workers support fired workers. This kind of behaviour enhances the ideas of anarchist utopias. But everyone may admit the fact that institutions, be it legal or illegal, lack the power of think tank mechanisms that may include forums, debates and meetings. Abe Bluestein (a famous anarchist, when interviewed in 1972, said: "the answer lies primarily in education - ‘freedom through education’, as Elizabeth Ferm (one of the founders of the Stelton School) put it. All my life I have put my faith in trade unions, cooperatives, and education as constructive channels. Is this inconsistent with anarchism?” The example of World Social Forum that united hundreds of people across the world to structuralize the movements after the battle of Seattle, lacks the radical sounds and extremist ideas such as anarchists since these radicals are leaderless and horizontally constructed. There are critiques about this loose and non-hierarchical formation of radicals, which I believe makes it difficult to conduct forums and debates during the international forum thus leading to shifts of weight from the majority (radicals) to the minority that are leader-based and hierarchical. The institutes of radicals, almost in every case, are used as a power not as a voice. This argument was debated intensively in Michael Hardt’s article about the forum in Porto Alegre “Today’s Bandung”, which I totally agree with.

Institutions, expressed in terms of alternatives, are the core components of a social change in a system. This matters a lot especially if you have attempted to change the world. Anarchism, within this context, is not a world order. The change that comes from the above with its own institutions to replace the old one, is an authoritarian way of revolving and hence anarchism, opposing the authority, would be conflicting within its own ideology if attempts to do such a change. However this does not necessarily mean that anarchism must not have institutions because institutions are also useful to prevent to malfunctioning of current institutions. This is why the lack of anarchist institutions in USSR ended up with a super-Statist Georgian Tyrant. The fall of the anarchist institutions, which ended up with a decline in anarchist movements during 30s and later on, is the belief that Marxism supplied the only alternative institution. Today some people still suffers of this phenomenon. However this not the general case; especially after the fall of USSR, the loyal castle of the left, the radicals turned their faces and began to seek the hope somewhere inside. This led to increasing numbers of civil societies, communities and institutes for anarchist studies.

Another important issue is the instruments used during the protests and meetings by these activists. Seattle case emerged as good example of the instruments that were used. Some groups blame the anarchist institutes and communities for the vandalism against the police and some corporational property. What I meant, when I talked about the lack of institutions, was exactly this. There was no decision about whether to take violent action or non-violent passive resistance against police force. This is the main problem that anarchists face. To violate or not to violate, that’s really the question.

Today, within the anti-globalisation movement the struggle is actually not non-violent oriented but this doesn’t necessarily mean what is done is wrong. Before creating prejudices about this topic, we have to look deeply into the intensions of the movement from the below, which formed the basis of the violence that we’ve seen in Seattle, Prague and other fields of struggle.

These groups, whether in west or 3rd world countries, has some points of view in common. First of all, they share the idea of a classless society; they all believe in that capitalistic form of production ensures class system and strengthens the most powerful (the capitalists). That’s why they fight against globalisation and TNCs.

Various sorts of anarchists have differing ideas on exactly how society ought to be organised. They all agree that the State must be replaced by a society without classes and without force. It is because of this belief in freedom that they are reluctant to put forward a rigid blueprint. They offer only possible models backed up by evidence drawn from life. Actually, there has already been an anarchist society and it took nothing less than mass murder to stop it. It was such a great experience that even today’s liberal democrat institutes appreciate. The struggle against fascists in Spain was formed within Spain but with a worldwide active participatory support.

Basically, what an anarchist needs is freedom but not in the sense that liberals compare with the world “liberty”. They see the solution in a society without property and without domination (such as domination of man over woman and of human over nature).

************Leftism as an Anti-Globalisation Movement************

Among anti-globalisation movements, leftism has a significant importance. What gives this importance to leftism is the tradition that is lasting since the 1st Socialist International met. From those times on, leftism not only established a strong opposition to the capitalist systems but also constructed several important leftist (socialist, communist etc.) systems, which played significant roles over the world’s political history and institutions.

Leftists, like all other groups must be considered within different dimensions such as time, culture & tradition. Since the ideology of left differs culturally and shows differential impact on the people of different societies. Due to these differentiations, one that has to complete a research on leftism, should also relate the material and the documents in hand with the historical and social changes across the globe.

-----Who are these groups?

Leftism, with the widespread approach, includes most of the oppositions to capitalism but I actually want to narrow the meaning for a sound research on these groups. The leftism mainly originates from the Marxist opposition to Capitalistic mode of production. In this sense, I can draw a visible line among the radicals such that socialists, unionists, communists, Marxists and social democrats are basically are belong to the left side of the line. Anarchists, here I do not want to include them into leftism, have quite big conflicts on some basic arguments of leftists including Marxists.

Leftists are organized around interest groups such as Human Rights Associations, Socialist Parties, and Workers’ Organizations such as Labour Unions. These groups differ in their acts, impacts and structures. First of all, I’d like to dwell upon these groups with respect to where they are located. Since, the geography of the movements matter, I feel the need for such a manner. For instance, the handout of Worker’s Party in Turkey declared before the elections of 2002, Nov 3rd, gives us a lot about this differential attitude that leftism has gained so far after the 1st Socialist International. Worker’s Party in Turkey suggests:

· Only Turkish Flag and only Turkish Liras to be used in Turkey.

· All Internal Debts to be postponed.

· Foreign Debts to be rescheduled.

· Small Entrepreneurs, Artisans, National Industrialists and Trade Agencies to be supported.

The suggestions simply show an attitude of a comeback to primitive capital accumulation of the west in the sense that it has to support the national circuit of capital which has not globalized yet and which needs protectionalism. Today this is not a special case of Turkey that supports protectionalism over national capital. There leftists everywhere who are in the belief that national industrialists must be supported against globalisation. This was not the situation when Communist Manifesto was declared. “Capital, be it global or national, is again capital thus deserves to be fight up against” argued the early Marxists. Michael Hardt, the co-author of “the Empire”, in his article “Today’s Bandung” gives different examples of this kind of nationalistic approach that participated in the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre:

“The second dominant voice of national sovereignty was the French leadership of ATTAC, which laid the groundwork for the Forum in the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique. The leadership of ATTAC is, in this regard, very close to many of the French politicians-most notably Jean-Pierre Chevènement-who advocates strengthening national sovereignty as a solution to the ills of contemporary globalization. These, in any case, are the figures who dominated the representation of the Forum both internally and in the press”.

In his article Michael Hardt also shows that not only ATTAC International but also Workers’ Party of Brazil and other leftists still argues that national sovereignty is the key weapon for fighting against globalization in these groups ideologies. Nonetheless they do not oppose the capitalists of their own nations. The reason of dominance of national sovereignty-based groups on the Social Forum was mainly a result of vertical hierarchic structure that they have in their organization. We will come to that later on.

-----How are leftist formed?

Among leftists, there are different organizational structure but dominantly leftist institutes are hierarchic in the sense that there those who decide and those who do the job. For example, the socialist and communist parties in most of the countries have a strong central committee, which acts as the decision-making organ for the communists of a whole country. This is a habit from the old times actually, the times that socialism was implemented by USSR in other countries. Such a socialism (which meant the revolution of the people) that comes from the armed forces (Red Army) gave a strong institutionalism to socialists but lack the sense of humanity.
Especially this institutionalism, which also conflicts with socialism itself, led to the collapse of the whole block because except Poland, all the East European Countries turned into socialism with the force of Red Army regardless of their own people’s will.

The vertical and hierarchical formation, of course, has many advantages such as ability to put up a rigid opposition against global capitalism and ability to have influence on social forums. Although this may make a group advantageous, if this formation conflicts with the ideology (in this case, it does), it is neither ethical nor rational to have this hierarchy. Generally, workers and farmers that are members of communist parties in their countries cannot find the chance to influence the decisions taken on the party congresses. Students, who support and work for these parties, generally take the orders from their authorized youth-directors in the party. These applications conflicts with the whole theory of Marxism however there are groups such as autonomist-Marxists who argue that every group should have their own autonomy in decisions about their own future. Otherwise it would be not socialism but a form of state capitalism, which became the case in USSR. There are also anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists that are great blends of Marx and Bakunin. Nonetheless, these groups believe in the holiness of local and in the necessity of united act against the capitalist bourgeoisie.

-----Do they have institutions for their ideas?

Firstly, I would like to begin by referring to the historical evolution of leftism. In 1914, Social Democrats of Europe declared that they would not fight in a war that was rid by the bourgeoisie of their country and moreover they would turn the guns to them if they were forced to fight in a war (WW I). All the promises they made were forgotten or lost when the world war began. There was only one group that has not skipped this promise and they did the revolution. The Bolsheviks of Russia after three years in war and three more years in civil war declared the first socialist state in Mother Russia. Bolsheviks first thought that the revolution would move to the West Europe however this did not happen. They were alone within the revolution. Thus, until the end of 90’s USSR stood as the only alternative for the exploited proletariat in world. From 1917 to the collapse of USSR, left has experienced different forms of applications such as Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism and some other local forms. All of these, in some sense exist today but most of them lack the power of practical application for today. Today within leftism different interest groups and activists emerged such as environmentalists, social democrats, ecologists, anti-corporatists.

The responsibility of revolution and social change today not only on the shoulders of the working class but also on the students, intellectuals, academicians, ecologists and other activists. Especially the shift of responsibility within leftism first became obvious during the movements of 68. There would nearly be a revolution in France and in many other countries. In 1968, spirit of the movement driven by the students, asked for a change, a change for a peaceful and fair world.

The social movements within leftism were supported directly or indirectly by USSR till 1991. USSR gave financial support to socialist movements in 3rd world. This was only possible with a high-industrialist production as it was the case during Stalin. After the collapse of USSR there was no room for Marxists around the world anymore. This also led to a decline in social warfare system in west because socialist threat was out of issue.

Today leftist groups are not begging for support from a socialist country since the exploitation today is more obvious and it became clear that the spirit of social democracy must not lie in another men’s heart. However, most of the groups still suffer of the old traditions of productionist, expansionist left. The issue of alienation is actually a missed point in the agenda of some leftists groups such as Trotskyists or Stalinists

After Fordist and Keynesianist high-productive wealth, people started to get the fact that the whole picture was not shown during these times. Fordism brought wealth to world at the expense of nature in some countries such as forests harvested, water polluted, nature destroyed. These facts led to the emergence of different oppositions to capitalism environmentalists and ecologists.

When we reach the late 90’s everything was ready for the blow up. A left that has evolved through time, by many different schools and trends: French Regulation School, Frankfurt School and Dependecy School are only a few examples. Today left has evolved into a new form of challenge. Activism is the keyword here. Instead of strict institutionalist parties, today’s young leftists act through activism. They put their own discourse and their own ideas on the table.

This activism is not only based on the strict enthusiasm of socialist revolution but on the powerful belief that something can change. This change will not happen all of a sudden and it will definitely need a push. The difference of left of today and of past is that leftism today is not pushing it from one point. There are civil societies and interest groups such as Amnesty International, ATTAC, Rain Forest Action Network, Human Rights Association…The list goes on. All these groups try to change something. Something that will create a better future in a better world since TINA is dying day by day and people are understanding this fact: “A Better World is Possible”"