Ed,
In a parallel posting directed at Tim Rourke I've indicated that I agree
with your main point about the dangers of ideological labeling of groups of
people, but I don't quite agree with your comparison of the vandalism in
Seattle to Krystallnacht on a smaller scale.
The important difference is this: Krystallnacht was the work of a single
powerful group, the Nazi Party, acting on orders from the top. The
demonstrators in Seattle were a whole bunch of different groups of
relatively powerless people protesting against the actions of the powerful.
The vast majority of them were non-violent, and there was no top command to
order the vandalism. Indeed we do not even know for sure if the vandals were
protestors of any stripe. It may be they were just vandals, drawn by a large
noisy crowd and the opportunities it presented for mischief. Quite possibly
the window-breakers wouldn't be able to tell you what the letters WTO stand
for.
In another posting you expressed a wish that the WTO could be fixed rather
than abolished. Like you my initial response is to press for reform rather
than destruction. In this case I think not. The WTO is so singlemindedly
dedicated to the anti-human interests of the trans-national corporations
that polite requests for reforms will produce nothing at all, at most purely
symbolic gestures. ("Oh, we really want to raise the living standards of the
toiling masses. That's why we're employing child labour at 20 cents an
hour.") If we press for the destruction of the WTO, it may, just may,
transform itself into something acceptable in order to avoid the death
penalty.
I do think your point about the dangers of demonizing capitalists is very
well taken. I can't think of any definition of capitalism that will send
Bill Gates to the guillotine while sparing the independent plumber with a
battered old van.
I do not believe that it will ever be possible, or even desirable, to
eliminate capitalism in the broad sense. There will always be those
independent plumbers in their battered old vans.
To me the answer lies in a re-assertion of governmental sovereignty, i.e.,
the rule of the whole community in the interests of the whole community. If
that were done, we simply would not allow pollution. Manufacturers would
have to bear the cost of producing their products through pollution-free
processes and then pass the costs on to their consumers instead of relying
on the community to subsidize them by either absorbing extra pollution or
paying the costs of the cleanup. Corporations should be stripped of their
fictional legal status as persons--and not be allowed to make any political
contributions. A hefty Equities Sales Tax (EST) should be slapped on stock
market transactions to stop this insane casino in which "investments" are
bought and resold within a matter of minutes, and disemployment of workers
is a favoured tactic of management to ratchet up the price of their stock by
a few points. And on and on. There's an endless list of things that could
and should be reformed by a government of the people, by the people, for the
people.
Regards.
Victor Milne
