Mick Hume gets it right! >This article was originally published in The Times (London) on 6 December >1999 > >'The disparate demonstrations against capitalism represented more of a >general moan about life than a movement to change the world' > >by Mick Hume, LM editor > >When Karl Marx suggested that capitalism would create its own gravediggers >it >seems unlikely that he had in mind a motley collection of individuals >dressed >as turtles and butterflies, jigging around with giant inflatable dolphins >to >the beat of native drums, whose slogans ranged from 'Barbie Kills' and >'Trust >Jesus' to 'Free Tibet' and 'Go Vegan' and whose aims were apparently >endorsed >by the president of the United States. The 'demonstration against >capitalism' >in Seattle (and its runt offspring in London), staged during the World >Trade >Organisation conference, captured well the degraded state of radical >politics >at the century's end. > >As the face of faceless multinational capital, with a director-general who >looks as if he personally put the fat in 'fat cat', the WTO makes the >perfect >Bond villain against whom a global diaspora of the disaffected can vent its >frustrations. Protest organisers claim that the wide range of issues raised >shows their movement's strength. In fact, those who protest against >everything end up challenging nothing in particular. The disparate >demonstrations against capitalism represented more of a general moan about >life than a movement to change the world. > >For many of the protesters this kind of gesture politics is primarily an >exercise in self-flattery. Those who claim to speak for the masses often >end >up expressing a kind of exclusive moral elitism. Their message is that 'I >am >a better person than you', because they don't eat at McDonald's, or buy >clothes from stores with politically incorrect names such as Banana >Republic, >and they were once pushed by a policeman. > >A century is a long time in politics. At the start of the twentieth century >anti-capitalists wanted to go beyond the best that the market economy could >offer to build on the achievements of capitalism and raise productivity >further. By contrast, the Seattle protesters' basic complaint was that >capitalism has gone too far, too fast, and that economic growth should be >reined in. One does not need to be a fan of the WTO to see that developing >nations need to develop, and that the alternative on offer from these >backward-looking anti-capitalists is even worse than that which they >attack. > >For all of their talk about protecting the world's poor, many of the fin de >siècle anti-capitalists' proposed measures of environmental protectionism >would hit third world economies hardest. Whatever the intention, their >approach ends up endorsing a new neo-colonial division between the moral >West >and the immoral rest - or, as the boss of the American Teamsters union put >it, between 'good citizens of the world' such as the US, and 'these >renegades' with their 'low standards'. Many who complain about the global >domination of the WTO applauded NATO's air war against the 'renegade' Serbs > >If this is what anti-capitalism has become it poses less of a threat to the >powers that be than at any time over the past two centuries. So, while >President Clinton proclaimed that the critics should be inside the WTO >conference, the media treated the protesters in fancy dress like teenage >hero >turtles, and even the Seattle riot cops put on the nearest thing they have >to >kid gloves. Those who tried to compare the Seattle state of emergency to >the >repression of past civil rights and anti-war protests might recall that the >National Guardsmen sent to pacify American campuses in 1970 used, not >rubber >pellets, but live ammunition. Those protests were sparked by the decision >to >send US forces into Cambodia. If Washington invaded South-East Asia again, >it >would probably have the support of today's anti-capitalists - so long as >the >president pledged to use the napalm and Agent Orange to end unsustainable >logging. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >If you are not on this mailing list and would like to join, create a mail >from the address at which you would like to receive the commentaries - > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Body: Subscribe LM-commentary Yourname > >You should receive a confirmation of your subscription to the list. > >To unsubscribe, create a mail from the address at which you are subscribed >and send to the same address with - > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Body: Unsubscribe LM-commentary > >If you have problems (un)subscribing, email: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >You don't have to keep this Commentary to yourself. If you have friends >(or enemies) who might be interested in it, or LM more broadly, feel free >to forward this mail to them. > >-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >We encourage debate and discussion on these commentaries. If you would >like to discuss further the ideas in this commentary, go to: >http://www.informinc.co.uk/interaction$forum/LMC > >-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >Become a Friend of LM magazine and play an important part in helping the >magazine to develop into the innovative agenda-setter we all need for the >next millennium. Go to: >http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/friends/index.html > >-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >Back issues of LM-commentary can be accessed at: >http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/discuss/commentary/ > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
