---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: peter waterman <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 2:10 PM Subject: Re: [NetworkedLabour] [Debate-List] (Fwd) On Avaaz clicktivism (Richard Poplak) ... On praising the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, critics) To: Patrick Bond <[email protected]>, WSFDiscuss List < [email protected]> Cc: "<[email protected]>" < [email protected]>, DEBATE <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Patrick Bond <[email protected]> wrote: > Don’t let the baby eat carbs, and other reasons why Avaaz won’t change the > world > > - Richard Poplak > - Life, etc <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/section/life-etc/> > - 23 Jul 2015 11:54 (South Africa) > > [image: Poplak-on-AvaazSUBBED.jpg] > <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-07-23-dont-let-the-baby-eat-carbs-and-other-reasons-why-avaaz-wont-change-the-world/> > > Remember when all your friends had a great dot.org idea, all of which > were one click away from transforming the world into a rainbow-tinged > Utopia? Me neither. But then my circle doesn’t include an > Oxford/Harvard/Kennedy School Brahman like Ricken Patel, founder of Avaaz. > The site focuses on change through online petitioning, and it is currently > “helping” concerned South Africans battle the African National Congress’s > (ANC’s) draconian proposed internet regulations. But middle-class South > Africans don’t need help to not leave the house for a good cause. RICHARD > POPLAK wonders if Avaaz hasn’t finally perfected the art of whining from > behind electrified walls. > > *He had fallen under a spell and was writing letters to everyone under the > sun. He was so stirred by these letters that from the end of June he moved > from place to place with his valise full of papers* *… Hidden in the > country, he wrote endlessly, frantically, to the newspapers, to people in > public life, to friends and relatives and at last to the dead, his own > obscure dead, and finally the famous dead.* > > Saul Bellow, *Herzog* > > Let’s begin with the definition of a social media mishap: a > professor/celebrity foodie dispenses infant nutritional advice over > Twitter. The perpetrator in question is none other than Tim Noakes, prince > of the low-carb, high-fat diet craze, and the man who pummelled > middle-class South African bookshelves with *The Real Meal Revolution*. > The scenario: a mother wanted to know what she should start feeding her > baby, and in response Noakes advocated “low carbohydrate, moderate protein, > nutrient-dense food”. The tweet was reported to the Health Professions > Council of South Africa, and a hearing was set for early June. > > The issue is not whether we should be turning our babies into svelte > supermodels before they can walk. Nor is it whether hamburgers are > healthier than tuna salad garnished with air. > > The issue is whether this is an issue. > > And yet, one of those whizzbang new “agents for social change” — AKA a > website with an .org at the end of it — believes Tim Noakes’s baby food > Tweet > <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Health_Professions_Council_of_South_Africa_Support_Prof_Tim_Noakes_in_his_quest_to_improve_eating_guidelines/?pv=3> > is worthy of an online petition in support of the professor and his “quest > to improve eating guidelines”. Or, rather, the website’s community believes > so. The 16,006 “signatures” “signed” in support of Noakes cited the 150,000 > copies of *Real Meal* he’s sold, and the “new book on infant feeding” > he’s been working on “for the past year”. The petition hopes to reach > 20,000 signatures backing this “initiative” at some point in the near > future. This is what Avaaz.org does—blast petitions into the ether and, in > some cases, develop robust letter writing campaigns. Each and every cause > scrolling across their website’s carousel — “Stop food waste, end hunger!”; > “ISA: Save our Oceans!”; “From G7 to Paris: Goodbye Fossil Fuels!”— would > bring a smile to the face of the most hardened progressive. This was what > the internet was supposed to be about! Coding change, connecting people, > rewiring the world. > > *Anything *is possible. > > But anything is *not* possible. Avaaz proves the limitations of liberal > discourse in the internet age as definitively as any site online. Avaaz has > entered the South African conversation on a number of occasions: there are, > after all, many animals in this country, and therefore numerous > opportunities to save them. But their most recent South African campaign is > somewhat different. Entitled “SA internet ████ censorship”, an e-mail blast > sent out to Avaazers and their ilk went like this: > > Dear friends across South Africa, > > *A new set of regulations threatens the very essence of our internet > freedom.* They want to police and crack down on our digital democracy - but > we are thousands of South Africans getting this email and *we have the > power to bring down their barricades. * > > *But we only have 48 hours to do it.* > > If the Film and Publication Board’s (FPB’s) new internet regulations are > implemented, they’d have the right to *review and classify almost every > blog, video, and personal website* — even Avaaz campaigns like this one. > Think *apartheid-era censorship*, reloaded and super-charged for an > all-out assault on our digital freedoms. > > *Public consultations end this week*, and the FPB is on the back foot > because their regulations have been so widely ridiculed — *a massive > viral response could finally pull the plug *on these dangerous > regulations. > > To make it happen, all of us need to *sign and share urgently* — Avaazers > make up 1% of the internet users in South Africa so if each of us gets just > one person to sign, we can reach 2%. If each of us gets two people to sign, > we can get to 3%, etc etc. *Sign now and share on Facebook, Twitter, > e-mail *... everywhere … > > *(Bold courtesy of Avaaz)* > > So many questions. Who, I wanted to know, are “they”? What, I wondered, is > a “digital democracy”, when did we get one, and what does “they’d have the > right to review and classify almost every blog, video, and personal > website” actually *mean*? The above six paragraphs are classic Avaaz, but > also classic internet activism — a context-free mulch of “holy fuck!” > declarations, followed by an invocation to post something on your Facebook > status update while hysterically tweeting about the evils of *something*. > > And here’s the thing: the FPB’s proposed regulations are extraordinarily > unpleasant. But they require more than a shouty e-mail to decipher. *(Ed * > —* Exactly what Daily Maverick’s Julie Reid masterful presented in **Africa’s > worst new Internet Censorship Law: Everything you don’t want to know – but > need to* > <http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-06-10-africas-worst-new-internet-censorship-law-everything-you-dont-want-to-know-but-need-to/#.VbFcJOiqqko> > *)* They also fall into a far broader political story — the snail-like > but unceasing attempts of the Zuma ANC to roll back freedom of expression, > especially in the media. Ultra-conservative and ham-fisted, the FDB’s > attempts at remaking the SABC circa 1988 is re-upped National Party > nonsense. Things like: > > 5.1.1 Any person who intends to distribute any film, game, or certain > publication in the Republic of South Africa shall first comply with section > 18(1) of the Act by applying, in the prescribed manner, for registration as > film or game and publications distributor. > > 5.1.2 In the event that such film, game or publication is in a digital > form or format intended for distribution online using the internet or other > mobile platforms, the distributor may bring an application to the board for > the conclusion of an online distribution agreement, in terms of which the > distributor, upon payment of the fee prescribed from time to time by the > minister of the Department of Communications as the executive authority, > may classify its online content on behalf of the board, using the board's > classification guidelines and the Act … > > And also: > > 7.5 In the event that such content is a video clip on YouTube or any other > global digital media platform, the board may of its own accord refer such > video clip to the classification committee of the board for classification. > > 7.7 Upon classification, the board shall dispatch a copy of the > classification decision and an invoice payable by the online distributor > within 30 days, in respect of the classification of the content in question. > > But why did Avaaz choose not to include these clauses in the e-mail? Does > Avaaz assume that Avaazers are too daft or too time-constrained to actually > digest all the legalese? Indubitably. But if so, we must all die in a fiery > pit, along with our classification committee of the board for > classification-approved YouTube bar-mitzvah videos. > > This is a planet for adults, and citizenship is an active process. Almost > every day in this country, people leave their homes in poorer communities > in order to burn shit on the streets of their community. In quieter climes > — in the middle-class enclaves in which we are told revolutions typically > germinate — nothing happens. Nothing at all. Crickets. > > One begins to wonder if internet slacktivism isn’t a genius ploy by the > establishment to geld those who would, in years past, have hit the streets > en masse, looking to change the way government operates. The thought of > something spontaneous — a rearing back against government policy — is > almost laughable. Next month, Zwelinzima Vavi will host an “anti-corruption > march,” but the amorphousness of the issue almost seems pulled from Avaaz’s > playbook: > > *Who likes corruption? * > > *No one!* > > *What are we gonna do about it? * > > *Um …? * > > This stuff has become a cliché, but it doesn’t make it any less dangerous. > This week, South Africans have to fight on two digital fronts. The first is > the FPB and their attempts to equate our family videos with pornography. > And the second is Avaaz and their endeavours to help us click our way to > freedom. We need the ‘net, but we don’t *need* the ‘net, if you hear what > I’m saying. > > The rules of history are: occasionally things need to be burned. No amount > of clickbait is going to change that. Just ask Noakes. Last I checked, fat > babies were still a good thing. *DM* > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Debate-List] On praising > the G7... surely not, especially for climate malgovernance? (Avaaz, GP, > critics) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:42:04 +0200 From: Patrick Bond > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > triplecrisis.com > > *Avaaz’s Climate Vanity <http://triplecrisis.com/avaazs-climate-vanity/>* > > *Upward gazing can be politically blinding* > > Patrick Bond <http://triplecrisis.com/author/patrick-bond/> > > Who’s not heard the great African revolutionary Amilcar Cabral’s > injunction > <https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1965/tnlcnev.htm>, fifty > years ago, “*Tell no lies and claim no easy victories*”? If, like me, > you’re a petit bourgeois who is hopeful for social progress, then let’s be > frank: this advice hits at our greatest weakness, the temptation of > back-slapping vanity. > > The leading framers for the 41-million strong clicktivist team from Avaaz > need to remember Cabral. They over-reached ridiculously last week in > praising the G7: > > [image: Bond Avaaz] > > *Many told us it was a pipe dream, but the G7 Summit of leading world > powers just committed to getting the global economy off fossil fuels > forever!!! Even the normally cynical media is raving that this is a huge > deal. And it’s one giant step closer to a huge win at the Paris summit in > December – where the entire world could unite behind the same goal of a > world without fossil fuels – the only way to save us all from catastrophic > climate change… Our work is far from done, but it’s a day to celebrate – > click here to read more and say congratulations to everyone else in this > incredibly wonderful community!!* > > Actually, according to *The Economist* > <http://www.economist.com/news/international/21653964-why-g7-talking-about-decarbonisation-sort>*: > *“*no fossil-fuel-burning power station will be closed down* in the > immediate future as a result of this declaration. The goal will *not make > any difference to the countries’ environmental policies*, since they are > mostly consistent with this long-range goal anyway. Where they are not > (some countries are increasing coal use, for example) they will *not be > reined in* because of the new promises… the G7’s climate effort raises as > many questions as it answers. The group seems to have *rejected proposals > for more demanding targets*, such as decarbonisation by 2050.” > > Or *Time* > <http://time.com/3918982/g7-summit-obama-united-states-isis-russia/>: “*The > results were disappointing* to say the least… The G7 announced an > ‘ambitious’ plan to phase out all fossil fuels worldwide by 2100. > Unfortunately, *they didn’t make any concrete plans to scale back their > own conventional fuel consumption.* That’s a big deal when 59 percent of > historic global carbon dioxide emissions—meaning the greenhouse gases > already warming the atmosphere—comes from these seven nations. Taken as a > group, G7 coal plants produce twice the amount of CO2 as the entire African > continent, and at least 10 times the carbon emissions produced by the 48 > least developed countries as a whole. *If the G7 is serious about > tackling climate change, they should start at home*.” > > So what was going on, really? Here’s a talking head from the *Council on > Foreign Relations* > <http://atimes.com/2015/06/what-matters-and-what-doesnt-in-the-g7-climate-declaration/> > (an imperialist braintrust): “The United States has long pressed for a* > shift away from binding emissions reduction commitments* and toward a mix > of nationally grounded emission-cutting efforts and binding international > commitments to transparency and verification. European countries have often > taken the other side, emphasizing the importance of binding targets (or at > least policies) for cutting emissions. Now it looks like the* big > developed countries are on the same page as the United States*. The > language above is all about binding countries to transparency – and *there > isn’t anything elsewhere in the communiqué about binding them to actual > emissions goals*.” > > There is an even tougher critique from the left, e.g. from Oscar Reyes of > the Institute for Policy Studies, who annotated the G7 climate communique > here > <http://genius.com/6767353/G7-leaders-declaration-g7-summit-climate-section/The-upper-end-of-the-latest-ipcc-recommendation-of-40-to-70-reductions-by-2050-compared-to-2010>. > He lands many powerful blows, not least of which is that you simply cannot > trust these politicians. This is well known > <http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/02/us-g8-africa-idUSL0162462220080702> > in Africa. Exactly a decade ago, Tony Blair led the (then-G8) Gleneagles > Summit that made all manner of ambitious redistributive promises for the > continent that weren’t fulfilled. > > Another promise to look at more critically is whether ‘net zero’ carbon > emissions by 2100 will be gamed through ‘false solutions’ like Carbon > Capture and Storage, dropping iron filings in the ocean to create algea > blooms, and expansion of timber plantations to suck up CO2. The most > serious watchdogs here, the ETC group > <http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2015/06/net-zero-is-not-zero-the-g7s-dystopian-decarbonization/>, > ActionAid > <http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/caught_in_the_net_actionaid.pdf> > and Biofuelwatch > <http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2014/11/10/uncertainties-is-an-understatement-when-it-comes-to-beccs/>, > agree that the G7 needs to reverse its energy ministers’ recent endorsement > of these Dr Strangelove strategies. > > Put it all together, and after last week’s Elmau G7 Summit, admits even > Oxfam > <http://www.euractiv.com/sections/sustainable-dev/ngos-unsure-lukewarm-g7-climate-deal-315218> > (often also upward gazing), “This lukewarm summit result will *only make > the fight harder, if not impossible*.” > > Avaaz are not only embarrassingly contradicted on their right flank. The > organisation’s premature celebration is *dangerous. *After all, the > conservative (pro-market pro-insiderism anti-activism) wing of ‘climate > action’ politics – as distinct from climate *justice *advocacy – is > gaming us all now, arguing that the Paris COP21 can result in a victory. > Avaaz just amped up that narrative. > > Will the mild-mannered Climate Action Network (CAN) join a big all-in tent > to maximise Paris popular mobilisations? In 2011 at the COP17, that’s the > approach that civil society tried in Durban, to my regret. I think CJ > activists drawing in CAN – and Avaaz – may be making a serious mistake > <http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Climate-Movement-Across-Movements-20150326-0035.html>. > For this surprising Avaaz spin – declaring victory at the G7 – compounds > the essential problem of mis-estimating the rigour of the fight ahead. > > The reality: if we don’t dramatically change the balance of forces and > applaud activists who do much more militant modes of engagement, then > global COP malgovernance continues another 21 years. Civil disobedience has > been breaking out > <https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/reversing-climate-change-what-will-it-take/> > in all sorts of blockadia spaces, and so surely Avaaz should put 99% of its > climate advocacy effort into amplifying the work of those heroes? > > From Paris, one of the main organisers of COP21 protests, Maxime Combes, > was suitably cynical > <http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/maxime-combes/090615/linertie-du-g7-prepare-de-nouveaux-crimes-climatiques-decryptage> > about the G7, which “had already committed in 2009 (in Italy) to not exceed > 2° C and to achieve a reduction of at least 50% of global emissions by > 2050. So nothing new in the 2015 declarations except that at that time they > had also committed to reduce by 80% or more their own emissions by 2050. No > mention of this target is present in the declaration this year.” Avaaz is > young, yes, but still should be able to recognise *backsliding *over the > half-dozen years. > > Last September, I was greatly heartened > <http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Climate-Justice-Resurfaces-amidst-New-Yorks-Corporate-Sharks-20140924-0082.html> > by Avaaz mobilising (not messaging), against what were my own prior > predictions > <http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12381> > (on *RealNews *from 4’00”, reflecting pessimism thanks partly to Avaaz’s > awfully unfortunate New York subway adverts > <https://twitter.com/pinelli_adrien/status/505485038381965312>, putting > “hipsters and bankers in the same boat march”). That wonderful mass march > linked the issues and put non-compromising placards high into the air (way > higher than ‘climate action’ or pro-nuke or pro-cap-and-trade), and the > next day, the Flood Wall Street protest hit corporations hard for a few > hours. Avaaz and allies appropriately had us marching *away *from the UN, > because after all nothing useful has happened there regarding air pollution > – or any global crisis for that matter – since the 1987 Montreal Protocol > addressed the ozone hole by banning CFCs. > > And I am also one who appreciates Avaaz’s excellent petition machinery. > (It’s in use now generating awareness and solidarity for truly excellent > anti-mining campaigns two hours south > <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Investors_of_Mineral_commodities_LTD_MRC_Stop_forced_mining_on_South_Africas_Wild_Coast/?sTLrPib> > and north > <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Susan_Shabangu_Minister_of_Mineral_Resources_Reject_Ibutho_Coals_application_for_a_mine_on_the_boundary_of_iMfolozi/?pv=14> > of where I live in Durban, for example.) So this is not a standard lefty > critique of clicktivism. It is a recognition of how desperately important > it is for Avaaz to retain maximum credibility in the mainstream and among > hard-core activists alike. Endorsing the world’s 1% politicians is quite > surreal, given how little they did last week in Bavaria, what with their > 85-year time horizon and orientation to false solutions. > > Avaaz wasn’t alone, by the way. From a press release > <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/Greenpeace-Responds-to-Climate-Progress-at-Todays-G7-Meeting/> > I learned from Greenpeace’s international climate politics officer Martin > Kaiser: “Elmau delivered.” Also, from Greenpeace US Energy Campaign > director Kelly Mitchell, “Leaders at the G7 meeting have put forward a > powerful call to move the global economy away from fossil fuels and toward > a renewable energy future. Heading into the Paris climate meeting this > year, it’s a significant step toward securing a commitment to 100% > renewable energy by 2050.” > > Tell no lies, claim no easy victories. What I hope might happen is that in > future Avaaz, Greenpeace and similar well-meaning activists might at least > see it in their interest to tell the truth and intensify the battle > *against* the leaders of the G7 (and the BRICS too) *and especially > against *the corporations that yank their chains. Instead of Avaaz > massaging <https://www.facebook.com/Avaaz?rf=106321336073398&filter=2> > the G7 elites for “sending an immediate signal to dirty and clean energy > investors that will help accelerate the clean-energy boom we desperately > need,” as if capitalism can solve the climate crisis, why not re-boot the > power relations? > > How about this wording, instead: “Since the G7 rulers finally recognise > that fossil fuels must stay underground, *duh!*, but still* fail to act > decisively to that end*, we in Avaaz condemn the politicians. We’ll > redouble our efforts to target their biggest fossil investors. We’ll do so > through not only divestment – achieved by small investor committees in > wealthy Global North institutions – but now we’ll also turn Avaaz’s mighty > 41-million strong listserve towards consumer boycotts of the corporations > and especially the banks that have the most power over these G7-BRICS > politicos. And we’ll get legal and media support for anyone blockading > these firms, since the ‘necessity defence’ for civil disobedience is > becoming much more vital to our world’s near-term survival. Even the Pope’s > new climate Encylical agrees.” > > Wouldn’t that be a more satisfying and nutritious strategy than the > climate junkfood email that millions just received from Avaaz? I really > felt a little sick after consuming it. Surely Avaaz can see the merits of > shifting the goalposts to the left each time they have a chance, and thus > *enhancing > the climate justice struggle* – not joining the G7 in a* fatal climate > snuggle*. > > *Patrick Bond is author of *Politics of Climate Justice* and, in Durban, > directs the University of KwaZulu-Natal Centre for Civil Society > <http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/>.* > > -- > To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email > and log in using gmail to access the archives. > https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/. > > > -- > To view previous posts, create a Google account with your current email > and log in using gmail to access the archives. > https://accounts.google.com/newaccount?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups " > [email protected]" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/fahamu.org/group/debate-list/. > -- *Recent publications* 1. 2014. From Coldwar Communism to the Global Justice Movement: Itinerary of a Long-Distance Internationalist. http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/from_coldwar_communism _to_the_global_emancipatory_movement/ (Free). 2. 2014. Interface Journal Special (Co-Editor), December 2014. 'Social Movement Internationalisms'. (Free).3. 2014. with Laurence Cox, ‘Movement Internationalism/s’, Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. (Editorial), Vol. 6 (2), pp. 1–12. 4. 2014. ‘The International Labour Movement in, Against and Beyond, the Globalized and Informatized Cage of Capitalism and Bureaucracy. (Interview). Interface: a Journal for and about Social Movements. Vol. 6 (2), pp. 35-58. 5. 2014. 'The Networked Internationalism of Labour's Others', in Jai Sen (ed), Peter Waterman (co-ed), The Movement of Movements: Struggles for Other Worlds (Part I). (10 Euros). 6. 2015. Waterman, Peter. ‘Beyond Labourism, Development and Decent Work’. <https://escarpmentpress.org/globallabour/article/download/2338/2433> Global Labour Journal, 2015, 6(2), pp. 246-50. *More publications, click [////]* _______________________________________________ NetworkedLabour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour -- Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list Blog - http://www.blog.p2pfoundation.net Wiki - http://www.p2pfoundation.net Show some love and help us maintain and update our knowledge commons by making a donation. Thank you for your support. https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/donation https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
