Pauls reductionist claim that the right to say I'm hungry is not the
same as the right to be fed misses the point.
Obviously the existence of a right to free speech and to organise
under democracy is not the same as having substantive rights such as
to be free of oppression, hunger and the like. There are, in many
ways, no rights apart from those we fight for. There's no justice,
theres just us.
BUT - the wider political environment, at a range of geographical
scales, matters immensely in facilitating or retarding the ability of
subaltern groups to fight for their rights - and I would argue that
the relatively more benign environment of liberal democracy (with all
its faults) does make a difference.
Protesters at Seattle did close down the WTO. The next stage of the
WTO saga will be in Quatar, where police presence and geographical
isolation from Europe/North America will have a significant effect on
the ability of protesters to make a difference.
The political opportunity structure matters. To close it down,
arguing that it is all limited under democracy - is facetious.
I'm reminded of Isaac Deutscher, biographer of Trotsky, arguing with
the pessimists of the 50s and early 60s about possibilities for
protest, wondering how they would have survived the 'long midnight of
the century' of Fascism and Stalinism. Paul comes from a country
that was occupied by Fascism, where there was mass starvation in 1944
- so he should have less of an excuse for conflating levels or
repression that those of us in the States and the UK who were spared
that horror.
Deutscher said that in the 30s, all an intellectual could do was
retreat to the watchtower and document the atrocities. Many more
people organised against them. Should more academics leave the
watchtower and get down on the streets?
Pete North
_________________________________________
Peter North
Local Economy Policy Unit
South Bank University, London
Tel: 020 7815-7706
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.sbu.ac.uk/~lepu/
|