>The 90% plus of news viewers who do not
>fully understand the economic, environmental issues, will just see
>police vs "hooligans", even if the unrest might just have been
>sparked by subversive pro capitalists within the ranks, and like Jack
>Straw and his USA counterpart, now support even heavier policing of
>such "Workshy layabouts" as they will call them.
Well, I am not so sure. The more people who are involved in organising,
planning and taking part in this kind of event the more the news spreads by
other means that the officially sanctionned media: word-of-mouth,
telephone, e-mail etc. (like this!). And to be fair to the media (at least
the TV I saw yesterday), there was plenty of emphasis on the police
over-reaction.
>So back to the title - why ask if the anti WTO people are really
>democratic? Well we must recognise that quite are fwe people are pro
>WTO -
This is an interesting question. Lets look at another example - the methods
of the Suffragette movement were 'undemocratic'. They damaged public
property, put their bodies in the way of traffic, behaved inapproprately by
the 'standards' of the time. They were very much in a minority. Yet they
were right, and in the end their cause was greater democracy.
There are limits to democracy at any particular time. Liberal democracy is
not the be all and end all of civilsation. You cannot judge whether
something is right or wrong by how popular it is now.
This leaves campaigners in a difficult position. While trying to emphaise
their desire to 'reform' an unjust system into a democratic and fair one,
the methods they use are sometimes unpopular and undemocratic judged from
where we are now. In hindsight it is easier to say: 'they were right /
wrong', and even 'they didn't go far enough'.
>So here is my "manifesto" for
>the anti-globalist "party",
I am sorry to have to be so negative, but this 'manifesto' is simply
advocating return of so-called 'green consumerism'. It does not address the
key concerns of 'third world' peasant-farmers for example. It assumes that
somehow the wealthy have a right to travel around the world (as long as
they behave when they get there). It does not really address the relations
of consumption and production (how and why things are produced), or any
notion of equality of consumption.
'Voluntary simplicity' isn't enough, noble in an individual way though it
is. There has to be some kind of determined transnational movement that
encomapasses workers, environmentalists, feminists etc. The
anti-globalisation movement has this potential. It also has its dangers -
notably the potential for narrow nationalism and racism (the Pat Buchanan's
of this world) to hijack the agenda.
I also do not believe for one second that the kind of strategy you advocate
will avoid confrontation or crack-down from the state. Localisation schemes
have suffered this in the past as soon as they have become dangerous in any
way to state and/or capital. The Worgl local currency scheme in Austria in
the early 1930's is a good example. And Richard Douthwaite, one of the
leading contemporary advocates of comprehensive localisation says: "when
communities get serious, the opposition will get serious too" (Douthwaite,
R. 1996 "Short Circuit", Dartington: Green Books, p. 117). He still
believes this is the only way, but you need organisation, networking and
communication across localities otherwise you can end up with the kind of
parochial local fascism that Greens are often (wrongly) accused of
advocating. Touristic type communication is not the answer - that is a
massively unequal relationship. People have to communicate on equal terms.
This is what a lot of the Peoples' Global Action type of approach is trying
to do - to create spaces, actions and events in which the marginalised
voices can be heard.
No doubt I will be accused of 'whinging' again by some people. My
'solution' isn't totally opposed to what Hilary has suggested. It is more
along the lines of:
1. Economic localisation (where necessary and possible) - creation of local
energy schemes, local currencies, relocalisation of basic food productiona
and distribution.
2. Real Communication within and across localities (trying to create
situations where the concerns of dominant ideologies do not condition what
is said and how)
3. Equality, and Control over production AND consumption.
4. Democracy from the bottom, up (direct democracy and confederalism)
5. Conscious co-evolution of people and ecosystems.
Of course these are ideals - the reality is we struggle foward in all of
these directions, but I don't hink we should prioritise localisation over
equality for example. That's where things start to go wrong.
Peace and Solidarity,
David.
PS: This is probably all very messy, but that's what you get in 'real
communication' (!) and I have a much more 'messy' mind than some of the
incredibly disciplined thought that is demonstrated by Raju and others.
Part of the way I try to develop my thinking is to just 'get it out' and
let others pick it apart!
____________________________________________________________________
David Wood
PhD Research Student ('Intelligence Sites in Rural North Yorkshire')
Centre for Rural Economy
Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
0191 222 5305
[log in to unmask]
____________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
