Hi everyone. I have several more eyewtiness accounts and so on of events in
Seattle, which I can foward to anyone that wants them. There are really too
many to foward to everyone on the list.
Crit'ters might also like to know, especially given the recent discussions
about 'radical political ecology' and 'critical geography', that there has
been an ongoing debate inside and outside the ant-MAI / anti-WTO community
about the composition and objectives of the movement. This is especially
interesting given the attempts by the media to portray the protestors as
united only by their disorganisation and lack of insight. Some of this has
come about in response to accusations that the movement harbours fascists
in amongst its broad spectrum of adherents, and that its critique is
inherently 'new right' (as opposed to one based on marxist PE). The latter
accusation seems to ignore the possibility, I would argue actual emergence,
of a genuinely radical critique from within and around the multifarious
strands of the anti-globalisation movement, one that is more explicity
left-green rather than purely marxist, an emerging perspective
characterised by Peet and Watts (and before them, Nicholas Hildyard) as
'liberation ecology' (or 'liberation ecologies'). This is an evolving
perspective that confounds both those who argue that Northern
environmentalism is instrinsically anti-development, and the view that
development is of necessity anti-environmental. It is potentially the
growth of an understanding between green localism, neo-marxism and the
reality of economic globalisation and 'development' as experienced by those
on whom it is inflicted. One particularly interesting phenomenon from
Seattle was the gradual realisation by the negotiating teams from Africa,
Latin America and South-East Asia that they were to be totally excluded
from the real negotiations and to increasingly seek solidarity with the
protestors. This is what the transnational ruling class fears most of all.
But this movment is still potential because it is still happening, changing
and could be killed off at this early stage should:
i. capitalist states suceed to equating anti-globalisation and fascism
(aided perhaps by the naivety of protestors), and thereby cracking down
internally and internationally on such movements through increased
policing, surveillance, and military and/or economic action. cf: the
current increase in TV and newspaper articles conflating popular
organisation on the Web with 'cyber terrorism' and the spectres of
'extreme' Islam and fascism.
ii. the traditional left (and especially those self-described 'radicals')
stand on the sidelines and attempt to discredit the anti-WTO movement by
aiding the transnational ruling class' charicaturing and suppression of the
movement in order to preserve their ideological purity.
The former is inevitable. The latter is not. The politcs that emerges from
the ongoing and often unconscious negotiations within and around the
anti-globalisation movement will not be what any one group wants or
expects. However there is, if we choose to take it, an opportunity like
never before, to build a practical (and not simply theoretical) alternative
to neo-liberal capitalism. I think we should all be taking part in this
debate which has to be made conscious, overt and mutual.
Bit of a rant, but there you go...
David.
____________________________________________________________________
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]
____________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|