Hilary's posting raises a number of questions.
HS:
> My opinion is that direct action, eg riots in gothenburg just
> acheives a) bad publicity for the protesters b) wonderful footage
> for the right wing press c) an opportunity for the local police to
> try out their anti riot tactics, local CCTV monitors, tear gas, and
> (Swedes only, ....so far) target practice with live ammunition).
Okay - but why do you think State security organisations are
wheeling out all this stuff? It isn't because they just like to do
it. It is because they have real worries about what the protesters are
doing and saying. Surely that in itself says something. And we are not
talking about what are traditionally described as repressive states
here - we are talking about lovely social democratic Sweden in this
latest instance. The one thing this does do is demonstrate that the
progress of capitalism is not some invisble and inevitable force but a
directed (and vulnerable) process which needs to be protected from
all us dangerous anarchists, lefties and other inconvenient people.
>My version,
> which amounts to a version of Green consumersim, ie use local
> shops, local produce as far as possible, is somewhat seen as
> 'girlie' by the real activist hardcore greens.
Interesting you should try to genderise it. One of the first direct
action movements of the C20th were of course the Sufragettes. It isn't
about being 'girlie' or 'macho', rather it is about tactics.
>But then the only
> weapon the consumer has against the megacorps is withdrawal of
> financial support/custom.
If this was true then we are in big trouble - consumerist action only
'works' in combination with other tactics - even your example
demonstrates this: a threat of exposure and the use of the rather
unusual powqer availbale to you as an academic - and it only works in
quite limited ways because it doesn't challenge anything
fundamental.
>You need to capture minds. The
> media won't help you because its owned by Woopert Murderdock?
> SDet up your own media. Put out leaflets on the street. A few short
> punchy lines like 'did you know every time you buy a burger 9mention
> no names, avoids awkward libel cases and besides all burgers as as
> bad as each other) you cause soil erosion/poverty/climate change
> (take your pick). Yes, some will be arrested for ilegal leafleting
> 9maybe better than being battoned or even shot, then arrested).
The point about all these tactics is they are all being done already.
I used to work for one of the first UK alternative media outfits,
Undercurrents, and now there are many. Leafletting is as old as
writing. Again these things play a part but they are limited. I think
we overestimate the power of education, but then we would.
> That's the funny thing about globalised
> corporations. its not just them. its US too, for buying from them.
>
You really can't blame people for buying from corporations. For many
there is no choice. Of course there is for us reasonably well-paid and
educated lot, and there is no excuse for us, but for most people there
are a whole host of financial, economic, cultural and social reasons
why choices are limited. Freedom of choice is one of the great
illusions of our society.
. The right wing media may be a problem,but some on the academic left
are often massively patronising about the anti-globalisation movement
too - questions like 'but what's your solution?'. But they don't want
an answer because they can say 'well we've got some and dammit if we
aren't going to write some papers about them!'.
I don't rule many things out. There are days when I feel a
high-powered rifle, a large clip of ammunition and a good viewpoint
over the G-8 summit would be a start. But then I'm a pacifist on most
other days. I am becoming increasingly existential about he whole
thing. I think we have to try, but it will take something more than
all of us, something 'outside' to shift the balance. Marx thought it
would be the internal contradictions of capitalism, the greens think
it will be global warming - I think these kinds of systemic views are
both valid, and (quite importantly) psychologically protecting for
their proponents - they can give the balance between advocating action
and not expecting to see any concrete results from it. (So perhaps
they aren't much diffeent from green consumerism then!). Anyway, I
live in hope that something will give.
Sorry, that started to degenerate near the end!
David.
Dr David Wood
Research Associate
Policy Learning in the Common Fisheries Policy
Other Research Interests:
European Union development and environment policy
Globalization and transnational resistance networks
Green political theory and practice
Militarism and military intelligence
Surveillance and Society
Politics Department
University Of Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
UK
Tel: +44 (0)191 222 7465
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|