Every so often we like to treat the world to a rant or a winge or even an extended piece of mature reflection. Guess which this one is as JJ delves into

 

GLOBALISATION: THE NEED FOR PROTEST

 

It's a timeless rule of politics that people take to the streets when other means fail. Dissent and demonstration run deep through British history. Whether it was the Rebecca rioters of Wales protesting against road tolls they couldn't afford, or the suffragettes chaining themselves to railings for the vote they had been refused, or the poll tax protestors in Trafalgar Square: when you are denied an outlet in conventional politics you have to take the struggle outside.

When it comes to opposing the inexorable spread of vast global corporations whose decisions influence every aspect of our lives, what do we do? We can no longer look to national governments. Either they are too weak, or they are in collusion with companies that helped finance their election campaigns. For example, Tony Blair had neither the desire nor the clout to take on Monsanto over genetically-modified seed and crops. The giant biotech company had such a hold on Clinton's government it was guaranteed global influence. Only the action of people stopped its apparently inescapable advance and forced a debate on genetic modification. Large corporations lobby and help finance political parties at the highest level. Individuals such as Bernie Ecclestone make huge donations; can we really believe there is no expectation of a payback? Media owners such as Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black use the very newspapers and broadcasting outlets they profit from to keep up pressure for the deregulation, privatisation and "free" markets that will enable them to extend their grip on the world's media.

So national governments encourage us to face up to the "challenge" of the new global economy. They hold up their hands in a gesture of powerlessness. They don't even say "It will be tough, but we will protect you." The privatisation of the world's resources and the capitalist control of us all is seemingly inevitable, even for the likes of Blair. The new economy won't adapt to us, for our good; no, we have to change. We have to become flexible, face up to upheavals in our lives, be ready to change jobs several times whether we want to or not, develop entrepreneurial flair, accept redundancy, learn new and only half-understood skills, smarten our image, make ourselves more marketable, adapt our relationships, absorb wage cuts, make ourselves attractive to foreign investors......stick a brush up our arse and sweep the floor while we're dancing.

Presumably this is while we're simultaneously keeping our relationships vibrant and happy, our marriages secure, our family together, ourselves together......our lives together. Coming from Mr and Mrs Blair, two lawyers with jobs for life, it's a bit rich!

The spinelessness of politicians in this age makes me vomit.

Two centuries ago workers saw their lives were being bought and shaped by mill-owners, land-owners, factory-masters. The industrial and agricultural revolutions were changing the landscape but the politics of the day were stuck in semi-feudalism. Economics was leaving politics behind - just as now. For industrialisation read globalisation. But this time the dissent and demonstrations will have to be on a global scale to match the scale of all-consuming economic change.

More and more people and more areas of life are being brought under the control of market mechanisms and the principle of private profit. The new language of consumerism reduces human relationships to marketing concepts. We become a consumer - not a traveller, a patient, a client or a citizen - a consumer. We have to be called consumers to remind us that our primary function in life is to buy, to keep the market going. We are even encouraged to present ourselves to the world as a product, a brand, streamlined and skin-deep, stripped of mystery, sensibility, warmth. Designer behaviour for designer people.

Even ideas have to be patented as brands. Loose, free-floating ideas are dangerous; they have to be privatised and exploited. Loose, free-floating minds are dangerous - minds free from debt and economic insecurity start to wander and ask questions. The sight of different countries in the developing world, in Europe, different regions in Britain and even different towns and cities competing for the favours of the great god of foreign investment makes you weep. "Hey, look at us, we're cheaper than them! We're so run-down our people will work for next to nothing and do a great job with no union rights AND you'll get a government grant into the bargain. So please come here, and we'll bend over for you as far as you want."

So child labour in India makes trainers for kids in the west, who are indoctrinated into a worship of the brand and whose parents can ill afford the shoes but feel pressured into buying them. The circle of exploitation is complete.

So the protests that became visible in London and Seattle continue to spread. Seattle set the tone precisely because that city was the home of new-style global corporations. Suddenly we knew there was alternative life in America. The World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund were attacked as agencies of a globalisation that was happening so fast it could make only the giant western multinationals richer. The growth is on their terms and at the expense of developing nations. The WTO is not a benevolent aid agency, it is a "free" trade agency. And "free" trade is not fair trade. "Free" trade means open everything up and anything goes.

We're told by Blair, Clare Short and others that the political leaders of the developing nations want this. But what do the people on the ground want? Is anyone asking? Is anyone offering an alternative to global exploitation by global companies?

There is another voice out there. It's not yet clear, but it is audible.....and it's angry. We should listen.

Think local, act global!

 

love & rage

JJ