| |
Blessed
are the Protesters
I'm trying
to make sense of the recent Washington D.C. protest against the
World Bank and the IMF. The answers aren't coming easily.
The Washington
D.C. protests coupled with the protests against the Asia-Pacific
Economic Conference held in Vancouver in October of 1997, and the
Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization meetings held
there in November, 1999, have radicalized a generation of North
American students, labour leaders and environmentalists amongst
others. While the protests were aimed at the particular international
organizations holding the conferences, the anger, frustration and
ultimately violence and anarchy were taken out against the institutions
of the host states. A rather strange development considering the
object of the protest.
The goal of the
protest seemed to be "Save the State". The labour leaders, student
groups and environmentalists seem to be saying that it is the individual
states, not the multinational organizations, which have the means
and authority to implement the social, economic and environmental
change advocated by the protesters (protests led ironically, by
multinational groups such as Greenpeace).
Why now? The
World Bank and IMF have been meeting biannually for 50 years. Suddenly
they become the object of major protests? Are we witnessing another
development in what George Bush Sr. laconically termed "the New
World Order"?
A few connections
can be made. Over the past decade we've seen the development of
a new political and economic order that is increasingly coming under
scrutiny. We have a global economic system (all the protest has
been against multilateral economic institutions), bound together
increasingly by technology (especially the Internet and other communications
technology), and reluctantly policed by the world's only remaining
superpower (the major Western war of the 1990's, the Persian Gulf
War, was waged to protect American economic interests), under attack
by a generation which was raised after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The protest then, is economic in nature, railing against the political
superstructure that maintains it. However the protest itself is
unsophisticated, and left with few political options other than
anarchy, or a conservative desire to maintain the current system.
Post-Communist
Confusion
There is an interesting
history at work here. Weren't the recently assembled masses in Washington
D.C. the children of Baby Boomers? In their day, the Boomers (addled
by the superficial Marxism of their professors) took to the streets
to protest against the attempts by the United States to maintain
democratic hegemony in the face of the dreaded "domino theory" and
the ascendancy of Russian style Socialism in Southeast Asia.
The Russian system,
which became known as "communism" in the West, was aggressive and
global in its outlook from the moment the dust settled on the Russian
Revolution. Though politically dynamic, the most interesting aspect
of Russian Communism was the fact it was an economic theory that
featured state-centred bureaucratic control of a national economy.
This state-centred economic approach ultimately was the undoing
of the system. Unable to sustain its economic and political centre,
the collapse can be summed up by the old joke from the Soviet era
that Vaclav Havel tells: "We pretended to work, and the government
pretended to pay us."
Thus, with Russian
Communism discredited and abandoned around the world, today's student
radicals don't have an ideological centre. There is no other option
other than that which they are protesting against (unlike their
parents who always had the Russians as a foil). There is no other
political way presently foreseeable for the assembled masses that
have taken to North American streets over the past three years,
except for the one they're protesting against.
Super-Capitalism?
Capitalism is
ascendant. The market rules. Adam Smith's ideas form the basis of
not only our economic life, but increasingly our political life
as well (with the rise of neo-conservatism). We're told that the
market should decide not only the kind of cereal we select in the
supermarket, but also the number of hospital beds and daycare places.
But should it? The people in the streets in Washington D.C. and
Seattle don't seem to think so.
The protests
against the IMF, APEC, WTO and the World Bank have an economic theme.
All are strictly multinational economic associations. The coalition
that protested against them included labour, feminist, environmental
and student concerns, voicing common themes: Ascendant capitalism
has produced environmental degradation, sweat shops, low wages and
social inequality at both home and abroad. Though the results have
been different (environmental degradation seems separate from the
treatment of female sweatshop labourers in Indonesia) the cause
of the degradation (environmental, social or otherwise) is the same--global
capitalism.
Troubling
Questions
Thus, the protest.
And what seems to be an overwrought response by the state. Innocent
protesters thrown into jail for doing nothing more than walking
streets with placards. This is the result of a perception that some
elements of the protests were simply vandals assembled to create
anarchy and mayhem, using the protests as an excuse to riot. The
whole event organized by the technology that is the heart of the
longest bull market in history--the Internet. Who wouldn't be confused
by the recriminations and theories, information and superstition
flying around the Web and in the mainstream press? Who's right?
Whose goals are noble? Who's protesting for legitimate ends? Who's
there just to get a cheap shot of adrenaline? Why is the state reacting
with such intimidating force? Why do states still participate in
these meetings when their populations demand that they do not?
Possible Outcomes
The aims of the
protesters may be conservative in my view. Perhaps the protests
are in favour of capitalism at home and abroad, but a more "compassionate"
capitalism than we've seen (you can have that one George W.). Or,
the protesters may have more cynical, though not necessarily stated,
ends. If they are politically proficient enough to undermine the
global economy and maintain the global economic status quo, unionized
workers don't lose their jobs to low paid labour in Asia. If there
is no economic development in South America, then there is no longer
any environmental destruction, there being no capital, nor incentive
to destroy vulnerable rainforest. Thus, the protests in Vancouver,
Seattle and Washington D.C. became exercises in preserving the interests
of domestic political groups in North America.
I suppose the
caricature of the protesters depends on your viewpoint and your
bias. If you like bull markets driven by technological development
on a global scale, you'd think the protesters were conceived by
pot-smoking hippies. If you think that short-term economic gain
is the harbinger of global devastation and threatens the survival
of life as we know it, you're among those protesting (don't forget
your gas mask next time). If you're like me, watching the events
unwind through the media lens (owned almost exclusively by AOL,
Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black), you probably don't know what to
think.
My Conclusion?
Thus, we've witnessed
massive protest against the international order of states, in order
to preserve the state, against the institutions of the states participating
in the course of global economic development. Confused? You're not
the only one.
Copyright
© 2000 Robert Delamar All Rights Reserved
Robert Delamar
is an avid pacifist and stay at home radical who believes strongly
that democratic change should come democratically. He's a co-founder
and the Managing Editor of *spark-online.
comment?
discuss this article on our discussion
board
|
