Heres an interview with Noam Chomsky hat I leeched for y'all
Leeched from: 22 May 2000 British Socialist Worker
How significant were the protests in Seattle against the World Trade Organisation and in Washington against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank?
Very Significant. I deon't recall anythign like it. For a longtime there have been vocal protests against whats misleadingly called globalisation, this particular mode of corperate-run international integration which has harmed a great many people-probably the majority of the population of the world.
This has led to vocal protests over specific issues. But in the last couple of years the protests have become integrated. You see many examples of it.
The international efforts that undermined the Multilateral Agreement on Investment were extremely impressive. They were done very quickly with virtually no publicity.
Seattle was a major protest, and the major institutions had to back down. In Washington it was again the same story.
The variety of constituencies involved in thee protests is remarkable. They involve people who in the past did not have much todo with each other, like steel workers gay activists, and enviromentalists.
The protests also have an international chraracter, bringing together people from movements like the landless workers' movement in Brazil, the peasant movement in India and working people in the US.
In Washington the movement seemed to be deepening and becoming more politicised. People were making links in a way that we haven't seen in a long time.
Yes. The protesters know what they are talking about. People are asking more fundamental questions. People who call the protests reformist are missing the point.
For one thing the reforms are good-if you can achieve them, they help people.
But also when there is a limit placed on reforms it helps you come to understand the way the world works, and thats important.
You begin by calling for a minor reform. You find you can make a little progress on that, but then you face and iron wall. That teaches you something.
You ask questions about why theres an iron wall and you look a little deeper into the way the system works. Then theres more pressure and sometimes more reaction.
Part of the point of the protests is that they educate the protestors.
You learn about where the institutions will be willing to bend and where they will not. That sharpens the protestors for the next stage.
Among the protestors there seems to be a sophisticated understanding of the way corperations are choking the life out of the world, and also a vision of essentially a socialist society.
It is true of some of them. And those people are to a large extent people who have learned that through the experience of trying to carry out corperate reform.
You start by going to an investors meeting and calling for socially positive investment. You find you can make a miniscule difference, but you can't go too far. You ask why you can't, and you get what you are describing.
Ten years ago we were told it was the "end of history", the end of wars and civil conflict. How does that fit with the reality of the world today?
The Soviet Empire collapsed and other regions like Yugoslavia collapsed. When that kind of collapse happens you get violent ethnic conflict because imperial systems, like totaliterian states tend to supress internal conflict.
When the British Empire collaspsed there were atrocities much worse than anything going on today in Eastern Europe.
In south Asia there was a huge war between India and Pakistan that is still going on 50 years later.
In Palestine it is the same.
When the French Empire collapsed there were wars all over Africa. So too when the Portuguese Empire collapsed in the mid-1970's. There were major wars in Africa where South Africa acted as the front guy for the US and Britain to try to undermine the newly independant countries.
In south
18/7/00 - Round four in the free trade battle.
Arguablly one of the hurdles to achieving an anarchy is global corperatism, the actions
of the police during the WTO meetings in Seattle last year show how much political pressure
multinationals can place on local governments. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is meeting
in Melbourne Australia on September the 11th later this year. In the spirit of the anti-capitalist
protests in London, Washington, and Seattle a protest is being held to shutdown the WEF and turn
September the 11th into the "Seattle of the South Pacific"
Around the world the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer; many of these
economic forums are creating policies where the corperations that dominate the world economy are
maximising profits but also at the expense of the worker. Many people are beginning to oppose
this system where everyone is competing for a peice of the pie, anyone who supports workers
rights and equality for all should join this campaign.
-Mole
This dumb fuck robot doesn't aggree with me. Heres a rant he wrote in defense of capitalism, so its off topic but what the hey, Robot is the only other person who does anything.
This rant is primarily designed to be attacking 'sharing the pie' as Mole put it. It's intention is not to defend capitalism by itself, but it certainly is intended to defend it from replacement by socialism. if you get my drift. Also Im talking about capitalism tempered by democracy.
Competition of the pie is good.
It is good cause it is closely linked to ones self interest. Self interest (in the sense I mean)
is providing labour towards something that will maximise your payoff. Capitalism
facilitates one expressing their self interest. When people are left alone to do this
(like in nineteenth centuary Britian) alot of wealth is coincidentaly created. Alot of
people get screwed over, then you get the welfare state as a result cause people vote
it in. After the cogs of capitalism have been chugin along for a while and you have a
democracy and a welfare state, the nation is usualy very wealthy indeed. As a matter of
fact, people are extremly well off, the 'poor' are even living well, or at least
could live well.
At this point alot of people attack capitalism cause people are getting screwed over or
as Mole put it, "The boss man reaps a huge reward on the back of the workers who do most
of the work". People objecting to Globalisation also use this argument, in this case
the boss man is first world countries and workers, people in third world nations.
The workers have every option avaliable to them to improve their lot. In my country, as
long as you have some intelligence and aren't mental you can get an entirely free education untill Uni, when you have to pay for it, but the government helps by providing a loan option, essentialy making it free untill you have to pay it off.
People object to this saying, thats rubbish cause people want to improve their lot, but
don't or can't. The 'can't' about it is bullshit. If they really wanted to they
could, for proof of this look at imigrants, people that don't take 'can't' for an
answer, they go out and within a generation have significantly improved their families
lot in life.
The reason that people in later generations in capitalist coutries don't countinue to
have this drive is becuase life is so good, captialism has wrought cheap and high
quality products that makes life *fantastic* compared to a hundred or more years ago.
Life is good, or just not terrible, so why try harder...
As for the attack on Globalisation, third world nations are usualy quite anti-capitalist.
It is the peoples fault, and their governments fault by ignorance for having such heavy
state control. Meaning they are very underequiped to take on things like famine etc,
cause they are poor. First world nations are providing large and wealthy marketplaces
for them, its not the first world nations problem if the wealth from that trade isn't
distributed to the poor, its their fault cause they haven't taken on capitalism.
To summ up my point. Contempory 'workers' are well off, they are payed the money their
labour is worth. They could, if they had the ambition, increase the price of their
labour by getting qualifications, or just competiting more effectivly. Also, having a
'boss man' isn't nescarily a product of capitalism, its just habit of forming ones
companies that way. Their are numerous examples of companies which have organised
themselves differently. Like some steel factory company in the U.S.A that i forget
the name of. They share their earnings more than most companies do. The point being
you can be socialist if you want in a capitalist system.
Back to the main rant thread.
Its important to look at the 'cogs' of capitalism. How exactly does it facillitate
self-interest? Well, there are property rights. For example if you invent something,
you own it and can make money from it. Right from the get go there is impetus for
invention, and for being productive, and for reducing ineffiency. The profit motive
ruthlessly destroys ineffiency and promotes productivity. This productivity has got us
where we are today, it is why we can live so well. Certainly ineffiency exists, but
its being worn down, and usualy exists because of laws. A small price to pay for having
laws I think.
Capitalism is what got us here today. It is why we can live so well. People and Nations
that aren't similarily well off are usualy in that state cause they haven't joined the
party.
Sharing of the pie can be bad.
You see I haven't said its nesecarily bad. This is becuase I support someone or a group
of people that decide to live this way. There is room I belive for this lifestyle within
a democractic system. So long as the majority agree to it, they are allowed to do
anything they want i think. This is why we have a welfare system in the first place.
It comes down to one thing, self-interest. Asuming where talking about our society now,
people in general don't want their productivity to go to someone or something else,
like in tax's. There have been societies im sure that had a different prevailing state
of mind, but they don't exist in modern nations.
Once people are in a socialist system, the productivity means significantly less to them.
Why bother inventing something, or working that extra bit hard when you won't get much
return?
This elimination of the facilitation of self-interest means that on a national scale
productivity decreases, ineffiency increases because the profit motive has been killed
off, wealth goes out the window, so living standard does as well.
It all depends on the state of mind in the group, can the population make up for the
subtraction of the great motivator of capitalism? Perhaps a 'for the people as a whole'
motive can fill the gap, or even a 'this is better than the injustice of capitalism'.
But i doubt it.
This means that in a population of people that don't want socialism control by the
government is needed, which bites big time. Ultimately more government, more
'organising our society for the better' shenanagins, means more control by the
government and less freedom for the people. In our society now, on a national scale,
socialism has to have control.
In conclusion, socialism sucks cause it destroys productivity. Productivity being the
corner-stone of our high living standard.
Capitalism is good, cause it promotes productivity. There are many injustices in the
world, but rather than being the fault of capitalism, they are the fault of people to
care enough.
-Robot
Also added to the Seattle pages is a retrospective which I wrote ages ago but never stuck up
31/5/00
Yeah my guilt factor has reached a peak and so I'm writing this. Ummm i might blatently plagerise an interview with Noam Chomsky soon
Till then have this:
Yeah smoke it
I've added the two newest members of the ALF to the comrades page. Also I have actually uploaded the ALF FAQ.
17/1/00
This is just a message to say that this page is still workin, and that I'm gonna do some more stuff soon. Expect 'Moles manifesto
which will for a short time be interchangable with the Manifesto of the ALF, and some other stuff as well.
09/12/99
Added Silly Bugga's Idea 2 and The Seattle
Riots. It really is way too late, but thats just the way its got to be. I'll be adding comments on the event later, as
well as information on the actual role of the anarchists in Seattle, not the medias `Anarchy'
|
03/12/99
Found out today that a pr0n site (one of the bastions of the world-wide web with the URL of
http://www.anarch.mp4.org exists. Co-incidence I think not.
Added the links page, today. Not many links, but I'm a slack ass so thats the way its go to be.
03/12/99
Did some minor cosmetic surgery; fixed broken links and images, and added The Rant of the Unknown Soldier to the text files section
25/11/99
Added some text files to the text files section
20/11/99
Just did some minor changs and fixed up the Philosophies page, and added links to it. As exams are coming up and I'm gonna be doing less and less between now and then
14/11/99
Added my rant, to the comrades section, its nothing political, I was just bored and so wrote a story.
4/10/99
Added the Anarchy Idea #1 to assuage my conscience
23/9/99
Added the philosophies section, comrades section, and Comrade Robots rant.
1/8/99
Yep, I've re-done the site. Added new bits, and I'm even gonna re-write the rants section!!!.
Added to this is a pledge to update the site more than bi-yearly. This is because I want to introduce a thing called traffic.
|
The Gnus
