Fight the Power!

Also if something is to be done shouldn't there be some coherency to the "anti-globalisation" movement? Or is there already? I have my doubts.

I think you should invite Dave Q as a guest speaker.

Yes, either of him.

Yeah I'd love to. We had Gerry Adams yesterday and everyone was drooling. Only way is up after that really.

at least he didn't try and read his poetry

I'm not convinced by the anti-globalisation people. All they seem to do is spout slogans. I don't think they have any serious alternative to the current trading system apart from some ill-defined international socialism.

I am told (and not just by The Economist) that you can prove fairly convincingly that countries which have opened up their markets to trade have performed better than those which have not.

I have a shorter fuse for evangalistic economic pro-globalisers than I do for the anti-globalisation movement. Point is it's a complex process with unpredictable outcomes that are as likely to be happy epiphanies as miserable corporate straight-jackets, so I guess I'm saying I wish the so-called public debate could be more nuanced.

Sub-thoughts 1: No Logo starts off pretty well in this respect, ie Klein recognises cultural/economic globalisation as contingently intertwined dynamics, that global corporate power works not as monolith but as potent combination of shifting, twisty semiotics and brute materialist force, that our response to it is always already situated in our collusion with it (not that these arguments hadn't already been hashed out before she did it, just that hers was a nicely lucid and personal take). (And I think she blew it massively with her 'answer' - caring capitalism? Paternalistic social responsibility? Pooh.).

Sub-thought 2: there is an argument that the pluralism and heterogeneous tactics of anti-globalisers are necessary and clever response to new realities of situation, ie that inserting themselves into some grand narrative praxis wd be counter-productive; extent to which protest is *actually* reducible to retread of oldstyle socialism is an interesting question, I think.

Am I the only one who hasn't read No Logo?

no logo => no lego and then where would we be?

i agree with you ronan abt the bush quotes. it's like political overcompensation: we acknowledge we are unable to change the way things are so let's make ourselves better by sniggering at the king's silly hat

the no-glob ppl are stuck between fending off "old-style" radicals (because they "don't get it" blah blah, or are just trapped refighting old battles) and needing some of their skills and experience and accumulated wisdom. Tho actually I tend to think it was more the "old-stylers" who walked the left into the custard-pie storm after 9-11.

Also there's the CAN'T WRITE FOR TOFFEE thing: some radicals are great writers (i rilly heart yer man a.cockburn, for example, who can be peerlessly funny and is not a snob or a moralist or anti-diversion etc). I haven't read NO LOGO: I've read other ho- hummish stuff by Klein. It's a bit too obvious the "movement" needed a cute presentable young sleb just at that moment, and I donlt think she's quite got out from under the problems that causes her.

what do people think of rTMark? i like what they do but i fear it may be a little too iconoclastically mike moore-ish to be effective, especially given that no one's heard of them. i have a feeling that it's still necessary to get mm a few thousand people out in the street.

(p.s. ronan the anti-glob drumbeat may sound monotonous in academia but it is extremely faint and obscured by noise elsewhere)

"Anti-Globalization" is such an unfortunate term. There really is a large contingent of people who are anti-G. in the sense Christopher Hitchens describes, i.e., wanting to go back to a sort of Cherokee social model (and GOD KNOWS I've met MANY of them personally). But there's also a number of intelligent, well-informed people for whom "globalization" is a good thing, yet disagree with the methods of the different power structures (WTO, IMF, corporations, etc.) which are facilitating it.

I think part of the problem was in order to build the necessary coalitions to capture a fair amount of people's attention, a lot of these groups had to take the nuance out of their arguments. Sloganeering, unfortunately, better captures headline writers' attention. There seems to be a concerted effort on a lot of people's part to reintroduce constructive debate (there was even a recent Nation article to this effect), and as this progresses, I think there'll be a wider acceptance of differing opinions. If they want to be successful, there will have to be, since, as you pointed out, many of these people's ideas just aren't feasible, or even close to being realizable.

Personally, I think 9/11 did "the movement" (or whatever we want to call it) a favor: suddenly, a lot of these issues, while still important, don't seem so urgent. People don't need to be out on the streets once a month, clashing with police over whether 12 year old Indonesian girls make 10 cents or $2/day. It's put things in perspective and forced many people to realize this is an evolving process that will inevitably have to move at a slower pace. And the whole campus in-group thing bugs the shit out of me, too. I went to one of the more "radical" lib-hippie colleges in the US, and the "with us or fuck off" attitude seemed more a product of socialization or subcult-type stuff than part of any genuine feeling for political change. But as many of these economic issues become more central to more people's lives (and I think they will), that element will have to open up or just admit they're irrelevant. Hopefully soon.

Am I the only one who hasn't read No Logo?

Nope.

Neither have I the No Logo read.

I haven't read it either, but isn't it published by one of Murdoch's publishing houses?

I do get annoyed by people who have read the sleeve notes from a Radiohead album and a couple of chapters of No LOgo and then go round telling people how globalism is bad yadda yadda yadda. They should shut up and do something about it then, not bore me with their ill- informed ramblings.

Ahem, as an employee of the Murdoch publishing house in question, I can tell you: Yes it is published by HC (the Flamingo imprint). I have read it. It is a good read, though I can see why it annoys some people. She is not anti-capitalist. She is very pro-capitalism.

What's a 'cherokee social model'? Is it like in Little Plum?

Of course you are in favour of globalisation, Cabbage, you jetsetting international sex tourist you.

I agree with Ellie and Tracer: evangelical globalisers are far more dangerous than enthused students. Cynicism towards the antiglobs is an effect of the fact that "people like us" are more likely to come into contact and be bored by them in pubs, classrooms etc. In the wider culture they hardly represent an orthodoxy.

I guess the victory of the IMF etc has to make globalisation synonomous with economic liberalism, while repressing the globalisation of the discourses of participatory democracy, human rights, unionism, mass migrations (if money can move freely across state borders, why shouldn't workers?) etc etc. I think it's the dialectic between these - rather than some nostalgia for nationhood - which will move the debate on.

I am 85% through No Logo, and the last chapter - the response to globalism - is VERY weak and unconvincing so far. The truth is that the overwhelming majority are happy to wear Gap and Nike, don't spend time thinking about or consciously *noticing* the rising tide of globalism, and also don't give a shit about the sweatshops.

I can't see a retreat from the globalisation of capital happening now, especially not if it amounts to old school protectionism on a nation state basis. The only way I can see to counter the unpleasant consequences of global capitalism is to globalise the things that have kept capital in check on national level (unions, safety regulation, minimum wages, social security etc.) and for something sensible to be done regarding the free movement of labour. It has always seemed absurd to me that free trade traditionally relates only to the movement of goods and capital and not labour.

Dr C, she is well aware of that. The bit where she describes her visit to a school was very telling. The kids were all "So what's the point, if everyone's bad" and all they got out of it was an excuse to abuse their school uniform. I read this as her fully comprehending the dilemma of why she thinks anyone should care.

i think RickyT just summarised the book's conclusions

Blimey, did I? Not sure I'm happy about that.

*points at RickyT*

Ha-Ha!

B-but there are so many references in chapters 1-3 along the lines of "the tide is now turning, all will be revealed in chapter 4". So far all we've had are few clowns on stilts who deface billboards. All right I'm exaggerating, but I thought she was going to explain how there was a effective opposition beginning to develop. Effective opposition means a generation who are beginning to make different choices, not the lunatic fringe who'll protest about anything.

Maybe something is happening, although it could be just the effects of N. American recession and/or the aftermath of 9/11. The Gap have posted a loss in Q4 2001 (the first loss-making Q in the best part of a decade) and K-Mart are effectively bankrupt. I guess they'll just screw the slave labour harder to protect margins.

Edna, a "Cherokee social model" is shorthand for those who'd like to return to a more archaic, conservative, land-based organic lifestyle. Sort of like the John Birchers, but with beads and pot. Many of them also "reject Western Civilization, man" and are into all sorts corruptions of American Indian spirituality, etc. And no, this is not a caricature. I went to school with these people.

Your last paragraph, and Ricky T.'s post, are SPOT ON! Fantastic. Not to be a Hitchens Nazi, but he does put the point very well when he asks, If we are to have globalization of capital, then why not a global standard for workers and human rights?

Yeah I thought I was being simplistic when I made the point that if globalisation was really er......"allowed" to happen then wouldn't wages and conditions all be the same aswell.

Seems like it makes sense... but as Edna points out IMF/World Bank/GATT aims will fail if this happens. Globalization of capital must NOT be accompanied by uniform rise in wages, environmental standards, health care, etc. because then the "race to the bottom", where capital obsessively claws for the lowest cost, would end with equality - so there would be no advantage to building car radio components in Malaysia vs anywhere else.. This is the real reason Republicans are trying to keep the minimum wage lower than the poverty line, repeal welfare benefits, cripple environmental protections, and torpedo any nationalized health care... they want to make our workforce and "investment climate" more attractive to our own companies! They really DO care about the American worker!

ronan, as per tracer, the agt is that ultimately there will be a levelling at the bottom if it's not too late. I disagree for numerous reasons & also disagree w/ tracer on this, as much domestic industry is hardly at risk for being exported b/c of its nature, level of technology, many other reasons & rather the aim is to drive things down to increase profit for u.s. cos at bequest of u.s. cos b/c that's what govt. is there for, not because its seeking to keep "american jobs in america".

Sterling I agree that the "commitment to the American worker" in the form of low labor etc. standards is the worst kind of cynical lip-service but I think maybe genuinely how some of these senators and lobbyists justify it to themselves, if the "worker" ever comes into their picture of it at all.

much domestic industry is hardly at risk for being exported b/c of its nature, level of technology, many other reasons

If you mean web-site building I agree, but if you mean sneakers and George Foreman grills and the tools used to make these products I do not. Yes if a company can oppress their workers here at home without having to open up another factory somewhere else it's less trouble - agreed that it's all about the bottom line - but it is extremely common that a union will be presented with a choice: accept our unacceptable contract or we move the factory to Mexico. Riding over the Manhattan Bridge last night I marvelled at the quad smokestacks of the Domino Sugar factory in Williamsburg. New York is a lucky city, in that we still have industry here in some measure, and jobs for experienced factory hands. In a lot of American cities this kind of life is a distant memory.

Tracer: deindustrialization is quite real, I agree. I'm in chicago, of course, one of the last industrial strongholds of the states, but surrounded on all sides by dead cities -- Detroit, Indiannapolis, &c. and then all the small one-shop towns who lost the shop. But where did the industry go? A) to *otha companies* (i.e. U.S. lost position of world market prominance in auto, for example) and B) to *otha places in the U.S.* -- the southeast seaboard, for example. The u.s. will never export the core industries (production of the means of production) fully b/c they'll never trust germany or whoever to sell them the steel when they need it, & the u.s. will never export hi-tek sectors of all sorts (production of the means if i/t, as it were) and soforth. 95% atleast of all U.S. trade remains utterly domestic.

My only point was that I think the people in charge of setting econ goals and policy in this country genuinely think they're doing everybody a favor by eliminating environmental protections, cutting away swathes of corporate oversight, keeping wages low, and keeping a sizeable amt of the workforce unemployed and hungry for any job at any price because those are the most favorable conditions for corporate investment, which somewhere along the way we have decided is the only engine of our economy worth really getting behind. They know we mean well, us folks who believe in jobs with dignity and security, who believe in progressive employment with a chance for advancement and further education, who want industry to be a sustainable force rather than a kind of bridge-burning exercise, but they know from HARD EXPERIENCE that these things are obstacles to investment.