AUT: -1- Fabel self-interview about quitting with the campaigns

[blissett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Fabian Tompsett)]

>Fabel self-interview about quitting with the campaigns against "free trade"
>
>In June 1999 De Fabel van de illegaal decided to quit with the campaigns
>against "free trade". After taking a closer look we concluded that to take
>"free trade" as a primary target is not a logical choice based on a radical
>Left analysis, but instead comes more from a New Right analysis. Our
>decision was definite when we discovered that in the International Forum on
>Globalisation (IFG), the network which initiated the international
>campaigns against "free trade", the New Right ideologist Goldsmith plays an
>important role. In an earlier series of articles De Fabel explained the
>decision to quit. Still some readers and fellow activists had questions
>about it. That's why we have tried to bring these questions together in a
>self-interview.
>
>Is Edward Goldsmith, the director of the well known magazine The Ecologist,
>really a New Right ideologist?
>Yes, for sure. We have described his extreme Right ideas and contacts in
>two other separate articles which we wrote recently.
>
>How does he influence political movements?
>He was involved with the founding of many influencial organisations like
>Friends of the Earth, the Green Party in the UK, Survival International,
>Ecoropa, The Ecologist, and the IFG. Goldsmith can make use of a part of
>the capital which his brother James brought together. His brother was the
>6th richest person in the UK when he died and he had about 1.5 billion
>dollars at that time. Edward has been sponsoring dozens of activist groups
>and lobby groups for some 30 years. Especially now that the Left is very
>small and has therefore little access to money, the networks sponsored by
>Goldsmith and their campaigning issues are more visible. Goldsmith
>primarily funds actions against gene-technology, nuclear power and the
>supposed "globalisation". As far as we know activist groups fighting racism
>and sexism are not being sponsored by him. In this way Goldsmith
>contributes to the situation where issues that are of concern to the New
>Right get more attention and influence in activist circuits. But it is
>surely not so that Goldsmith pulls the ropes form behind the scenes. On the
>contrary, he seems to almost casually give his money away to groups working
>on these issues, without setting many further conditions.
>
>A lack of self-criticism
>How do organisations which have contacts with Goldsmith react to your
>criticism?
>Many of them don't seem very self-critical. They thought that Goldsmith had
>his heart in the right place, despite his conservative and patriarchical
>ideas. He is against "globalisation" and against environmental destruction
>so he must be okay, they thought. But they had hardly any ideas about his
>real politics and to be honest many of them were not very motivated to find
>out either. "Whose bread one eats, whose word one speaks" goes the saying.
>Of course Left wing organisations are not immediately becoming New Right
>after receiving funding from Goldsmith. But they seem to have problems
>distancing themselves from him and surely don't draw the conclusion to
>fight him because of his New Right ideology. The money flow would then
>surely stop.
>
>As you say Goldsmith plays an important role in the IFG. Do you now regard
>this platform to be New Right?
>No, but the IFG is certainly not Left. It's a very elitist club that
>doesn't fight capitalism or patriarchy. They are mostly afraid for the
>disappearance of local economies, religions and cultures, when they come in
>contact with the foreign. In the near future we will write an extended
>analysis of the Right-wing ideas within the IFG which have developed the
>international campaigns against "globalisation" and "free trade".
>
>Campaigns in which you don't want to take part anymore....
>Exactly.
>
>It is a bit unusual to stop your activities so suddenly.
>For almost one year now we have pointed out the interests of the New Right
>in campaigns against "free trade". Practically nobody, including ourselves,
>drew conclusions or realised the consequences of this for a long time. Our
>final decision came after a discussion of several months within our own group.
>
>Would the bureaucrats at the Dutch ministry of economic affairs, who are
>striving for the "free trade" agreements, be relieved now that the campaign
>has quit?
>That seems to us a big exaggeration of the current power of Left activist
>groups.
>
>Running to the Right
>How was your criticism received by organisations who are active against the
>MAI and the WTO?
>Their response is closely related to their political colour. Organisations
>which are only aimed to fight "free trade" reject our criticism. Groups
>which combine an anti-capitalist view with anti-racism and anti-sexism
>mostly recognize the problem and see the necessity of a fundamental
>discussion.
>
>Is there not a danger that such discussions would cause confusion and
>division within the Left which would lead to a further decline of activism?
>Under influence of the ongoing shift to the Right, the Left world-vision is
>watering down. For the Left to survive and to ever regain influence, a
>coherent ideology is a necessity. De Fabel doesn't want to run from action
>to meeting and back, without having a clear radical Left frame of reference
>and goal to go for. Otherwise there is a growing risk that we will all be
>running to the Right, quite possibly without even realising this ourselves.
>
>Wouldn't a radical Left positioning lead to isolation from other movements?
>Because of the political crisis there are not many radical Left groups to
>co-operate with anymore. But we don't think that's a reason to join forces
>with the Right, as if they were Left-wing allies. If this were to happen,
>it would lead to self-overestimation, and as a result the organisational
>and ideological crisis of the Left would be absent from our minds.
>Left-wing activists should wonder why their ideas are suddenly so well
>appreciated by NGO's (Non-Governmental Organisations) when in reality they
>have very different interests than grass-roots movements. Or when, in these
>times of Right-wing domination, activists suddenly succede in mobilising
>great numbers of people internationally with a new pinpoint such as
>"globalisation". It's not impossible that the Left would unexpectedly gain
>more support, but it is very well possible that you are mobilising people
>on mainly nationalist sentiments.
>
>The MAI agreement on "free trade" was finally abandoned because of French
>nationalism....
>The French government quit the negotiations. They were afraid that because
>of foreign investments they 'd lose the remaining influence on the French
>economy and especially on the national production of culture via the film
>industry.
>
>But some activists are claiming this as a victory for the Left.
>They point out that activists in the French communist party have played a
>big role in the decision of the French government. That's true, but
>nationalism and fear of  foreign corporations currently play major roles in
>the ideas within that party.
>
>"Globalisation" and anti-racism
>Is it not possible to be against "globalisation" and "free trade" from a
>Left perspective? Do you want to leave this field to the extreme Right?
>You can look at the worldwide system of oppression and exploitation from
>various angles. The Left will use concepts like capitalism, patriarchy,
>racism and imperialism. The extreme Right limits itself traditionally to
>national conflicts, international conspiracies and "free trade". The vague
>fashionable term "globalisation" is part of the Right-wing ideology. It
>suggests, whether it's meant or not, that local or better national
>capitalism is alright, and that the real problems are coming from outside.
>It doesn't help when Left-wing activists against "globalisation" and "free
>trade" write in their pamflets that they oppose nationalism, because their
>central concept, the supposed "globalisation", forces upon their readers a
>Right-wing and nationalist conceptual framework and way of thinking. Every
>action and choice for a focuspoint has a meta-political effect and it's
>crucial for Left-wing activists to consider this effect seriously. The New
>Right is much more aware of this. They have realised for a long time that
>because of actions by small movements, the **meta-political** and therefore
>indirect effect is by definition much larger than the direct influence on
>the power relations. So to conclude, De Fabel indeed leaves the supposed
>"globalisation" and the accompaniing focus-point of "free trade" to the
>extreme Right. We want to analyse the worldwide exploitation and oppression
>by using a radical Left conceptional framework, and fight it via totally
>different focus-points of action. But first we want to contribute to
>starting an international discussion about the intrusion of Right-wing
>ideas in campaigns which are meant to be Left-wing. We can prevent that by
>consequently connecting anti-capitalism with an anti-racist and an
>anti-patriarchical analysis, without bombarding one of these as to being
>the main problem.
>
>Some activists say that fighting "globalisation" is already anti-racist.
>They say racism is growing because of poverty and insecurity caused by
>"globalisation" and "free trade".
>Racism is not an automatic or natural response to poverty and insecurity.
>Racism exists as well among people who are not suffering from this at all.
>You can't derive racism from the capitalist order. It is surely connected
>with it, but exists by itself too. There is another flaw in this line of
>reasoning too. Poverty and insecurity are not caused by "free trade" or
>something undefined like "globalisation". They are caused by the capitalist
>system. The local types of capitalism which many anti-"globalisation"
>activists advocate, will just as much judge people on their productivity,
>and therefore make them suffer from insecurity. On top of that, many
>anti-"globalisation" activists daydream of "going back" to an idealised
>feudal era when society was supposed to have been surveyable and all people
>knew their place. They often use a very conservative image of society where
>there is no place for immigrants, refugees and other "foreign elements".
>
>Potential anti-Semitism
>What is exactly wrong with the term "free trade"?
>You can't truly analyse the reality of the capitalist system when using
>this concept. In the concept of "free trade" there is the flaw of thinking
>that capitalism could exist without state interference, without states that
>guarantee property rights, discipline the workers, make sure that roads are
>built, etc. It suggests a conflict between the state and capital which does
>not exist in reality. Both advocates and opponents of "free trade" are
>using the same limited analysis of capitalism. We think that the concept of
>the international division of labour is much more appropriate to analyse
>the international shipment of capital and goods.
>
>In your opinion the campaigns against "free trade" are anti-Semitic?
>No, potentially anti-Semitic. That is not the same. For activists, "free
>trade" is a senseless focus-point. Unless when they use a traditional
>extreme Right analitical framework. Anti-Semitism will practically always
>be part of that. It's a step that is historically not far from there,
>that's why we use the term potentially anti-Semitic. The many extreme Right
>activists which are attracted by the international campaigns against "free
>trade", recognise this anti-Semitic potential easily. It's not even 55
>years since Auschwitz and Left-wing activists are hardly capable of
>recognising the traditional anti-Semitic ideology. That makes the campaigns
>against "free trade" even more dangerous.
>
>Is that why in the previous issue of your magazine there was a comparison
>between a recent anti-"free trade" poster and a number of historic
>anti-Semitic pictures?
>We wanted to show the striking similarities in the language of the images
>that are being used. This isn't a coincidence but a result of the
>strategical choice to emphasise on an elusive and invisible group of
>international capital owners who are supposed to pull the ropes of the
>world. Historically, these types of ideas have always resulted in a growth
>of anti-Semitism.
>
>
>Eric Krebbers
>Harry Westerink
>Merijn Schoenmaker
>
>De Fabel van de illegaal
>September 1999
>



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---