AUT: [Fwd: <nettime> Re: seattle: (a)moral colonization]

[Alain Kessi <kessi@xxxxxxxxx>]

hi there,

i was asked to cross-post the following thread from nettime since it may
be of interest on aut-op-sy. i'm posting the entire thread since it was
short (so far, anyway). first my post, then (for reference) wade
tillet's original post this was a reply to, then doug's objection to one
of the things i wrote. i suppose doug is correct in the current context,
and clinton just used the protectionist discourse to lick the boots of
part of his constituency, though i could imagine (if he could impose it
within the wto against the neo-colonized countries) that clinton might
actually go for these protectionist measures (social clause within the
wto) for real.

best,

alain

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: <nettime> Re: seattle: (a)moral colonization
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 04:39:50 +0200
From: Alain Kessi <kessi@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Nettime <nettime-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

wade tillett wrote:

> what we should keep in mind about the wto protest in seattle is
> that it was a wto protest in seattle.
>
> that is, not only the wto, but also the wto protest, represented
> first world interests. specifically, it represented american
> interests.

seems to me like the usual us-centric view with a dose of cultural
pessimism. i agree that the results of the protests and the probable
attempts at recuperating them need to be carefully looked at, and the
result of such evaluation be taken into account in developing future
strategies of struggle. but it's the corporate media's job to deny the
participation of groups from all over the world in the protests (cf. n30
<http://www.n30.org> with its decentralized actions all over the world),
and the fact that the seattle protest is but one manifestation of a
rising global movement of protests and strategy-building (pga
<http://www.agp.org>, reclaim the streets <http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/>,
via campesina, to name but a few contributions to such global
networking) - it's not your job (unless you'd like to support the
mainstream media in their efforts to keep such a movement invisible).

> why do you think that the protest in seattle got so much media
> coverage?

maybe just because media have a dynamic of profit of their own which is
not always completely in line with the general capitalist interests of
denying protest? if the protest is "newsworthy" (will boost readership
and through it advertizing), it will make first page. what is
"newsworthy" is a complex matter, but definitely, knowing a bit about
this strange concept can provide ways of manipulating the media in some
situations. i think seattle is a case in point.

> why do you think clinton was so eager to hop on the bandwagon?

clinton was hardly hopping on the bandwagon - he knows this bandwagon is
useless for him. he was helplessly trying to redirect what had become
scary by redefining it as an afl-cio "buy american and think of the poor
in the world" thing. helplessly, because it was clear to anyone
interested that the protests were not controlled by afl-cio, sierra club
or other reformists but by people who are slightly less controllable and
cooptable. of course, within the scope of his redefinition of reality,
clinton saw an opportunity to put protectionist measures on the agenda
(social clause to be selectively used against colonized/dependent
countries pressured to abolish workers' rights - and then punished for
it) and attempt a new social contract between afl-cio and us government.
it didn't work, really. not that the afl-cio is not interested, of
course. but the chaos within and without the wto was complete.

of course the wto and capitalist elites will attempt to save what can be
saved, and will be busy developing a new strategy of attack in order to
destroy the movements building up. just don't declare victory for the
strategists of capitalist attacks in advance. the struggle continues,
and it's not the first struggle that had to face the possibility of
parts of it being recuperated for other/contrary aims. in fact, i
presume that every struggle can be recuperated. the point is to be aware
of that, to watch out and to develop new strategies when you see that
the old ones start working against you.

not everyone fighting the wto is trying to install the next version of
oppressive systems to replace those against which effective ways of
struggling have been developed. not everyone protesting corporate
strategies babbles on and on about civil society and sustainability and
such modernized capitalist crap (developed by such strategists of
capital as the club of rome, stefan schmidheiny, anthony giddens and
juergen habermas).

best,

alain



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: <nettime> seattle: (a)moral colonization
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:09:16 -0600
From: wade tillett <super89@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Nettime <nettime-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

what we should keep in mind about the wto protest in seattle is
that it was a wto protest in seattle.

that is, not only the wto, but also the wto protest, represented
first world interests. specifically, it represented american
interests. the protest serves as an extension of power through
the simulation of conflict. what i mean is that the wto and the
protest both operate within a system of first world expansion
interests, and this expansion is accomplished through a
spectacle of conflict. am i saying that people should not protest,
should be silent? absolutely not. what i am saying is that when
we protest we must have an acute awareness of how this
protest will be used. the wto negotiations 'collapsed', but there
is more than one result of this conflict. these results are what
we need to examine and anticipate.

what are the results for the corporations?

the continued operation under the existing rules of the wto. the
continued operation under governments in their existing form.
an expansion of interests through self-regulation, concurrent
with industry deregulation in the name of competition. 'this
deregulation, by allowing insurance, banks, and brokers to
operate under one roof, therefore decreasing their overhead
costs, will allow savings to be passed on to consumers.' does
anyone believe this? industry deregulation is simply a symptom
of corporations more powerful than governments. deregulation
allows corporations to operate on a scale larger than
governments. mega-conglomerates of media and financial
institutions are necessary in order to preserve american
interests through the extension of corporate power based in the
united states. remember that the cold war was an economic
war, the spoils of which are economic colonization.
deregulation allows for the massive deployment of propaganda
and products on an international scale. yeah, you can send a
couple hand-crafted wooden chairs to russia through your
web page but who would want them. they could make those for
themselves. the products and services which makes the united
states a superpower are the products and services which
provide a capital investment which no one else can match. this
is the reason for deregulation, to ensure unmatched corporate
capital bases. the united states is the world bank, brokering
investments and taking a cut through the use of unmatched
funds. the united states no longer needs a weapons war to drain
economies of their wealth. american interests are strong
enough worldwide to provide the backbone of economic
infrastructure. what are the essential industries of an american
based corporate colonization? media and finance. industries
which have both been heavily deregulated since the end of the
cold war. the government won the cold war through the
strength and extension of a global american economy. but
government colonization is frowned upon these days. luckily,
and not by chance, it is also unnecessary for continued
american colonization. colonial expansion is now afforded to
corporations under the banner of free trade. the institutions
which the government relied upon for its wealth during the cold
war are now claiming the power which they gave. its kind of
like what the united states always does, give weapons to the
guys they believe will further their interest and then crush them
when they turn on the us because they finally figure out the us
was only using them to further american interests. but the
government can not continue the expansion of an economic
warfare without weapons. the american government has met
its 'moral' (financial) limit. or has it?.

capitalism and democracy have been bundled into the phrase
democratic capitalism and sold as if any restrictions on
corporations are restrictions on our freedom to choose and,
therefore, democracy. 'global capitalism is inevitable and this is
good because democracy will follow.' is this true? what are the
choices which are not being presented to us? did we all lose the
cold war? (fooled for the last time by the either/or). capitalism
is based on growth, what happens when it has fully extended
itself? will this ever happen? can governments control
corporations larger than themselves? can people control
corporations through their buying power if they are informed?
how could people be informed if the media is what we need to
be informed of? is a desire for information simply the extension
of an information economy? does a belief in first world
education necessarily extend the fundamental capitalistic belief
in a relationship between wealth and knowledge, and therefore
a 'you get what you deserve' value system? is not an
information economy based on massive data mines financed by
corporate capital? - the information which information
have-nots possess is the information on their self - their
buying habits, their desires, their sizes and health, their protests
and weaknesses, their recorded entity, their objectification
with which they can be limited. their bank account. we are
consumers eagerly lined up for personalization, security, and
prosthetics so that we may be strip mined of our information,
tied to our reification and therefore bankrupt.

what are the results for the protesters?

was this really a victory for the protesters? where is the
counter-plan? the structure which is to take place after the
revolution?

there is the issue of united states environmental laws being
overturned by the wto inside the united states, but to limit the
dispute to this would be nationalist and protectionist. there are
larger more global issues such as human and labor rights,
environmental pollution, non-democratic governments. these
are all good issues to be concerned with, however what it
results in is the expansion of the first world beyond a unified
vision of capitalism into a unified vision of a pseudo-christian
pseudo-democratic capitalistic belief system. the continued
expansion of first-world countries as the moral police and
truth-makers of the world. (be careful what you wish for.) why
do you think that the protest in seattle got so much media
coverage? why do you think clinton was so eager to hop on the
bandwagon? it is an inflation of interests. beyond free trade we
have moral trade. the conflict yields a governmental, moral,
social, and cultural expansion. more (a)moral colonization.
manifest destiny.

are we really up to this? are our morals worth passing along?
(the only form of regulation we could attain would be entirely
corrupt, what with trillions of dollars at stake.) can we pretend
that we do not have overly populated jails and housing projects,
high murder rates, the death penalty, a miserable education and
foster care system for our children, an extreme and widening
gap between the rich and poor, as well as environmental
pollution and consumption of most of the world's resources?

we do need our government to protect us from corporations.
corporations do not represent any form of society, welfare, or
community. government is our strongest weapon against
corporations. but we must be careful what sort of power we
give to our government also. we must protect our rights without
trampling over everyone else's. does the expansion of
corporations have to mean the expansion of our moral system?
we need to examine our own democracy and the belief that
democracy is alive and well because of our freedom to choose
a product. where the power structure lies is not in what you
choose, but in the choices that have been presented to you. the
things not listed on the menu are quickly dismissed as
non-choices, choices already weeded out by supply and
demand. 'democratic choices' which have already been made.
these are the choices we must look at. choices like
non-ownership, community ownership, public ownership,
elective ownership, pulsating ownership, revolving
ownership.... choices like modified capitalism,
information-based capitalism, regulated capitalism, welfare
capitalism... choices like elective democracy, elective
citizenship, consumer rights... i am not saying these are the
answers, but i am saying that there must be options other than
the american form(s) of democratic capitalism. these forms
must be allowed to exist. this world can not support a world
which consumes (resources, governments, people) the way
the united state does. do we really think that new forms of
governments, of society, can ever sprout out of the united
states? we must encourage new forms. we must limit the
expansion of american profiteering , but we also must limit the
expansion of the united states ad other countries as moral
police. economic colonization must include moral colonization,
or else we have amoral colonization. is this colonization
inevitable? if so, how can it be modified, limited, changed?

we need to examine our goals. we must understand what the
result will be, what will be left with when we do not attain our
goals. (after all, this is why communism doesn't work). that is,
we have to make clear goals which account for their failure.

an internet that promotes non-commercial interests and
solidarity:

http://www.assises.sgdg.org/motion-assises99-en.html

united states bill of rights:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html

united states declaration of independence:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/declar.html

united nations bill of rights:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

the electronic frontier and the bill of rights:

http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/bill_of_rights_online.paper



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: <nettime> Re: seattle: (a)moral colonization
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 10:49:28 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Nettime <nettime-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Alain Kessi wrote:

>clinton saw an opportunity to put protectionist measures on the agenda
>(social clause to be selectively used against colonized/dependent
>countries pressured to abolish workers' rights - and then punished for
>it) and attempt a new social contract between afl-cio and us government.

I agree with everything else you said in this post, and with most of
what you say in general, but I've got to take exception to this.
Clinton suggested making worker rights offenses sactionable under the
WTO in a newspaper interview early in the WTO week. The next day, his
negotiating team was inside the conference saying the president had
"misspoken." Either he was deliberately lying in the interview or he
knew the proposal would go nowhere within the WTO - but whichever is
the case, he was trying to placate a domestic constituency without
really intending to carry through. This is classic Clinton behavior.
As the president of the Arkansas state AFL-CIO once put it, he'll
shake your hand while he's pissing down your leg. He's a loyal
servant of Wall Street and the Fortune 500, and they don't want labor
rights in the WTO.

Doug

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx and "info nettime-l" in the msg
body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@xxxxxxxxxxxxx




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