desperate measures - the global elite fights back

If it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit then it's probably shit, right? Not according to the heads of the World Bank and World Economic Forum, the Australian PM and The Economist magazine.

Anti-capitalist protesters outside the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting at Melbourne's Crown Casino were "misguided" "hooligans" according to Australian PM John Howard and needed to be convinced that the rape and plunder of the world by transnational corporations has merely been the teething problems of a poverty elimination program.

On the defensive after a string of vigorous mass protests and growing "third world" opposition, World Bank president James Wolfensohn started the Prague annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank on September 26 by acknowledging the thousands of protesters "outside the walls" had a point and were passionate. And so was he, he claimed, passionate about reducing poverty.

The new Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) initiative of the World Bank, however, is merely old wine in new bottles. Despite the mountain of evidence of the total failure by the World Bank to achieve their stated goals, the self-righteous elites can do no more than blame their opponents of merely not understanding their superior logic. The 12,000 opponents of the IMF/World Bank who succeeded in stopping their annual meeting a day early were not, however, convinced.

ANGRY AND EFFECTIVE

The Economist ("Anti-Capitalist protests: Angry and effective" Sept 23 2000) argues that the "irrational" protesters could cause "an unparalleled catastrophe for the planet's most desperate people if they slow down or even reverse the economic trends of the last 20 years". Unless they mean global elites when they say "the planet's most desperate people" then it's hard to see where their proof is. The very same issue of The Economist points out that the "average Chief Executive earns 475 times as much as the average factory worker, up from a ratio of 42 in 1980" and that "the real pay of the least educated has actually fallen aver the last 20 years".

The UN Human Development Report 2000 shows "global inequalities in income increased in the 20th century by orders of magnitude out of proportion of anything experienced before". The distance between the incomes of the richest and poorest country has increased from 3:1 in 1920, 35:1 in 1950, 44:1 in 1973 and 72:1 in 1992. According to the report's principal coordinator, Dr Richard Jolly, a similar calculation today would show an even greater gap. So where is their proof of the benefits of capitalist globalisation? Certainly not in their example of Indonesia, where millions of people now struggle to survive despite years of the World Bank lining the pockets of Soeharto. Maybe like Soeharto, these elites - once considered so wise - will be suddenly mentally unfit to stand trial.

SHUTTING OUT THE THIRD WORLD

The Economist also makes the mistake of only locating the anti-capitalists in the "first world", noting that "street protests did in fact succeed in shutting down the Seattle trade talks" but entirely ignoring the walkout by third world delegates sick of being ignored and shut out of the powerful "green room" negotiations which truly ended the Seattle talks. While I'm not about to suggest that all protesters have degrees in economics, to claim that "many of the protesters know little about the organizations they are attacking" denies two things. Firstly, many people know little about the organizations they defend.

Secondly, the Zapatistas of Chiapas, Mexico, the Landless Peasants Union in Brazil and farmers from Karnataka, India all know very well what these organisations are about. Peoples Global Action (one of the main organizing bodies for the new global days of protest against capitalism) in fact grew out of the Pan-Continental Conference Against Neo-Liberalism organized by the Zapatistas.

The Economist then goes on to question the democratic structures of Oxfam and the League for a Revolutionary Communist International. Fair enough too. But where's the questioning of the undemocratically elected World Bank, where dollars buy votes? Or the unelected WEF, who claim credit for setting up the WTO?

THE HEART OF THE MATTER

In fact there's a lot they don't question. Like why almost nobody except them believes in the trickle down theory any more, that Mike Moore's "rising tide that will lift all boats" seems irrationally optimistic in the face of around 24,000 deaths a day from hunger and hunger related diseases. They exist in a fairytale where all can be prosperous even while elites gain ludicrous shares of market, wealth and resources. Where rapacious big businesses aren't creating poverty but accidentally "leaving the poor behind".

No surprise then that right in the middle of The Economist article is a double page advertisement by Shell claiming that human rights is "the heart of our business". I guess, like the poor, they "accidentally" left behind the information that they are being taken to court again over the murder of Nigerian activist Ken Saro Wiwa and that 10,000 Nigerians took part in the June 18 (J18) 2000 Carnival against Capitalism. These silly protesters, if only someone would explain to them the benefits of plundering corporations and elites appearing to care a lot....

Grant