I’ll admit, I’m confused. Are the anti-globalization protesters afoot of late pro one world government or against it? If they’re pro such, are they commies? If they’re against it, are they right-wingers? Is all of this asking too much of a linear right-left model of the political spectrum?
Has anybody emerged as yet as the voice of this phenomenon?
There is no single line being run by the protestors and they will say that they represent disparate interests. The theme that runs through the protests is that the various international bodies that are the targets of their protests (the IMF, World Bank, OECD etc) lack democractic legitimacy and that they represent but a few interests.
The various interests which they feel are un- or poorly represented are things which may well be mutually incompatible. Some groups are pro-trade, but wish to change the conditions attached to the WTO. Some groups are overtly protectionist. Some want to advance the interests of poor nations, some wish to protect the privileges of their own nations. Some wish environmental effects to be given due weight, some seem to want to protect the environment at the expense of as many foreigners as it takes.
Mostly these inconsistencies are acknowledged and even embraced. The point presumably is to say that some voices are not heard at these fora. But this is where (I think) it gets tricky. Most of the groups are reformists but some are revolutionaries. The anarchist and International Socialists are not interested in getting these issues onto the international political agenda, rather they hope to make the system fall. Myself I see those groups as fifth columnists, who discredit the reformist elements by their hypocritical, intolerant and violent behaviour.
picmr
To the extent that the phrase one-world-government has any meaning, anti.
No, most protestors seem to be ‘leftists’ insofar as that is a coherent statement. It might be time for you to question some of your ideas on political ideology (or for us all to recognize that politics is only a marginally coherent realm.)
Yes.
Not to my knowledge. But then I think they’re not terribly coherent to begin with.
Any debate that can get Greenpeace and Pat Buchanan on the same side isn’t particularly homogeneous, IMHO. However, the majority of anti-corporate globalization coalitions are left-wing.
Picmr, I agree with you. Although the demolition of a Starbuck’s is hardly on the scale compared with the economic violence perpetrated by the organizations in question, it’s hardly a credit to the movement and it provides ammunition to our critics. As a protester, I refuse to participate in such activities and rebuke those who choose to do so.
I tend to disagree to an extent with picmr. The fact that a violent group advocates an idea has no bearing on the idea itself.
The degree to which a coalition or organization tolerates violent members or component organizations does, however, reflect poorly on the overall organization itself.
Remember the hippies who wanted to change the world? they are the ones sitting in the boards of corporations now and the ones participating in these meetings.
The protestors of today will be the ones running the show in 25 years and they will have new people protesting.
Of course there are still a few hippies left over. They are the ones who didn’t sell themselves out or the ones who were pathetic losers, depending on your point of view.
A few of the protestors of today will still be protesting in 25 years but most will be fully integrated and sick of listening to the rants of their teenage kids who think they know something.
That’s life and it repeats itself over and over, generation after generation.