This commentary will outline
why I think this book is important, explain the critique in
Global Showdown,and bring out what seems to me
to be some of the important questions,
which reading this book raises for the radical, deep ecology-influenced
environmental
movement.
First, one has to say that this
book is an excellent source of information on the various
corporate structures which are trying to make the world
safe for international Capital - for
example the World Trade Organization, the International
Monetary Fund, the World Bank -
and the ideas of the mainstream groups in opposition to
this. I agree with the authors when
they note that “civil society politics are the politics
of the twenty first century.” (p. 5)
Although most of us reading this commentary share an opposition
to the belief that trade is
the supreme good, there is an ongoing discussion on what
will be the nature of such politics.
This book advocates a mainstream view of civil society
politics that ultimately can be
accommodated within industrial capitalism. (The People’s
Summit in Quebec City in April
of 2001, was partly financed by the federal and Québec
governments.)
Global Showdown shows
the historical emergence of global economic institutions and,
following the ending of the Second World War, how United
Nations supervision of such
institutions was replaced by US control, with what has
come to be called “The Washington
Consensus.”
“Led by American business interests,
the free-market doctrine would
eventually force most
governments in the world to give up controls on
foreign investment, liberalize
trade, deregulate their internal economies,
privatize state services,
and enter into head-to-head global competition.”
(p. 57)
Because of the necessary exposure of the labyrinth corporate
and bureaucratic structures
which underpin the ever expanding globalization of Capital,
this book is not easy, although
it is essential reading.
Maude Barlow is the chairperson
of the Council of Canadians. Barlow has played a major
role in educating and arousing Canadians to fight back
against the forces of globalization and
increasing corporate governance. Anyone who has heard
her speak, knows she is a very
effective and knowledgeable speaker, who “eats up” the
apologists for more unrestricted free
trade. Tony Clarke is the director of the Polaris Institute
of Canada. This institute, which
emerged in 1997, describes itself in its mission statement
as seeking “to provide a compass
for social movements”, in order “to bring about democratic
social change” in this era of
corporate driven globalization. Both authors know their
stuff, and reading this book brings
about a growing rage at the sell-out, and its extent, of
the interests of the Canadian (and the
world’s) people to a transnational corporate agenda.
Barlow and Clarke do not basically
oppose globalization; they seek “fair” trade, not free
trade. The authors want “Canada to help bring democratic
governance to the operation of
the global economy.” (p. 176) They want to democratize,
not dismantle, the institutions of
global economic governance. Taken for granted is the spread
of capitalist industrialism all
over the globe. Barlow and Clarke want to control globalization
from below, not the
corporate control from the top. So they do not oppose global
trade, foreign investment or
capitalism. They support “compensating” corporations when
the state expropriates. (p. 193)
Their book reflects the Declaration of the Second People’s
Summit of the Americas in
Québec City (April 19, 2001), which said:
“We want socially productive
and ecologically responsible investment.
The rules applied across the
continent should encourage foreign investors
who will guarantee the creation
of quality jobs, sustainable production
and economic stability, while
blocking speculative investments.”
Barlow and Clarke do not share
the anarchist critique of the state, which they essentially
dismiss without discussion. They even give support in
the book to arresting anarchists involved
in property damage at the Seattle demonstration in 1999!
(p. 13.) (Anarchism advocates
some type of stateless society, that is a society without
government, or at least extremely
limited government, and sees attempts to work within existing
states as futile activity.)
The authors’ view seems to be
that we once had “democracy” in Canada and that the state
was in control of the economy. I think this assumption
is false. They want the nation state to
become strengthened and “redemocratized”.
This is a progressive book,
but it stays within a “human” context. The Earth itself and the
millions of nonhuman organisms are largely excluded from
the authors’ human-centered vision
of democracy. The primacy of the Earth is absent. There
is no fundamental ecological critique
in Global Showdown. There is no sense of having
exceeded the ecological footprint of
industrial humankind. The “democratic rights” put forward
as desirable, presuppose a high
standard of living. There is no understanding that socially
worthy measures may be just as
ecologically harmful and unsustainable as socially unworthy
ones. There is no understanding
that the ecological question is deeper, and of a different
nature, than trying to democratically
control the global economy. Human history shows much waste
and ecological destruction, so
a politics of controlling globalization, or for that matter
a politics of anti-globalization or
anti-capitalism, while important, is not sufficient. There
is no sense that there are too many
people and that the existing lifestyle “role model” in
North America or Western Europe is
a recipe for ecological disaster for the rest of the world.
There is no sense that economic
growth and consumerism need to be ended, for a sustainable
planet to exist for all species,
not just humans. Finally, there is no sense that, even
from a social perspective, for us to
achieve global sustainability means focusing on redistributing
wealth nationally and
internationally, not promoting more “investment” and economic
growth.
The radical ecocentric activist
who is also socially aware sees that the forces of
globalization and increasing world trade attack all the
social buffers from the marketplace as
“impediments” to trade, but also sees how these forces
undermine the ecological integrity of
the planet. In Global Showdown and in the anti-globalization
movement in Canada, it is the
first concern which is overwhelmingly dominant.
Final Reflections
I think it important to try and
think outside of the existing paradigm and the self-
destructive industrial growth society that seemingly overwhelms
us. We do not have to
accept thinking within the framework of the current society.
(This is what Arne Naess referred
to as “shallow” ecology.) A major issue is how to deal
with “property” - a human- and
class-centered concept. Governments and corporations want
to turn everything into private
property, as in the fishery. (Yet even many inshore fishermen,
while they oppose ITQs
[Individual Transferable Quotas], see no apparent contradiction
in “selling” lobster licenses
for hundreds of thousands of dollars.) To preserve Nature’s
“Commons” we need to move
to “usufruct rights” and to see the concept of private
property as a social fiction used to
justify Earth exploitation. Usufruct rights, in a society
that is Earth-centered and socially just,
would be accountable to an all-species community of life
forms and not privately transferable.
To corporations and the governments
which serve them, anti-globalization activists have
become the new subversives and are being defined as “nonpersons”
against whom very
severe measures can be used. “Democracy” can always be
withdrawn in the interest of Capital.
If rubber bullets and tear gas do not suffice, then live
ammunition will be used, as was the
case recently in Sweden, the home of social democracy.
Corporations want consumers not
politically active citizens.
Global Showdown ignores
the dilemma that long-time activists face, that as the world
becomes increasingly complex, most citizens do not seem
to want to spend the time to
understand and work to change it. Yet democracy requires
such an involvement.
In a recent book by Hugh Brody,
The Other Side of Eden: Hunters, Farmers And
The Shaping Of The World, he points out that until
12,000 years ago, all of us lived as
hunter-gatherers, and that in such societies the material
wellbeing of people depended on
knowing, rather than changing their environment.
Such societies were spiritual, with
worldviews of respect for Nature, grounded in animism.
Somehow we must reorient to this.
It is quite a task that we face, more encompassing than
the theme of this edition of
Elements: “Localization versus Globalization.”
Rather than trying to tame industrial
globalization, as in Global Showdown, with its
underlying destructive belief that all of
Nature is subject to human control and exploitation, we
need to mentally revisit and reorient
towards those cultures which for 90 percent of our human
history served us well.
Global Showdown presents
a social democratic “nonviolent” model for reigning in the
global economy, with a major role for labour unions. The
overall thrust of the book is
reformist but with hints of a more radical agenda. The
deep green and deep ecology
alternative to this model, urgently awaits conceptualization.
July 15, 2001
Published in the September 2001 edition
of the online magazine of the New Brunswick Environmental
Network, Elements: http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/globalization/davido/david.htm
To obtain any of the Green Web publications, write to us at:
Green Web, R.R. #3, Saltsprings, Nova Scotia, Canada, BOK 1PO
E-mail us at: greenweb@ca.inter.net