So, then, the G20 summit has passed. Maybe it's saved the world, maybe it hasn't. I'm not going to pretend I can make an educated judgement about the likely success or otherwise of the new attempts to restart the global economy when even economists are holding their breaths. I don't know. I just don't know.
The other hot topic is the way police treated the demonstrators. There are questions to be answered about exactly what happened around the death of one man, Ian Tomlinson, especially as it looks like he wasn't even part of the demo, just someone trying to get home. The tactic of 'kettling' is coming under renewed scrutiny, as thousands were kept in one place for hours. And the behaviour of the police towards peaceful protests is causing concern, after allegations that the Climate Camp protest was violently broken up once the TV cameras had gone home.
(You know the police tactics and actions may have gone too far when The Times starts to question them.)
But that's not what I want to talk about today. There are no doubt thousands of shrill voices across the internet making their views felt on these issues, and I won't add my own to them.
No, instead I want to look at another side of it. It happened only slowly, as the news media started to get a little disappointed. Despite their dire predictions of mass riots in the capital, of a re-run of the Poll Tax riots, of the imminent collapse of Western society in an orgy or rage and violence, the protests themselves were rather quiet.
I mean, the police bottled up approximately 4,000 protesters right outside that symbol of the collapse of the banks, and the unrestrained greed that started it, and seems to continue still, RBS. And they broke 3 or 4 windows. A revolution, this was not.
And all told, we're looking at at most 30,000 protesters This was not the population taking to the streets. Now, I have no doubt that part of the reason for this is the dire predictions the media were making - surprisingly, when the media repeatedly refers to possible violent clashes, riots on the street, and such like, a lot of people won't go. The police must have been overjoyed at the scaremongering by the media.
But some commentators have been proudly claiming this shows that there just isn't that much anger out there, that we know it's tough for the government, but have faith they will do everything they can to get us out of this mess.
Part of me would really like to believe this.
But this doesn't match with what I'm coming across out there. I'm not seeing burning rage, certainly, but I am seeing a sullen resentment. I'm meeting people who are confused as to why we can't spend billions to fix the pensions hole in the Post Office, when we've spent far more than that on bailing out banks. They don't see why we're closing libraries when we're creating money to pour into the financial system. They don't understand why the same MPs demanding new financial prudence from banks are also claiming thousands for second homes.
They don't see why they are suffering when those at the top seem to be carrying on as usual.
And it doesn't take much to trigger them from resentment to anger. Just ask them about Labour - suddenly the rage is evident. Maybe it's worse because Labour is supposed to be the party that protects them. Maybe. Maybe it would be just as intense whoever was in power. Maybe.
Regardless, they're not going to vote Labour. All this talk about the polls turning round if we start to see signs of recovery, how the support for Cameron and the Tories is soft, how we can still make it, sounds more and more like wishful thinking.
And the reason is simple: I don't think the people I'm talking to actually think the Tories will do better. They don't think they'll do worse. They don't really think about that at all. No, the reason they will vote for the Tories is to punish Labour. And I don't think that desire to punish them will go away even if Gordon Brown does magically bring us to a land of milk and honey within a year.
Because, and this is where it links in with why people haven't been protesting, I think far, far too many people just think they can't have an effect. Nothing will change. As the old saying goes, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
I think the perception, true or otherwise, that the three main parties are essentially saying the same thing with slightly different spins hasn't helped. People are beginning to think that voting doesn't really make a difference. So we have falling turnouts, attempts to shore up turnouts with postal voting (because we can't convince people to walk a few hundred yards down the street to vote), and the rise of smaller, more extreme parties - ones that at least offer something different.
But if you didn't think voting made a difference, there was always protest.
I remember, way back when, marching against going to war in Iraq. Maybe it's because I was young and idealistic, but I really thought we could make a difference. I looked around at the sea of people I was part of, stretching across Hyde Park, and I thought "Surely this means something? Surely no politician can just ignore this?".
Like I said, I was young and idealistic.
It wasn't just me. No matter whose particular estimate of numbers you want to go with, the two marches against the war that took place in London attracted huge numbers of people, a vast amount who believed that they really could make a difference, that they could make their voice heard, that their protest would have an effect in a democratic society.
But we all know how that story ended.
Now, I'm not saying that this means the UK isn't democratic - ultimately, MPs voted to go to war. It was a democratic decision, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.
But I am saying that decision had an effect on democracy. The marches were an incredible occurrence. A vast coalition of people from all walks of life came together to be heard. News reports described it as historic. Everyone seemed amazed at the size of these events.
And they failed. That's the important point - despite mobilising more people than anyone possibly imagined, they failed. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, regardless of whether it was democratic or not, millions of people were able to see on TV that protests didn't work.
So, when people think the parties are all the same, that protests are useless, what do you get? Apathy. Or at least it looks like apathy - people simply stop taking part. They make what seems a rational decision not to waste their time on something that will make no difference.
And that apparent apathy is what I think is the real threat, the real way that society can break down. People really are angry. Yes, they're keeping a lid on it (heavens, we are British, after all). But that doesn't change the fact that it is there.
Along with that anger, they feel powerless. They feel as if the people at the top will just keep on doing whatever they want, regardless of what everyone else wants them to do. They feel that voting makes no difference, that protesting makes no difference.
They feel they are ignored.
That's a dangerous combination. Anger, and powerlessness. Because as that anger grows - and it will, as the recession continues - as it grows, it has no way of being let out, no safety valve. Which means it builds up, until finally something, some spark, some event, something we can't predict, something happens that causes it to burst free.
What I worry about, what I'm scared of, is that we're not seeing a population happy to give the government the benefit of the doubt, but that instead, we're just seeing the calm before the storm.
That's what I'm scared of. I'm almost certain it won't happen. But that 'almost' is still scary.
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Sunday, 1 February 2009
The Future of Globalisation? - Part 2
The Prime Minister tells us, in words of wisdom from his icy ivory tower in Davos, that protectionism must be avoided. The participants at Davos tell us how de-globalisation is not an option, that we must not start to dismantle the system they created, that made them so rich, so powerful.
And you know what? They're right.
Well, in so far as they go.
The rise of globalisation has been met with mistrust in many countries of the world, by many sections of society. In the UK, the gap between rich and poor has steadily grown. Relative poverty has increased. Some of us have felt uneasy that the prosperity of our country, that our own increased purchasing power, that the cheap prices of the shiny goods we want, have all been built on the backs of workers in China, India, around the world. In the back of our mind, we know they are likely to have been exploited, exploited for our benefit.
Yes, these workers in foriegn climes may even be happier with their lot than with their alternatives. Hordes of Chinese continue to abandon the fields, the crushing peasant lives they had been living in the country, to try and find a better life in the cities and factories. And in their eyes, it may indeed be better. But is that really all we can hope for? That things get a little better for the people we exploit? That they get a little better, slowly, while things get a lot better, quickly, for the people at the top?
Globalisation has produced an uneasy feeling in many people. But while prosperity was rising, we silenced that little voice of our conscience, and got on with spending. Now, however, prosperity is deserting us, and the tensions and distaste over globalisation are starting to come to the boil across Europe.
But we can't go back and change the system we now have. Demanding British jobs for British workers gives rise to protectionism, an ugly nationalistic kind of protectionism. It is a protectionism that seeks to protect British workers at the expense of everyone else, and ultimately it will be at our expense too.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that something needs to be done. Globalisation has benefitted capital. World trade has made those rich enough to take advantage of it richer, while those unable to move as easily as the flows of digital capital have suffered. Companies wishing to take advantage of this now appear to be shipping workers wholesale from one country to another, to work on a temporary contract, at lower rates than the resident population.
Regardless of the economics of it, treating workers like cattle to be shuttled from building site to building site, from country to country, is just wrong. It degrades them. It degrades us.
But globalisation is an invincible tide, we are told. We cannot turn back the clock. To fight against it is futile.
Which is why I am suggesting embracing globalisation instead.
But it isn't the globalisation of capital, the one system of international co-operation that those at Davos want us to believe is possible. They call for reform of the IMF, the World Banks, anything to prop up the system they built. But now is the time for us to start building our own system, our own organisations to deal with the world as it is.
The case of the Portuguese and Italian workers is not an argument to block companies bringing in foreign workers to work on British sites. No, as I said, we depend on providing incentives and disincentives in this system. But instead of focusing on how to disincentivise workers taking action, it is time to focus on how to disincentivise companies taking advantage.
The globalisation I am calling for is a globalisation of working rights, of unions, of wage negotiations. In late 2007, two European Court rulings effectively allowed companies to undermine existing collective agreements in countries where they work. Both cases said that trade union action against overseas companies that had refused to apply pay and conditions of a host country had infringed the freedom of the company to operate freely under European Union law.
The protectionist way to deal with this would be to try and get the European Union to accept a change in the rules that stopped foreign firms being able to do this.
The new globalisation way to deal with this is to organise with unions in all European countries to negotiate coordinated agreements with companies.
Companies and capital are now global. Labour is becoming increasingly global. Now is the time to make our labour organisations global as well. And this means moving beyond the fraternal organisations that exist, the chummy little talking shops for union leaders. No, now is the time to build a truly international union, committed to protecting the rights of workers in each company, not in each country.
So yes, we need to build a union that can have workers striking across the continent, across the globe, if a company tries to take advantage of workers in one of the countries they operate in. Yes, we need to build a union that is willing, no, that demands to negotiate wages for workers throughout a company, not just those in a certain country.
Labour is becoming globalised. Unions need to do so too. Because now companies are seeking to play workers from one country off against workers in another, not from one factory against another. Because capital seeks to migrate to where it can take advantage of workers, regardless of the land they end up in.
And most importantly, because we need to be united against a new global capital that has more power than ever before to exploit us around the globe. We are stronger together, in a global union, regardless of the language we speak. And that, my friends, is acting in our own economic self-interest, that is playing the capitalists' game in a way they won't like.
And you know what? They're right.
Well, in so far as they go.
The rise of globalisation has been met with mistrust in many countries of the world, by many sections of society. In the UK, the gap between rich and poor has steadily grown. Relative poverty has increased. Some of us have felt uneasy that the prosperity of our country, that our own increased purchasing power, that the cheap prices of the shiny goods we want, have all been built on the backs of workers in China, India, around the world. In the back of our mind, we know they are likely to have been exploited, exploited for our benefit.
Yes, these workers in foriegn climes may even be happier with their lot than with their alternatives. Hordes of Chinese continue to abandon the fields, the crushing peasant lives they had been living in the country, to try and find a better life in the cities and factories. And in their eyes, it may indeed be better. But is that really all we can hope for? That things get a little better for the people we exploit? That they get a little better, slowly, while things get a lot better, quickly, for the people at the top?
Globalisation has produced an uneasy feeling in many people. But while prosperity was rising, we silenced that little voice of our conscience, and got on with spending. Now, however, prosperity is deserting us, and the tensions and distaste over globalisation are starting to come to the boil across Europe.
But we can't go back and change the system we now have. Demanding British jobs for British workers gives rise to protectionism, an ugly nationalistic kind of protectionism. It is a protectionism that seeks to protect British workers at the expense of everyone else, and ultimately it will be at our expense too.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that something needs to be done. Globalisation has benefitted capital. World trade has made those rich enough to take advantage of it richer, while those unable to move as easily as the flows of digital capital have suffered. Companies wishing to take advantage of this now appear to be shipping workers wholesale from one country to another, to work on a temporary contract, at lower rates than the resident population.
Regardless of the economics of it, treating workers like cattle to be shuttled from building site to building site, from country to country, is just wrong. It degrades them. It degrades us.
But globalisation is an invincible tide, we are told. We cannot turn back the clock. To fight against it is futile.
Which is why I am suggesting embracing globalisation instead.
But it isn't the globalisation of capital, the one system of international co-operation that those at Davos want us to believe is possible. They call for reform of the IMF, the World Banks, anything to prop up the system they built. But now is the time for us to start building our own system, our own organisations to deal with the world as it is.
The case of the Portuguese and Italian workers is not an argument to block companies bringing in foreign workers to work on British sites. No, as I said, we depend on providing incentives and disincentives in this system. But instead of focusing on how to disincentivise workers taking action, it is time to focus on how to disincentivise companies taking advantage.
The globalisation I am calling for is a globalisation of working rights, of unions, of wage negotiations. In late 2007, two European Court rulings effectively allowed companies to undermine existing collective agreements in countries where they work. Both cases said that trade union action against overseas companies that had refused to apply pay and conditions of a host country had infringed the freedom of the company to operate freely under European Union law.
The protectionist way to deal with this would be to try and get the European Union to accept a change in the rules that stopped foreign firms being able to do this.
The new globalisation way to deal with this is to organise with unions in all European countries to negotiate coordinated agreements with companies.
Companies and capital are now global. Labour is becoming increasingly global. Now is the time to make our labour organisations global as well. And this means moving beyond the fraternal organisations that exist, the chummy little talking shops for union leaders. No, now is the time to build a truly international union, committed to protecting the rights of workers in each company, not in each country.
So yes, we need to build a union that can have workers striking across the continent, across the globe, if a company tries to take advantage of workers in one of the countries they operate in. Yes, we need to build a union that is willing, no, that demands to negotiate wages for workers throughout a company, not just those in a certain country.
Labour is becoming globalised. Unions need to do so too. Because now companies are seeking to play workers from one country off against workers in another, not from one factory against another. Because capital seeks to migrate to where it can take advantage of workers, regardless of the land they end up in.
And most importantly, because we need to be united against a new global capital that has more power than ever before to exploit us around the globe. We are stronger together, in a global union, regardless of the language we speak. And that, my friends, is acting in our own economic self-interest, that is playing the capitalists' game in a way they won't like.
Saturday, 31 January 2009
The Future of Globalisation? - Part 1
The unrest has started. Across Europe, the discontent is starting to spill over into action. In Greece, riots over the death of a teenager have been replaced by protests by farmers. In Latvia, protests are turning into riots. In Lithuania, the same. In France, a general strike disrupts the country. In Iceland, quiet little Iceland, protesters and riot police share the streets, and a government falls. And in staid, polite old Britain, wildcat strikes are occurring.
At the World Economic Forum, politicians and plutocrats haunt the stage of their old successes. They appear shell-shocked, stunned by how quickly the world they built, the system they created, has started to crumble around them. Like Miss Havisham, they are unable to move on from the scene of their humiliation and disaster.
It isn't meant to be like this, they tell themselves. For decades, people in Europe have taken to the streets to demand a move to their capitalist system, for ever greater 'reform' of their economies. Look at the states of eastern Europe - they have raced to remake themselves as zealots of capitalism, rushing to embrace membership of the EU to calcify the market's grip on their countries.
But now...
It's not hard to see why this is happening. Not surprisingly, people are worried. No, more than that, people are scared. They are afraid of the chaos being unleashed around them, chaos that is starting to expand and endanger their livelihoods, their families, their well-being.
But in addition to that, people are angry. They are angry that those widely seen as having caused this chaos are not only getting away with it, but have taken vast sums of money for their troubles. They are angry that banking executives seem to believe that taking money from the tax-payer for themselves is acceptable. They are angry that politicians are letting them get away with this. They are angry that those who caused this, in business and politics alike, seem to be those who will be least effected by it.
And it is this potent mixture, of fear and rage, that is driving people onto the streets. And our current crop of politicians, brought up in a culture of managerialism, of bureaucracy, of technocracy, don't know how to react to so much naked emotion on display.
But the people out protesting aren't protesting just because of the state of the economy right now. Yes, that has been the trigger, but it is only providing the catalyst for other, and longer held, dis-satisfactions to rise to the surface.
Look at France. The ostensible reason for the general strike was that the government was bailing out banks and fat cats, but not protecting jobs and helping workers. But France has been a simmering cauldron of unrest for a long time now. Sarkozy came to power promising a broad swathe of reforms to the economy, to French society. The generalised unrest this has provoked in a significant section of French society has been galvanised by the current economic crisis.
In the Baltic states, there is rioting on the streets. There are predictions of dire economic collapse - 4.5% in Lithuania, 7% in Estonia, and an incredible 10% in Latvia. The fear this causes has joined with the anger over the steady reform of their economies to fit in with the rest of the EU.
And now Britain. No, we're not rioting. We generally leave that to the hot-heads on the continent. But we have seen a sudden and unexpected flurry of wildcat strikes. At almost 20 locations, across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, workers have walked out, held protests, demanded to be heard. These are unofficial strikes, illegal strikes, acts that could see these workers losing their jobs. But they went ahead anyway.
I've heard claims that there is no way these actions could spread, that these are just minor blips. The argument goes that people won't strike, because they would be too afraid of losing their jobs. But if workers are already scared about losing their jobs, if they already feel powerless, what is going to stop them?
And don't fall into the easy trap of believing the only people who would join these protests, the only people who could possibly object to foreign workers, are racists, closet or otherwise. No, in a situation like this, where it appears a company is bringing in cheaper labour from elsewhere, it is not racism for these British workers to act against it.
They are simply acting in their own economic self-interest - by attempting to stop companies undercutting the prevailing wage rates. It is the same economic self-interest that causes people to join unions. And yes, this kind of protectionism can be bad for the economy as a whole. But people will act in their economic self-interest, we are told. Just as bankers acted in their own economic self-interest, to the ultimate detriment of the economy as a whole.
A capitalist system requires people to act in their own economic self-interest. That self-interest has to be moderated by the rules and mores of a society, from government, from the people. We need to provide incentives to act in a way that is good for society as a whole, or disincentives to behaving in a way society doesn't want. At the moment, the disincentives towards taking action aren't working.
So what do we do? How do we deal with this? This is not a matter of dealing with this narrow sector of industry, that of construction contractors in the energy industry. We have seen the wave of unrest and protest that is sweeping the continent. All it needs in any country is one small spark. (And yes, despite the left-wing leanings of many of the protests, I think a country run in fear of revolt is a bad thing, because I'm a "democratic socialist" - the first word is important too. In addition, any protest that the BNP sends supporters to runs the risk of stopping being about protecting workers, and becomes about victimising different workers.)
Continued tomorrow...
At the World Economic Forum, politicians and plutocrats haunt the stage of their old successes. They appear shell-shocked, stunned by how quickly the world they built, the system they created, has started to crumble around them. Like Miss Havisham, they are unable to move on from the scene of their humiliation and disaster.
It isn't meant to be like this, they tell themselves. For decades, people in Europe have taken to the streets to demand a move to their capitalist system, for ever greater 'reform' of their economies. Look at the states of eastern Europe - they have raced to remake themselves as zealots of capitalism, rushing to embrace membership of the EU to calcify the market's grip on their countries.
But now...
It's not hard to see why this is happening. Not surprisingly, people are worried. No, more than that, people are scared. They are afraid of the chaos being unleashed around them, chaos that is starting to expand and endanger their livelihoods, their families, their well-being.
But in addition to that, people are angry. They are angry that those widely seen as having caused this chaos are not only getting away with it, but have taken vast sums of money for their troubles. They are angry that banking executives seem to believe that taking money from the tax-payer for themselves is acceptable. They are angry that politicians are letting them get away with this. They are angry that those who caused this, in business and politics alike, seem to be those who will be least effected by it.
And it is this potent mixture, of fear and rage, that is driving people onto the streets. And our current crop of politicians, brought up in a culture of managerialism, of bureaucracy, of technocracy, don't know how to react to so much naked emotion on display.
But the people out protesting aren't protesting just because of the state of the economy right now. Yes, that has been the trigger, but it is only providing the catalyst for other, and longer held, dis-satisfactions to rise to the surface.
Look at France. The ostensible reason for the general strike was that the government was bailing out banks and fat cats, but not protecting jobs and helping workers. But France has been a simmering cauldron of unrest for a long time now. Sarkozy came to power promising a broad swathe of reforms to the economy, to French society. The generalised unrest this has provoked in a significant section of French society has been galvanised by the current economic crisis.
In the Baltic states, there is rioting on the streets. There are predictions of dire economic collapse - 4.5% in Lithuania, 7% in Estonia, and an incredible 10% in Latvia. The fear this causes has joined with the anger over the steady reform of their economies to fit in with the rest of the EU.
And now Britain. No, we're not rioting. We generally leave that to the hot-heads on the continent. But we have seen a sudden and unexpected flurry of wildcat strikes. At almost 20 locations, across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, workers have walked out, held protests, demanded to be heard. These are unofficial strikes, illegal strikes, acts that could see these workers losing their jobs. But they went ahead anyway.
I've heard claims that there is no way these actions could spread, that these are just minor blips. The argument goes that people won't strike, because they would be too afraid of losing their jobs. But if workers are already scared about losing their jobs, if they already feel powerless, what is going to stop them?
And don't fall into the easy trap of believing the only people who would join these protests, the only people who could possibly object to foreign workers, are racists, closet or otherwise. No, in a situation like this, where it appears a company is bringing in cheaper labour from elsewhere, it is not racism for these British workers to act against it.
They are simply acting in their own economic self-interest - by attempting to stop companies undercutting the prevailing wage rates. It is the same economic self-interest that causes people to join unions. And yes, this kind of protectionism can be bad for the economy as a whole. But people will act in their economic self-interest, we are told. Just as bankers acted in their own economic self-interest, to the ultimate detriment of the economy as a whole.
A capitalist system requires people to act in their own economic self-interest. That self-interest has to be moderated by the rules and mores of a society, from government, from the people. We need to provide incentives to act in a way that is good for society as a whole, or disincentives to behaving in a way society doesn't want. At the moment, the disincentives towards taking action aren't working.
So what do we do? How do we deal with this? This is not a matter of dealing with this narrow sector of industry, that of construction contractors in the energy industry. We have seen the wave of unrest and protest that is sweeping the continent. All it needs in any country is one small spark. (And yes, despite the left-wing leanings of many of the protests, I think a country run in fear of revolt is a bad thing, because I'm a "democratic socialist" - the first word is important too. In addition, any protest that the BNP sends supporters to runs the risk of stopping being about protecting workers, and becomes about victimising different workers.)
Continued tomorrow...
Monday, 26 January 2009
Paying to Protest in UK
Jo Adetunji: Did you know … that you can be charged by councils for demonstrating against them?
I think this is a subject that is going to become more and more relevant as the various legislation that ahs been put through in the past few years starts to be applied. Many people will start to be very surprised at just what is now being criminalised, monitored, controlled, or chargeable.
I think this is a subject that is going to become more and more relevant as the various legislation that ahs been put through in the past few years starts to be applied. Many people will start to be very surprised at just what is now being criminalised, monitored, controlled, or chargeable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)