Friends,
The Seattle demonstrations and those which followed have
accomplished at least one thing: globalization is now a
topic receiving some media attention. The propaganda
strategy had been to ignore globaliazation as a political
issue, and report it only as 'what is'. The demonstrations
have forced a shift: now the propaganda machinery is
churning out articles which admit that globalization is a
political choice, and which try to sell it as the best
choice.
Public opinion is the arena in which the struggle for human
liberation will need to be ultimately won. The movement,
through demonstrations, has helped open this arena, but
that's only the first step. The movement must find ways to
reach out to the non-activist majority, help them understand
the crisis they face, and begin the development of a
consensus agenda for radical change.
The movement may not yet be aware of this strategic
imperative, but the elite establishment most certainly is.
Let's look at two recent articles and examine some of the
propaganda techniques being employed.
rkm
============================================================================
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 19:50:57 -0500
To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
From: Mark Douglas Whitaker <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Protesters Aren't Alone in Doubts About Globalization
Mime-Version: 1.0
Wednesday. September 13, 2000 in the Los Angeles Times
Protesters Aren't Alone in Doubts About Globalization
by Tom Plate
MELBOURNE, Australia--The suits on the buses mostly sat
quietly, working their cell phones in part because there was
little else to do. The buses, which were to transport them
to the large convention hotel housing the World Economic
Forum's annual Asia conference, were not moving. Blocking
their way three blocks from the glistening Crown Towers
complex, where the official sessions were to be held, were
row after row of arm-linked protesters. There were thousands
of them, and many who were braving the brisk breezes of the
nippy Australian spring were women and children. These
protesters may not have understood all the nuances,
complexities and yield curves of globalization. But they
knew they didn't like this scary global phenomenon one bit.
This World Economic Forum provided the juiciest target since
the riots last December in Seattle, scene of the
now-infamous World Trade Organization fiasco. True, the WEF,
unlike the WTO, is a nongovernmental organization with no
formal power to legislate or administer or adjudicate.
Still, the wide-roving talk-tank, which also holds an annual
January conclave in Switzerland, presented an irresistible
target of opportunity for these protesters. Before long,
about 750 or so WEF invitees--CEOs, government officials,
policy intellectuals, media leaders, academics and WEF
officials themselves who had flown in from their Geneva
headquarters--didn't know what hit them.
On Monday morning, when it dawned on police that they could
be facing another Seattle, the WEF invitees were warned of
the brewing trouble. Spurning the buses with their police
escorts, some of the invitees sauntered up to the barricades
and tried their best to charm their way through. It was a no
go. So at the outset, this was a conference whose attendance
was severely restricted, as the hotel site was wholly
encircled by protesters well before the police realized how
many there were and what they were up to. In frustration,
near the end of the day some delegates agreed to be
airlifted to the hotel rooftop by police helicopters, or,
with a James Bond-like panache, sped to the site by motor
launch across the Yarra River.
The attitude inside was defiant but concerned; and there was
less gloating about the unmitigated benefits of
globalization than the protesters outside might have
imagined. Sure, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard
proclaimed globality "the ticket to prosperity for poor
nations." This is the pro-globalization party line. But
there were plenty of suits inside who had their doubts,
though not in the way of many of the protesters, who regard
globalization mostly as a cover for the multinational
corporate pillaging of the poor. On the inside, doubts about
the health of the Asia Pacific regional economy,
increasingly globalized as it is, were common. A surprising
number said the Asian recovery probably would not continue.
Australian Treasurer Peter Costello complained bitterly in a
riveting off-the-cuff opening address that too little has
been done in the region to repair the infamously flawed
world "financial architecture"--just a few years ago
oft-cited as the root cause of the crisis. Kenneth Courtis,
Asia vice chairman of Goldman Sachs, accused Japan of
creating "a massive debt trap" for itself that might trigger
an even more deadly crisis.
No, few if any of the angry protesters had any idea of the
intensity of the debate inside. For many of them,
globalization is nothing more than a global conspiracy
designed to leave them behind and line the pockets of the
rich. When you're out of a job, or fear you're going to lose
one, this view seems more plausible than radical. Rapid
technological innovation, not just immense corporate greed,
is the driving force of the new millennium. The truth is
that globalization is a powerful force hurling all of
us--wealthy or not--into an uncertain future.
But observing the many young faces of protest on the
barricades, you had to accept that these were the genuine,
defiant ones of the new age, with a resistance fueled not
just by hatred of brutally unfeeling corporations but also
by the harsh facts of contemporary life. Many people simply
want to stop the world and get off. That this is their only
solution causes them no embarrassment. Rather than viewing
globalization as a ticket to prosperity, they see it as a
ticket to nowhere. Nodding to the tumult outside, economist
Courtis warned his fellow rich and famous, "It's too simple
[to just preach to people], 'It's the markets, stupid.' "
Capitalism's global gladiators are going to have to come up
with something better than this if they are to convince
others--and maybe even themselves.
Times contributing editor Tom Plate, a WEF Participant,
teaches at UCLA.
===============
rkm:
The principle of aikido is to _blend with the energy of your
opponent, and then _redirect that energy and _neutralize it.
The above article exemplifies the aikido principle, as
applied to propaganda.
Most of the words are aimed at _blending with
anti-globalization sentiment... expressing sympathy for the
plight of those being hurt by globalization, seeming to
understand the rage of the demonstrators, and admitting that
even sensible people (those inside the official sessions)
have their doubts.
Many fewer words are devoted to the _redirection and the
_neutralization. This is where the real message of the
piece is injected. The points are made in passing, subtly
implying that they are utterly beyond dispute.
Consider these few words, which carefully guide the reader
away from whatever doubts had been kindled by the earlier
'sympathy' portions:
"Rapid technological innovation, not just immense corporate
greed, is the driving force of the new millennium. ...you had
to accept that these were the genuine, defiant ones of the
new age, with a resistance fueled not just by hatred of
brutally unfeeling corporations but also by the harsh facts
of contemporary life. Many people simply want to stop the
world and get off."
The reader now understands that technology, not
globalization, is the real problem. The protestors have got
it wrong, and the relevance of their protest is thereby neutralized.
The above words inject another redirection and
neturalization. They reduce the scope of protestors
concerns to "unfeeling corporations". In fact the protests
have been against the whole corporate system - indeed
capitalism itself - and the article is careful to redirect
this radical sentiment into neutralized reformist territory.
The third redirection is the old standy, the ad hominem
argument, switching attention from the subject to the
person...
For many of them, globalization is nothing more than a
global conspiracy designed to leave them behind and line the
pockets of the rich ... Many people simply want to stop the
world and get off. That this is their only solution causes
them no embarrassment.
Not only are the protestors ignorant that technology is the
real problem, but they delve into conspiracy theories, are
incapable of facing the realities of life, have no solutions
to offer, and aspire no higher. All of this is said in
passing, with seeming authority, and made stronger by the
total lack of evidence - as if none were necessary.
If Shakespeare had written the article, it would have begun
"I have come to bury capitalism, not to praise it."
rkm
btw> See if you notice some of the same techniques, and even
themes, in the following piece from The Economist.
============================================================================
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 23:36:57 -0500
To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.•••
From: Mark Douglas Whitaker <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fwd: The case for globalisation - The Economist (fwd)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:18:49 -0400
From: Peter Grimes <•••@••.•••
Subject: The case for globalisation - The Economist
To: WSN <•••@••.•••
Sender: •••@••.•••
We seem to be getting their attention...
The Economist September
23, 2000
The case for globalisation
The anti-capitalist protesters who wrecked the Seattle trade
talks last year, and who hope to make a great nuisance of
themselves in Prague next week when the city hosts this
year's annual meeting of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, are wrong about most things.
However, they are right on two matters, and the importance
of these points would be difficult to exaggerate. The
protesters are right that the most pressing moral, political
and economic issue of our time is third- world poverty. And
they are right that the tide of "globalisation", powerful as
the engines driving it may be, can be turned back. The fact
that both these things are true is what makes the
protesters-and, crucially, the strand of popular opinion
that sympathises with them-so terribly dangerous.
International economic integration is not an ineluctable
process, as many of its most enthusiastic advocates appear
to believe. It is only one, the best, of many possible
futures for the world economy; others may be chosen, and are
even coming to seem more likely. Governments, and through
them their electorates, will have a far bigger say in
deciding this future than most people appear to think. The
protesters are right that governments and companies-if only
they can be moved by force of argument, or just by
force-have it within their power to slow and even reverse
the economic trends of the past 20 years.
Now this would not be, as the protesters and their tacit
supporters must reckon, a victory for the poor or for the
human spirit. It would be just the opposite: an unparalleled
catastrophe for the planet's most desperate people, and
something that could be achieved, by the way, only by
trampling down individual liberty on a daunting scale. Yet
none of this means it could never happen. The danger that it
will come to pass deserves to be taken much more seriously
than it has been so far.
Pandering as they go
The mighty forces driving globalisation are surely, you
might think, impervious to the petty aggravation of street
protesters wearing silly costumes. Certainly, one would have
hoped so, but it is proving otherwise. Street protests did
in fact succeed in shutting down the Seattle trade talks
last year. More generally, governments and their
international agencies-which means the IMF and the World
Bank, among others-are these days mindful that public
opinion is anything but squarely behind them. They are not
merely listening to the activists but increasingly are
pandering to them, adjusting both their policies and the way
these policies are presented to the public at large.
Companies too are bending to the pressure, modest as it
might seem, and are conceding to the anti- capitalists not
just specific changes in corporate policy but also large
parts of the dissenters' specious argument.
These outbreaks of anti-capitalist sentiment are meeting
next to no intellectual resistance from official quarters.
Governments are apologising for globalisation and promising
to civilise it. Instead, if they had any regard for the
plight of the poor, they would be accelerating it,
celebrating it, exulting in it-and if all that were too much
for the public they would at least be trying to explain it.
Lately, technology has been the main driver of
globalisation. The advances achieved in computing and
telecommunications in the West offer enormous, indeed
unprecedented, scope for raising living standards in the
third world. New technologies promise not just big
improvements in local efficiency, but also the further and
potentially bigger gains that flow from an infinitely denser
network of connections, electronic and otherwise, with the
developed world.
The "gains" just referred to are not, or not only, the
profits of western and third-world corporations but
productive employment and higher incomes for the world's
poor. That is what growth-through-integration has meant for
all the developing countries that have achieved it so far.
In terms of relieving want, "globalisation" is the
difference between South Korea and North Korea, between
Malaysia and Myanmar, even (switching time span) between
Europe and Africa. It is in fact the difference between
North and South. Globalisation is a moral issue, all right.
If technological progress were the only driver of global
integration, the anti-capitalist threat would be less
worrying. Technological progress, and (it should follow)
increasing global integration, are in some ways natural and
self-fuelling processes, depending chiefly on human
ingenuity and ambition: it would be hard (though, as history
shows, not impossible) to call a halt to innovation. But it
is easier to block the effects of technological progress on
economic integration, because integration also requires
economic freedom.
The state of the developing countries is itself proof of
this. The world is still very far from being a single
economy. Even the rich industrialised economies, taken as a
group, by no means function as an integrated whole. And this
is chiefly because governments have arranged things that
way. Economic opportunities in the third world would be far
greater, and poverty therefore vastly reduced, right now
except for barriers to trade- that is, restrictions on
economic freedom-erected by rich- and poor- country
governments alike. Again, the protesters are absolutely
right: governments are not powerless. Raising new barriers
is as easy as lowering existing ones. Trade ministers
threaten to do so on an almost daily basis.
The likelihood of further restrictions has increased
markedly of late. Rich-country governments have all but
decided that rules ostensibly to protect labour and the
environment will be added to the international trading
regime. If this comes about, it will be over the objections
of developing-country governments-because most such
governments have come round to the idea that trade (read
globalisation) is good. Europe and the United States are
saying, in effect, that now that the poor countries have
decided they would like to reduce poverty as quickly as
possible, they can't be allowed to, because this will
inconvenience the West.
If that reason were true, it would be a crime to act on it.
But it isn't true, or even all that plausible. Rich-country
governments know very well that the supposed "adjustment
problems" of expanded trade are greatly exaggerated: how
convincing is it to blame accelerating globalisation for the
migration of jobs from North to South, when America has an
unemployment rate of less than 4% and real wages are growing
right across the spectrum? Yet even under these wonderful
circumstances, politicians in Europe and America (leftists,
conservatives, Democrats and Republicans alike) are wringing
their hands about the perils of globalisation, abdicating
their duty to explain the facts to voters, and equipping the
anti-capitalists with weapons to use in the next fight.
It would be naive to think that governments could let
integration proceed mainly under its own steam, trusting to
technological progress and economic freedom, desirable as
that would be. Politics could never be like that. But is
defending globalisation boldly on its merits as a truly
moral cause-against a mere rabble of exuberant
irrationalists on the streets, and in the face of a mild
public scepticism that is open to persuasion-entirely out of
the question? If it is, as it seems to be, that is dismal
news for the world's poor.
==========================
rkm:
This is a much deeper piece, for a more sophisticated audience,
but it begins with a similar aikido structure...
The anti-capitalist protesters who wrecked the Seattle trade
talks last year, and who hope to make a great nuisance of
themselves in Prague next week when the city hosts this
year's annual meeting of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund, are wrong about most things.
However, they are right on two matters, and the importance
of these points would be difficult to exaggerate. The
protesters are right that the most pressing moral, political
and economic issue of our time is third-world poverty. And
they are right that the tide of "globalisation", powerful as
the engines driving it may be, can be turned back. The fact
that both these things are true is what makes the
protesters-and, crucially, the strand of popular opinion
that sympathises with them-so terribly dangerous.
Here the protestors are characterized as doctrinaire
("anti-capitalist") radicals, who are "right on two
matters": the importance of third-world poverty and the fact
that governments can be influenced from below ("the tide of
'globalization'...can be turned back"). Thus the broad
spectrum of protestor concern is redirected into a narrow
Marxist context. The reader is subtly led to think of the
protestors as bleeding-heart Marxists, seeking to help the
downtrodden of the Earth ("third-world poverty") through
"dangerous" political influence.
The protestor's many other issues, such as loss of
sovereignty to global bureaucracies, are ignored,
and the remainder of the article dishes out standard
propanda about how free trade will benefit the poor, and
seeks to identify political resistance to globalization with
narrow-minded protectionism
An alarm is raised, highly exaggerating the political effect
caused by the protests:
They are not merely listening to the activists but
increasingly are pandering to them, adjusting both their
policies and the way these policies are presented to the
public at large. ...These outbreaks of anti-capitalist
sentiment are meeting next to no intellectual resistance
from official quarters. Governments are apologising for
globalisation and promising to civilise it. Instead, if they
had any regard for the plight of the poor, they would be
accelerating it, celebrating it, exulting in it...
politicians in Europe and America (leftists, conservatives,
Democrats and Republicans alike) are wringing their hands
about the perils of globalisation, abdicating their duty to
explain the facts to voters, and equipping the
anti-capitalists with weapons to use in the next fight.
In fact major governments and international agencies have
made no significant compromises with their globalist agenda.
They have adjusted the public-relations content of their
pronoucements, and they have regrouped to some degree,
planning the next phase of their ongoing offensive. But
that's about it, and the Economist is well aware of that.
The alarm is for show. Perhaps as well it signals a new
propaganda tactic... co-optive promotion of globalization by
government leaders?
rkm
