I don't think I am a conspiracy theorist, but I know enough about the role
of agents provocateurs in history to wonder if the vandals in Seattle were
all that people assume them to be.
Mike
>Ed,
>
>In a parallel posting directed at Tim Rourke I've indicated that I agree
>with your main point about the dangers of ideological labeling of groups of
>people, but I don't quite agree with your comparison of the vandalism in
>Seattle to Krystallnacht on a smaller scale.
>
>The important difference is this: Krystallnacht was the work of a single
>powerful group, the Nazi Party, acting on orders from the top. The
>demonstrators in Seattle were a whole bunch of different groups of
>relatively powerless people protesting against the actions of the powerful.
>The vast majority of them were non-violent, and there was no top command to
>order the vandalism. Indeed we do not even know for sure if the vandals were
>protestors of any stripe. It may be they were just vandals, drawn by a large
>noisy crowd and the opportunities it presented for mischief. Quite possibly
>the window-breakers wouldn't be able to tell you what the letters WTO stand
>for.
>
>In another posting you expressed a wish that the WTO could be fixed rather
>than abolished. Like you my initial response is to press for reform rather
>than destruction. In this case I think not. The WTO is so singlemindedly
>dedicated to the anti-human interests of the trans-national corporations
>that polite requests for reforms will produce nothing at all, at most purely
>symbolic gestures. ("Oh, we really want to raise the living standards of the
>toiling masses. That's why we're employing child labour at 20 cents an
>hour.") If we press for the destruction of the WTO, it may, just may,
>transform itself into something acceptable in order to avoid the death
>penalty.
>
>I do think your point about the dangers of demonizing capitalists is very
>well taken. I can't think of any definition of capitalism that will send
>Bill Gates to the guillotine while sparing the independent plumber with a
>battered old van.
>
>I do not believe that it will ever be possible, or even desirable, to
>eliminate capitalism in the broad sense. There will always be those
>independent plumbers in their battered old vans.
>
>To me the answer lies in a re-assertion of governmental sovereignty, i.e.,
>the rule of the whole community in the interests of the whole community. If
>that were done, we simply would not allow pollution. Manufacturers would
>have to bear the cost of producing their products through pollution-free
>processes and then pass the costs on to their consumers instead of relying
>on the community to subsidize them by either absorbing extra pollution or
>paying the costs of the cleanup. Corporations should be stripped of their
>fictional legal status as persons--and not be allowed to make any political
>contributions. A hefty Equities Sales Tax (EST) should be slapped on stock
>market transactions to stop this insane casino in which "investments" are
>bought and resold within a matter of minutes, and disemployment of workers
>is a favoured tactic of management to ratchet up the price of their stock by
>a few points. And on and on. There's an endless list of things that could
>and should be reformed by a government of the people, by the people, for the
>people.
>
>Regards.
>
>Victor Milne
