PPP... (1 Viewer)

[Keeror]

Ooh, I love a quiz...

Anne O'Malley (08 Oct, 2001 05:59 p.m.):

(i) What in the short term do GR protesters hope to achieve by their eponymous resistance? What about the long term?
Pass and pass.

(ii) If not the spur of competition, what do the socialists among you believe is the solution to the chronic mismanagement of state-sponsored organisations e.g. Dublin Bus?
I think Dublin Bus's primary problem is lack of funds rather than mismanagement. It gets comparitively very little money from the government.
Privatising buses creates it's own confusions and problems - like getting a citywide route map and timetable together.
In my experience the best bus/public transport systems are those run by the city, with a lot of funding, and a simple ticketing system.

(iii) There are many (marx included) who realise that capitalism is more promethean than many socialists seem prepared to admit. To what do you attribute the power of capital in this regard? How is it possible for capitalism to absorb and susbsume contrary ideological positions?
Isn't it possible for all ideologies to absorb and subsume contrary positions?
E.g. both "right wing" or "left wing" can include those who believe the state should own and control almost everything (fascism; communism) and those who believe the state should barely exist (libertarianism;anarchism)
It's 'cos the universe is spherical.

(iv) Is it possible for capitalism to absorb anti-capitalism itself?
I don't know - does having to work to get the money to buy the paint to make the banners for the anti-capitalism demos count?
I do know how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin though.
;-)

 

[path]

Keeror (09 Oct, 2001 12:52 a.m.):

I don't know - does having to work to get the money to buy the paint to make the banners for the anti-capitalism demos count?

I'm going to try and address this in in the next [path], I'm sick to the fucking teeth of this type of bullshit - that all anti-capitalist protesters should be wearing leaves and living in caves if they were true to their beliefs, that we're all hypocrites, etc..

regards

 

[Anne OMalley]

Er, steady on there, I don't think Keeror was saying that. He was merely replying to my question about capitalism's relation to anti-capitalism by making the point that nobody can exist entirely outside of capitalism.

Is this in doubt? I don't think so. In any case, I don't think it follows logically from this that there are no revolutionary possibilities available under capitalism. On the contrary, the fact that everyone is to some extent affected by market forces might even be perceived as, paradoxically, a unifying factor - especially in a situation of global recession. In other words, the experience of global recession might conceivably be precisely the shared interest that could forge an international revolution.

Not only is it not hypocritical of an anti-capitalist to buy paint and other supplies through the market economy but it is impossible to see how this could be otherwise. It could even be argued (by a Marxist or a Hegelian of some sort) that this very contradiction cannot be resolved in the absence of a completely socialised economy. For a socialist to complain that they can't be a true socialist when they have to buy paint is to underestimate the most important stumbling block of all: history.

My questions were an attempt at stimulating debate around the "big" political questions. Let's not foreclose debate with the spectacle of personal jousting.

For my own part I have to say that I believe not a single one of the revolutionary possibilities outlined above. Does anyone?

path (09 Oct, 2001 09:51 a.m.):

Keeror (09 Oct, 2001 12:52 a.m.):

I don't know - does having to work to get the money to buy the paint to make the banners for the anti-capitalism demos count?

I'm going to try and address this in in the next [path], I'm sick to the fucking teeth of this type of bullshit - that all anti-capitalist protesters should be wearing leaves and living in caves if they were true to their beliefs, that we're all hypocrites, etc..

regards

 

[Stephen]

Right I have to admit I cannot answer many of the questions above. Cos personally the only revolution I see actually working is one in which people set up independent viable communities. Self-contained and self-sustaining therefore eventually negating any need for government as we know it.
Starting at the bottom and working up.

 

[Cormy]

(i) What in the short term do GR protesters hope to achieve by their eponymous resistance? What about the long term?

---

I dunno about anyone else involved, but I personally hope to let others know about the shit that's going on right before our very eyes that most don't even see, and trying to put it across in a form that is more digestable & understandable than selling newspapers and the whole "bulding movements" type rhetoric... In my opinion, a lot of people would be a lot more interested in getting involved and finding out more if they weren't scared away by people ranting on about what/whoever they consider the bourgeoise to be, comrade-this, revolution-that, etc...

---

(iv) Is it possible for capitalism to absorb anti-capitalism itself?

Most definitely. Ché Guevarra t-shirts, £20 a go matey. Various companies putting out a crazy revolutionary/rebellious image and convincing people that they're buying part of the revolution. It goes back to the whole commodification of culture thing & how most things which are a threat to the capitalist system are usually assimilated and regurgitated in a non-threatening, heavily marketed form. So that's why you gotta be on your guard...

 

[Dan]

Hit the nail on the head with the Guevarra T-shirts there, Cormy. I don't even think its an absorption of anti-capitalism, but an absorption of anything marketable and destruction of anything which isn't. Its always been my belief that mainstream culture for the last 20 odd years has been merely something shoved in our face by companies who want us to buy,buy,buy. An example is dance culture - expensive clubs, designer label clothes, expensive drink, etc. People are going to cringe when I mention the word (lets just ignore the musically aspect for a second), but did anyone notice how fast grunge culture died. Within months of it emerging it was tried to make it marketable, didn't work and next thing you know every magazine, tv show, etc. tore the thing to shreds.

With regard to making people aware I think anyone who is aware, is, and those that aren't, aren't simply because they don't want to be - they don't care.

 

[Anne OMalley]

My original question was not "Does commodification occur in the realm of ideas?" We've known this to be the case at least since the Situationiste Internationale (and probably even earlier, thanks to Adorno). The history of rebellion in western culture - the avant-garde, dada, punk and so on - affords countless examples of this sort of thing.

My question was more problematic than that: what are the chances that anti-capitalism AS A WHOLE will become - call it what you will - absorbed/commodified/reified/fetishized?

Basically, it seems to me that anti-capitalism is caught in a double-bind situation. On the one hand the movement still possesses a lot of credibility. What is preventing the movement from losing out to commodification right now is that anti-capitalism is still just an umbrella term for a vast number of groups of all political casts and colours who all happen to share the fact of having grievances with capitalism - socialists, environmentalists, feminists, etc.

It is hard for anyone in the media or in the marketing/advertising wing of a corporation (and I should know) to absorb something so formless, so lacking in a single, coherent point of view. This is a strength of the anti-capitalism/anti-globalism movement However, it may also be a weakness.

For example, some smart marketing head in Nike or Reebok might hit upon the idea of using images of the protests at Seattle, Genoa etc. as a way of garnering kudos for their products. One can imagine shots of shiny, sweating youths legging it from cops around the streets of major cities, sporting slightly scuffed brand-name trainers.

The lesson is, I think, is that capitalism is not half as interested in points of view as some people (e.g. Chomsky) seem to think. To go back to our example, the fact that the individuals depicted in the ad might be protesting about corporations just like Nike is neither here nor there as far as Nike is concerned. As long as their name doesn't appear on an Adbusters- style banner in the background, it's all good copy for them. Capitalism nowadays is interested chiefly in energetics. That is, it likes to associate itself with dynamism, force, power, even negative or supposedly critical moments of these. And it can do so without in the slightest bit losing face.

Is it possible that the image of mobs of demonstrators on the run might become a motif for selling trainers?

More importantly, would this pose a problem for the anti-capitalist/anti-corporate movement?

The other side of the double bind is that the movement so far seems to be about resistance solely. So the MAI treaty was leaked and is currently on ice - okay, but what will its successor look like? So this or that conference of the IMF or the World Bank was deferred - okay, but how much more draconian will be the security measures that have to be imposed in order for it to go ahead next time round?

Not that resistance is futile, just that someone needs to come up with an answer to the question "what's next"?

Or as Jello Biafra might put it these days, who do we vote for?

If this question can't be answered, then it may turn out that all the anti-capitalists/anti-corporatists are doing is merely innoculating the system against further attack.

The system may, in time, thank them for this. Will the rest of us...?

Dan (09 Oct, 2001 04:08 p.m.):
Hit the nail on the head with the Guevarra T-shirts there, Cormy. I don't even think its an absorption of anti-capitalism, but an absorption of anything marketable and destruction of anything which isn't. Its always been my belief that mainstream culture for the last 20 odd years has been merely something shoved in our face by companies who want us to buy,buy,buy. An example is dance culture - expensive clubs, designer label clothes, expensive drink, etc. People are going to cringe when I mention the word (lets just ignore the musically aspect for a second), but did anyone notice how fast grunge culture died. Within months of it emerging it was tried to make it marketable, didn't work and next thing you know every magazine, tv show, etc. tore the thing to shreds.

With regard to making people aware I think anyone who is aware, is, and those that aren't, aren't simply because they don't want to be - they don't care.

 

[Stephen]

Anne O'Malley (09 Oct, 2001 05:33 p.m.):
"Does commodification occur in the realm of ideas?"

Of course. If capitalism wants to discredit and dilute any resistance to it what does it do?
Pretends that by doing something else you are actually doing what you want. E.g.. (maybe a bad example but here goes) millions are starving in Africa cos of third world debt and dodgy regimes supported by the first world. What does the first world do? Instead of examining the cause of this disaster, they have a number of concerts to raise money to "feed the world". And whilst not knocking the concerts, my problem would be the uncritical matter in which they happened. There was no mention of the first world influence on the third or anything that might make any of the people there or watching feel guilty.
Therefore making people feel like they made a difference whilst the problems at the heart of the issue still exist.

Don't nike already have a kinda anti-nike site up? Protest chic. huh?

 

[egg_]

Don't really see what you're getting at, Anne O'Malley. Are you saying that we shouldn't resist now because we might lose, and by losing make future resistance impossible? Do you think that the current system is the best we can hope for?
Please elaborate

 

[yojimbo]

Anne O'Malley (09 Oct, 2001 05:33 p.m.):
We've known this to be the case at least since the Situationiste Internationale (and probably even earlier, thanks to Adorno).

Yeah, thanks Adorno.

Seriously though, just cos some of us have read Adorno and are terribly smart because of that doesn't mean that anyone else has. The big problem for me has always been that people either, as Dan says, just don't care, or that they don't seem to care or are not allowed to care. We've got to assume that people underlyingly do care to some extent about the welfare of others, so why aren't people more angry about what is being done in their name to destroy the welfare of so many people?

It's like (another scholarly reference) the question antonio gramsci was asking 80 years back: all the elements for socialist revolutions in Europe seemed to be in place in the 19th century, so why didn't they happen?

Today, we've got a lot of people talking about 'globalization' likes its some amazing new process that makes neo-liberalism all nice and cuddly. Globalization has been around for 500 years, though; it's what we've been doing as a species all that time and probably more. So this current enthusiasm for talk of globalization just strikes me as disingenuous: how can you be against exploitation of textile workers in the Phillipines? It's globalization!

And this has really taken hold in what you might call the intellectual class in the West: media, academics, government, etc. The Director of my college, Anthony Giddens, has become some sort of Zen Wizard of fluffy globalization rhetoric, and gets paid oodles of money to tell Tony Blair what he wants to hear about it.

That's one answer to the question, I think. For a few more, you could do worse than read some Chomsky, or No Logo by Naomi Klein.

The lesson is, I think, is that capitalism is not half as interested in points of view as some people (e.g. Chomsky) seem to think.

Ah but it is. it's about colonizing people in their hearts and minds. And, like someone once said, once you've got their hearts and minds you've got them by the balls.

other side of the double bind is that the movement so far seems to be about resistance solely. So the MAI treaty was leaked and is currently on ice - okay, but what will its successor look like? So this or that conference of the IMF or the World Bank was deferred - okay, but how much more draconian will be the security measures that have to be imposed in order for it to go ahead next time round? If this question can't be answered, then it may turn out that all the anti-capitalists/anti-corporatists are doing is merely innoculating the system against further attack.

I think that's an interesting point, that 'the system' takes note of whatever anti-capitalists throw at it and either works around it (like holding the next G8 summit in a balloon suspended over the top of the tallest mountain in canada) or directly subverts it, like those recent Gap shop-window displays which did exactly what you just mentioned - they associated Gap with the values, style, youth and rebelliousness of the anti-capitalist protestors. We can't just assume that this system is slow and monolithic any more. The people and organisations who make it up have learned to be nimble, so we've just got to be nimble too, like some sort of canny mountain goat.

 

[egg_]

yojimbo (10 Oct, 2001 11:52 a.m.):
It's like (another scholarly reference) the question antonio gramsci was asking 80 years back: all the elements for socialist revolutions in Europe seemed to be in place in the 19th century, so why didn't they happen?

Would I seem like a fool if I suggested that socialist revolutions didn't happen because either Gramsci was wrong about what 'elements' are necessary, or because he was wrong about them actually being in place (or both)?

 

[pete]

for info:

2nd ANNUAL PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP / PRIVATE FINANCE INITIATIVE GLOBAL SUMMIT 10-12 OCTOBER 2001 BURLINGTON HOTEL, DUBLIN

Keynote Address by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Martin Cullen, T.D.

Mr Chairman, fellow Ministers, ladies and gentlemen,

Welcome
I would like to join the Taoiseach in welcoming you to Dublin on the opening day of the 2nd Annual Public Private Partnership/Private Finance Initiative Global Summit. This occasion allows many of us to renew contacts and catch-up on developments. For others it is a first visit to Ireland and the beginning of new friendships, partnerships and business relationships. I extend a warm welcome. I hope that this conference will prove successful and rewarding.

This is a difficult time. In light of international events I am particularly pleased to see so many overseas participants here.

I must acknowledge the tremendous interest and commitment of the Irish private sector, state authorities and trade unions in the public private partnership process. This involvement is reflected in the significant number of representatives here this morning from various PPP interests in Ireland.

I would like, in particular, to express my thanks to the organisers of the Global Summit, City and Financial on my own behalf and on behalf of the Minister for Finance, Mr Charlie McCreevy, TD. Unfortunately, Mr. McCreevy has been delayed at a commitment abroad and cannot participate in person.

This is a welcome opportunity for me to speak on a theme that is:

- an integral part of my responsibilities as a Minister;
a tremendously exciting concept that challenges our traditional approach to delivering quality public services; and

- a pressing political reality - one of the first major PPP roads pilot projects in Ireland (the Waterford bypass and bridge) is being developed in my own constituency.

Introduction
Over the next twenty minutes or so I will set out some thoughts on the issues, challenges and opportunities facing the participants in today's session. I will refer to some of the main issues on the conference agenda which, as the Taoiseach said, will provide a challenging and relevant range of issues for discussion.

In particular, I will address the question of the rationale for PPPs. What are the arguments presented for - and against - their use by Governments? There are different opinions on why PPPs are used by state authorities in place of more traditional approaches to public procurement. I'm sure that these will be aired in the roundtable scheduled to follow.

I will touch on our experience in Ireland in developing our approach in relation to PPPs, focussing on:

- the drivers for the adoption of public private partnerships;

- the "pilot project" approach we are taking; and
the challenges presented for the public and private sectors.

- Finally, I will comment on cooperation in developing PPPs, sharing information and generating an effective and transparent market in PPPs.

The Rationale for PPPs
The very fact that this Summit is taking place is a clear indicator of the progress made in advancing the PPP process.

PPPs are not new or unprecedented. In France, cooperation between the public and private sectors in delivering public infrastructure projects goes back centuries - if you include the privately financed navy ship-building endeavours in the 17th Century! In the UK the Private Finance Initiative has been developing since the early 1990s. There are successful PPP roads projects in Portugal, Canada and South Africa.

Here in Ireland we have learned much from the work of other countries. Our own experience includes two tolled bridges in Dublin - the East Link and the West Link - which were developed in the late 1980s incorporating many aspects of what we now call PPPs. In my own area of responsibility, the Office of Public Works has employed forms of public private partnership in the design and construction of government offices as part of our civil service decentralisation programme and we have also delivered a successful design, build and finance prison project.

These projects point to a wider trend across developed market economies: the coming together of public services and private business. Again, this is not new.
In Ireland we have never had state monopolies in the provision of many essential "public services". Our education and health services have always been funded and provided by a mix of central and local government, private, voluntary and community based organisations. Moreover, many local authority services have been delivered through contract arrangements with the private sector.

The Taoiseach referred to the series of agreements at national level between the Government and the social partners which have formed the basis of a durable consensus on macroeconomic policy. Through these agreements it has been possible for the Irish Government to maintain a consistent approach to fiscal policy, incomes policy and sectoral development policies over a prolonged period.

The benefits to the Irish economy have been considerable. In a relatively short period of time we were able to achieve a remarkable turnaround in the management of public expenditure, significantly reduce taxation and bring our debt ratio down to one of the lowest in the EU. At the same time growth in output, employment and real disposable incomes has been maintained. A further benefit that has grown out of this consensus approach to policy formation has been a broad-based appreciation of the necessity for structural change. The recognition by the social partners in the most recent national agreement, the Programme for Prosperity and Work, of the need to agree a framework to support the development of the PPP process is indicative of this shared appreciation of the need for change. The incorporation of this objective in the PPF followed an influential analysis of PPP policy contained in a recent report of the National Economic and Social Council - a national policy forum comprising representatives from a cross-section of the Irish economy.

Our experience of public-private cooperation naturally reflects our particular historical circumstances. It is consistent with and supportive of policies directed towards greater integration of economies within the European Union in particular and across the wider global economy.

more...

 

[pete]

contd.

Benefits of PPPs
I have mentioned that Ireland has learned much from other countries. While "one size fits all" templates may not be appropriate for countries in differing situations, a common understanding of the advantages of a PPPs is evolving. International experience indicates that benefits in using PPP's can include:

- better value for money than traditional procurement methods, arising from optimal transfer of risk from the public to the private sector; the benefits of competition; the adoption of whole life costing of services, innovation in designing, building and the operation of assets; and in improved efficiency;

- provision of better quality services through increased competition, innovation in the provision of services, incentives to higher standards and performance and an enhanced focus on the customer;

- faster delivery of individual projects from the creation of incentives by linking payment to the provision of the asset or service, particularly in relation to more complex capital projects;

- better utilisation of assets through extended third party usage;

- better regulation as government agencies can focus on the role of regulator, planner and monitor rather than on day to day service provision; and
enhanced competitiveness through the opening up of effectively sheltered sectors to competition.

All of these issues are open for discussion in the roundtable, presentations and workshops.

Risk Transfer
Risk transfer is a fundamental element of successful PPPs. A primary advantage of a PPP approach compared to more traditional methods of procuring assets or delivering public services lies in appropriate risk transfer. By this I mean that a good PPP will ensure that project risks are allocated to the party best able to manage them at least cost.

A primary objective for Ireland is to establish the procedures needed to capture the advantages of effective risk allocation through developing our pilot project programme. In short, a well-managed PPP will be based on optimal risk transfer rather than maximum risk transfer. Effective risk identification, assessment and allocation is crucial to achieving increased value for money for the Exchequer and the taxpayer. For the private sector an opportunity is created to engage in a long term business relationship.

A key role for the central PPP unit in my Department is to standardise PPP procedures and so ensure that risks are evaluated in a coherent and consistent way across the various sectors. For the public sector, this will ensure that individual procuring authorities will have a sound basis for a rigorous quantification of risks to be transferred. The private sector partner will know that risk issues will be dealt with in a transparent and realistic way.

Other Benefits
A related benefit of the PPP approach is that long-term cost factors are recognised in addition to the initial capital expenditure. There are real incentives to focus on a holistic approach in the amalgamation of the design, construction, finance and operation in the creation of an asset from a whole life perspective. A further advantage of PPPs is that the taxpayer only pays for the services actually delivered. The private sector firms and their bankers take the risk that where they are unable to provide the required level of service they do not get paid.

Finally, for small open economies, an additional benefit of a developed PPP programme is that PPPs can facilitate bigger and more complex infrastructure projects than would have been possible under other arrangements. These larger projects become more attractive to major international design, construction and engineering firms. The entry of overseas competition to a smaller market can generate the transfer of competencies and management skills through cooperation and joint ventures.

These advantages are compelling arguments in favour of developing a PPP approach. In common with other countries, the Irish authorities will weigh the benefits of public private partnerships and analyse the potential difficulties and problems to be overcome in rolling out a wide PPP programme. In doing so we recognise that there are, of course obstacles which, if not overcome, can create disadvantages in adopting PPPs. For example, the initial phase of project selection, appraisal and procurement in PPP projects can be lengthy.

Challenges
PPPs can present difficult and complex contractual issues for both public and private sector partners. For the public sector we have to satisfy ourselves that the business case for proceeding with a project on a PPP basis is sound when compared with the conventional approach of direct build and finance.

For the private sector, the costs associated with bidding for PPP projects can be substantial and for the trade unions significant human resource issues can arise where public service staff are transferred to the private sector under PPPs.

It is important to recognise and address these matters. Our approach is to ensure that issues are resolved before they become problems; that problems are solved before they pose impediments to PPP projects and that impediments are removed by dialogue and agreement before they obstruct the successful delivery of important PPP projects. PPPs must not be seen as a means of avoiding more fundamental difficulties in individual projects. As we say in the Department "there is no good PPP without a good project".


The Irish Experience
The background to the economic case for PPPs in Ireland is a doubling of the scale of our economic activity since the mid-1990s. While the full impact of the recent world events will not be known for some time, the latest forecasts from our Economic and Social Research Institute are that growth in real GNP over the period 2000 to 2005 will average 4.8 per cent per annum. We have significant infrastructure investments to make and we are looking at the PPP process in this context. In Ireland we have explored the PPP process and would like to move towards a substantial programme of PPPs across a variety of sectors. To date we have concentrated on making progress in relation to:

- creation of interest in the Irish market amongst national and international private sector providers ;

- creation of a deal flow - particularly in sectors where PPPs are expected to make a significant early contribution;

- engagement of national stakeholders - for example, agreement on a national framework on PPPs with the social partners;

- establishment of effective management structures - a central policy unit and units focussed on individual sectors in order to consolidate PPP;

- development of policy guidance and documentation in a number of important areas; and

- initiation of a range of pilot projects and prioritising their development.

The public private partnership approach has the backing of the Taoiseach and senior ministers. This commitment is grounded in a clear appreciation of the economic case for PPPs and a focus on deliverables, based on a requirement for a sound business case evaluation too.

The case for adopting a structured approach to PPPs in Ireland is supported by the expectation that PPPs can support delivery of key elements of our economic infrastructure programme, as set out in our National Development Plan, while providing enhanced value for money.

more...

 

[pete]

contd(2)...

Structural and Administrative arrangements
The Government established a Central PPP unit in the Department of Finance to lead, drive and coordinate the PPP process. There are also units with responsibility for individual sectors in Departments of State, including:

- Environment & Local Government - with responsibility for water supply, water treatment, waste management and waste recovery;

- Public Enterprise - with responsibility for heavy rail, light rail, metro and bus projects;

- Education and Science - with responsibility for schools and third level educational facilities; and
the National Roads Authority - with responsibility for all national primary routes.

The Government established a Cabinet committee on Infrastructure and PPPs chaired by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) and including the Tánaiste, (Deputy Prime Minister) the Minister for Finance, the Attorney General, and other senior Ministers. This top level committee is serviced by a cross-Departmental Team drawn from the relevant sectors. The Head of the Central PPP Unit is chairman of two groups crucial to effective management of the PPP process:

- An InterDepartmental Group on PPPs which brings together key decision makers to ensure that there is coherence and consistency in developing partnership arrangements with the private sector; and

- A Public/Private Informal Advisory Group of PPPs which includes the representatives of employers organisations, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the construction and civil engineering sectors and the national enterprise development, science and technology innovation board.

These groups have already advanced the PPP process by helping to address and resolve major legal and financial questions. I mentioned the recent agreement on a framework for assessment and management of PPPs, the creation of standard PPP contracts and guidance documents and the management of the PPP process. The framework will be formally launched by the Minister for Finance and the social partners in the near future. A major roll-out programme of communication and awareness-raising will follow.

Pilot Projects
There are significant pilot PPP projects now being developed in the roads, rail, environment and education sectors. It is intended that the pilot projects will set the basis for subsequent projects. It is not a matter of awaiting completion of pilots before proceeding with others. We will learn from them as they proceed. The pilot projects are pathfinder projects. They have the potential to contribute to tackling our infrastructure needs. The NDP incorporates ambitious objectives for PPP investment in the areas of national roads, water supply, LUAS/ Suburban Rail and waste management. A PPP approach to deliver investment priorities in education and in the health and justice areas is also being examined.

Concluding Remarks
I would like to take this opportunity to repeat an invitation that the Government has made before: we want to encourage the private sector, both domestic and overseas, to come to us with ideas. We welcome projects meeting national priorities and offering long-term value for money. We will continue to concentrate our resources and capacities on implementing those projects which we have identified as critical. I am confident that we can expect vigorous competition for projects which are brought forward.

It would be impossible to attend an international conference such as this - with participants having traveled long distances from so many different countries - without turning our minds for a moment to the tragic events in the United States on September 11th. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. The commitment to partnership which brings all of us to Dublin this morning is an expression of shared values and principles which bind humanity together. Let our meeting this morning contribute to sustaining principles which transcend national, sectoral and economic differences and improve the lot of citizens through better delivery of quality public services.

I wish the Global Summit every success.

 

[yojimbo]

egg_ (10 Oct, 2001 12:22 p.m.)

Would I seem like a fool if I suggested that socialist revolutions didn't happen because either Gramsci was wrong about what 'elements' are necessary, or because he was wrong about them actually being in place (or both)?

Him being right or wrong would have had no bearing on what happened fifty years earlier, obviously. As for afterwards, I tend to think he's been borne out by political and social events. It's a question of degree, though. Any social theorist is going to be partly right and partly wrong.

 

[Anne OMalley]

Cheers for that, Anto.

To clarify, _egg, I wasn't trying to promote quietism any more than I was trying to condemn resistance (not that the two are necessarily opposed). I was just trying to ask a few questions to see what people are thinking. I admit that the tone of what I said might have seemed pessimistic, but I AM pessimistic. Doesn't mean I've given up, though.

Yojimbo, relax with the knee-jerks: I'm not parading my knowledge of Adorno (which is sketchy anyway) in making these points. I was pointing out that many of the best ideas about capitalism were had before the middle of the last century, yet over 50 years later many people think we're still at a loss as to what to do.

I have read some Chomsky and some Klein. Both are very impressive critics of various aspects of capitalism in its globalisation phase and I embrace a lot of what they say.

However, as far as programmes for the future or constructive ideas are concerned, Chomsky at least seems quite at a loss. Has anyone read any of his ideas about anarchist collectives? About how crappy tasks such as, say, refuse collection might be delegated in an anarchist society? It doesn't make for very convincing reading.

It may be that mountain goat canniness of the sort prescribed by Yojimbo is all we have at the moment.

Better get me head down and start eating rubbish...

yojimbo (10 Oct, 2001 11:52 a.m.):

Anne O'Malley (09 Oct, 2001 05:33 p.m.):
We've known this to be the case at least since the Situationiste Internationale (and probably even earlier, thanks to Adorno).

Yeah, thanks Adorno.

Seriously though, just cos some of us have read Adorno and are terribly smart because of that doesn't mean that anyone else has. The big problem for me has always been that people either, as Dan says, just don't care, or that they don't seem to care or are not allowed to care. We've got to assume that people underlyingly do care to some extent about the welfare of others, so why aren't people more angry about what is being done in their name to destroy the welfare of so many people?

It's like (another scholarly reference) the question antonio gramsci was asking 80 years back: all the elements for socialist revolutions in Europe seemed to be in place in the 19th century, so why didn't they happen?

Today, we've got a lot of people talking about 'globalization' likes its some amazing new process that makes neo-liberalism all nice and cuddly. Globalization has been around for 500 years, though; it's what we've been doing as a species all that time and probably more. So this current enthusiasm for talk of globalization just strikes me as disingenuous: how can you be against exploitation of textile workers in the Phillipines? It's globalization!

And this has really taken hold in what you might call the intellectual class in the West: media, academics, government, etc. The Director of my college, Anthony Giddens, has become some sort of Zen Wizard of fluffy globalization rhetoric, and gets paid oodles of money to tell Tony Blair what he wants to hear about it.

That's one answer to the question, I think. For a few more, you could do worse than read some Chomsky, or No Logo by Naomi Klein.

The lesson is, I think, is that capitalism is not half as interested in points of view as some people (e.g. Chomsky) seem to think.

Ah but it is. it's about colonizing people in their hearts and minds. And, like someone once said, once you've got their hearts and minds you've got them by the balls.

other side of the double bind is that the movement so far seems to be about resistance solely. So the MAI treaty was leaked and is currently on ice - okay, but what will its successor look like? So this or that conference of the IMF or the World Bank was deferred - okay, but how much more draconian will be the security measures that have to be imposed in order for it to go ahead next time round? If this question can't be answered, then it may turn out that all the anti-capitalists/anti-corporatists are doing is merely innoculating the system against further attack.

I think that's an interesting point, that 'the system' takes note of whatever anti-capitalists throw at it and either works around it (like holding the next G8 summit in a balloon suspended over the top of the tallest mountain in canada) or directly subverts it, like those recent Gap shop-window displays which did exactly what you just mentioned - they associated Gap with the values, style, youth and rebelliousness of the anti-capitalist protestors. We can't just assume that this system is slow and monolithic any more. The people and organisations who make it up have learned to be nimble, so we've just got to be nimble too, like some sort of canny mountain goat.

 

[ronan]

[
I think that's an interesting point, that 'the system' takes note of whatever anti-capitalists throw at it and either works around it (like holding the next G8 summit in a balloon suspended over the top of the tallest mountain in canada) or directly subverts it, like those recent Gap shop-window displays which did exactly what you just mentioned - they associated Gap with the values, style, youth and rebelliousness of the anti-capitalist protestors. .[/quote]

yup.

the new massive Gap billboards feature none other than Blonde Redhead (Fugazi proteges) decked out in lovely Gap garb.

scary

 

[pete]

Eighteen people have been arrested following scuffles outside an anti-privatisation conference at the Burlington Hotel in Dublin. Five are being held at Donnybrook Garda Station, the rest are being held at Pearse Street Garda Station. They were arrested on public order offences


The Garda Press Office say that about 7.15pm between 70 and 100 protesters attempted to force their way into the Burlington Hotel where the conference on Public/Private Partnership is being held.



Some protesters threw paint and flour over the Gardaí. The Gardaí then “drew their batons”. A small group of demonstrators are now continuing their protest outside Pearse Street Garda Station.

 

[pete]

the above story (from rte news) has now been changed to replace the euphemism for a baton charge with an actual reference to one

Fourteen people are due before Dublin District Court on public order offences following scuffles at the Burlington Hotel in Dublin tonight.


They were part of a group of demonstrators who were protesting at the Public/Private Partnership conference. They were arrested and charged after Gardaí prevented them from entering the hotel.



Gardaí say that between 70-100 protesters attempted to force their way into the hotel. Gardaí baton charged the protestors after paint and flour was thrown at them.

 

[pete]

Just got this from Globalise Resistance:

Irish police have attempted a huge crack down on the anti capitalist movement in Ireland. 16 demonstrators were arrested at the PPP protests at the Burlington on Wednesday night. They will be brought before court number 44 in the bridewell on Thursday morning at 10:30. We want a as big a turnout as possible at the courthouse in solidarity with the protestors and to show the police that this movement will not be beaten off the streets.

Ehhh lads - don't you think that describing the arrests as "a huge crack down on the anti capitalist movement in Ireland" is a slight exaggeration? From what i've read, you tried to force your way into a hotel while throwing paint and flour at the cops..... exactly what sort of a reaction from the police did you expect?