Prague

Joanna Sheldon cjs10 at cornell.edu
Thu Sep 28 18:44:05 PDT 2000


But how interesting. How ... Victorian in tone: "ugly", "uncivilised", "with contempt", "told firmly that they are wrong". The white-man's-burden Just-So story is served up again with a silk-stockinged unselfconsciousness: "Those charged with responsibility for the fate of the world's poor...". Fascinating.

Does anyone have a good analysis of the expression "imperial overstretch"?

~J


>An uncharacterically intemperate edit from today's FT:
>
>Financial Times - September 28, 2000
>
>Protesters for poverty
>
>A small number of protesters against global capitalism have, as
>expected, graced the annual meetings of the World Bank and
>International Monetary Fund in Prague with their ugly presence. How
>should the world respond to these uncivilised representatives of
>"civil society"? With contempt, is the answer. They should be told,
>firmly, that they are wrong. Unfortunately, for the most part, this
>is not what is happening.
>
>How, for example, did James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank,
>respond to these protesters against the global market? "Outside these
>walls," he said, "young people are demonstrating against
>globalisation. I believe deeply that many of them are asking
>legitimate questions, and I embrace the commitment of a new
>generation to fight poverty. I share their passion and their
>questioning. Yes, we all have a lot to learn. But I believe we can
>move forward only if we deal with each other constructively and with
>mutual respect."
>
>Yet how is anyone to deal constructively with people who believe that
>throwing stones is a proper response to world poverty? What is
>required instead, are leaders willing to state that bringing the
>world's people within the market economy is the unique opportunity
>afforded to this generation.
>
>What is needed, in addition, are policies and institutions that make
>market-led globalisation work for the world's poor. On that there can
>be no dispute. But that is both easier and more difficult than the
>World Bank, in its current incarnation, appears to realise. It is
>easier because the requirements of a successful market economy are
>well understood. It is more difficult because the biggest obstacle is
>the predatory, indifferent or incompetent elites of the countries in
>which most of the world's poorest live.
>
>If they are to help, global institutions must have a focused
>understanding of their objectives and appropriate means. Mr
>Wolfensohn hardly provides this. He states, to take just one example,
>that "poverty is about more than inadequate income or even low human
>development; it is also about lack of voice, lack of representation.
>It is about vulnerability to abuse and to corruption. It is about
>violence against women and fear of crime. It is about lack of
>esteem." Alas, a development institution that believes poverty is
>about all this will collapse under its imperial overstretch.
>
>The backlash against economic globalisation represents a serious
>intellectual and moral challenge. Those charged with responsibility
>for the fate of the world's poor must confront it head on. Their aim
>must be to offer economic opportunities to more people than ever
>before. This is the opposite of what the extreme anti-capitalist
>protesters seek, whatever they may claim. They must be opposed. There
>is no sane or honourable alternative.
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list