The war on terror is ostensibly being carried out by big three Anglo-American countries. Each one has pursued the most orthodox neo-liberal strategy of restructuring over the past two decades and each of the currently governing parties has invested a lot of political capital in the faith that capitalist markets are (1) efficient, by extension (2), produce equitable outcomes and (3) increase individual liberty. It was precisely all three of these assumptions that the anti-globalisation movement had attacked with both symbolic and empirical success. S11 has changed the terrain of discourse. First, because in the US and Canada, the strategy of pointing to S11 as confirmation of the inequality of outcomes hypothesis was characterized as (a) justifying the attacks and (b) unpatriotic. Second, the securocrats were at first embarrassed a now have been successfully rewarded by being given greater resources in the form of funding and greater discretion (i.e., trashing civil liberties). Third, as a consequence the failures of neo-liberalism no longer have the purchase in political discourse they once had. Politicians are quite aware of this fact and some have used it to great advantage. The recession will not be evidence of the failure of capitalist markets to deliver the goods. The suffering of the poor and unemployed will not be the concrete effects of welfare state restructuring. The list could go on but the nub of the issue is simply this: S11 gives every state and corporate actor a viable excuse for their failures. Does it not make sense given these new conditions to reorganize our symbolic/material priorities? Should we not work in the reverse order, i.e., 3, 2 ,1? We need (3) right now more than anything else for it is foundational to our ability to organize and articulate ourselves. It is foundational for minorities seeking moral and legal redress to the transgression of their persons and communities. The anti-globalisation movement has an opportunity to reach out to other groups right now if it can only allow its message to take a back-seat (for the present time) to other yet equally integrated concerns.
Travis
At 02:34 PM 15/10/01 -0700, you wrote:
>From: "kelley" <kwalker2 at gte.net>
>
> > sure, i know the limitations of rights talk, but i'm also a marxist
>and
> > agree that's it's the most radical thing we have going for us right
>now.
> >
> >
> > kelley
> >
>=============
>If you think rights talk is problematic, just take a look at
>non-rights talk and anti-rights talk.......this will put those who
>want to sacrifice rights for security on the extreme defensive.
>
>Ian