To reach at least some segments of the public, we have to do a lot of _local_ activist work _before and after_ going to the demo. We can't expect that the coverage of the demo in the corporate media will be positive, even with the most innocuous slogans. That means we have to do our own work to get the message out, through alternative media; local meetings, workshops, teach-ins; etc. Here's what my local activist buddy Dan Heck wrote for the OSU student newspaper _Lantern_:
***** The Lantern - Opinion Issue: 01/28/02
'1-2-3-4 here's where you can protest more'
From Jan. 31 to Feb. 4. the World Economic Forum, an annual meeting of international business elites, will be held in New York City. Mass protest will greet the meeting.
The pattern is becoming familiar, with the meetings of international economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization and Transatlantic Business Dialogue being similarly hounded by political demonstrations around the world.
The protest movement is often construed as "anti-globalization" or "anti-free trade." However, the opposition to groups such as the WEF runs much deeper, and it's probably most accurate to think of these demonstrations as advocating genuinely democratic globalization as opposed to the elite-guided, inequitable and often disastrous form of corporate globalization that we presently have.
At the moment, the Enron scandal is one of the most visible examples of the corruption that accompanies un-checked corporate power.
Enron exercised a disturbing, although altogether common, degree of political power through the medium of money (such [as] campaign contributions) as well as institutional influence and inside connections (such as hiring politicians to work at the company). In these respects, Enron is by no means unique; this is often seen as legitimate or is at least tolerated day in and day out, both nationally and globally. However, the costs of this mode of government are not always as sensational and "newsworthy" as the situation with Enron, nor are the costs usually borne by corporate shareholders. More often, they accrue (much less sexy) to the powerless.
Innumerable social ills (or the lack of effective means of dealing with them) can be traced back to the undemocratic distribution of power that is perpetuated by corporate control of society. Here are some especially well-documented examples of how this happens: Real wages in this country have stagnated for decades while the rights of workers to organize have been undermined by strong-arm business tactics; there are gaping disparities in the quality of education that are unlikely to be ameliorated without addressing the fundamental economic inequalities that cause the problem; our tax dollars support astoundingly high military spending that is linked to the cozy relationship between government and weapons manufacturers and the demands of an unpopular and hegemonic global order.
The U.S. government has a well-documented history of support for terrorist paramilitary groups such as the Contras in Nicaragua, which have been used to de-stabilize governments that are unfriendly to corporate interests.
So, how does the WEF fit into this picture? According to the WEF's own reports, their annual is characterized by a "club-like atmosphere," and is funded by "1000 of the world's foremost corporations." At these meetings, 1000 "representatives" network and discuss issues of common concern and develop collaborative strategies by which they can advance their interests.
In and of itself, of course, this would be entirely praiseworthy: Individuals gathering to discuss plans and goals is the a mainstay of democracy. However, the power of the networks formed, the inordinate influence that such bodies have on society at large and the old lesson that power corrupts should lead us to question the desirability of a corporately-managed world.
The meeting is worthy of criticism because it represents the shift in governance away from civil society and toward undemocratic and unaccountable institutions.
The societal vision generally set in opposition to that of the WEF is one in which broad-based citizen participation and discursive democracy (based on discussion among citizens) play a central, rather than marginal, roll. One embodiment of this approach can be found in the World Social Forum, an open international forum that has been set up in opposition to the plutocracy embodied in the WEF.
This year marks the second meeting of the WSF, which will take place in Porto Alegre, Brazil from Jan. 31 to Feb. 5. If you're like me and can't make it to Brazil this year, you can still head to New York City, where there will be workshops, discussion and of course, loud protest. This is another way of using (instead of silently losing) your democratic rights.
Dan Heck is a senior in German and natural resources. He can be reached for comment at heck.39 at osu.edu. *****
More opinions like the above in college newspapers, union newsletters, church sermons, etc. will be helpful. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>