💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-genoa-is-everywhere.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:03:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Genoa is Everywhere Author: Anonymous Date: 2001 Language: en Topics: anti-globalization, capitalism Source: Retrieved on September 1, 2009 from http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/ioaa/genevery.html
This statement was issued by some anarchist from Turin, Italy about a
month before the G8 summit in Genoa
By now, it is a matter of fact. The world is on the verge of being
transformed into a single enormous supermarket. From San Francisco to
Calcutta, from Rio de Janeiro to Moscow, we will all get in line to
consume the same identical products of unnatural, gaudy appearance. That
which forms an authentic wealth to safeguard for many — autonomy and
difference — could be swept away forever by the imposition of an
economic policy and the consequent social system. When we are presented
with a single possibility while every alternative is kept from us by
force, we cannot speak of freedom of choice in the face of an offer, but
only of coerced obedience. The continuing production of our days on
earth (with all their pleasures, tastes and hues), when a single model
of life to which we are to conform is imposed on it, is the totalitarian
abyss that many see opening before them. Briefly, neoliberalism is the
name given to the particular economic policy that the Masters of the
earth are applying. Globalization is the name given to the process of
homogenizing unification that it entails. Over the past several months,
hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets against
neoliberalism and globalization. On the occasion of meetings between the
political and economic leaders of the most powerful states (in Seattle,
Davos, Washington D.C., Melbourne, Prague, Gothenburg,...), protest
demonstrations have been organized that have claimed the attention of
the entire mass media. The next occasion is to be in Genoa at the end of
July, corresponding to the G8 summit. But if, two years ago, this
protest movement could close its eyes to certain contradictions within
it so as to avoid putting a brake on the initial momentum, it seems to
us that reflection on its significance is becoming increasingly urgent
and admits no delay.
Neoliberalism supports a kind of capitalism without frontiers. The most
powerful multinationals (mostly US capital) thus succeed in imposing
their interests even when these go against the “national good” of the
little states. Intolerable, right? But what are the opponents of
neoliberalism fighting against? Logically, the most extreme would have
to answer “against capitalism”, while the less extreme would have to
say, “against capitalism without frontiers”. The former, as enemies of a
world based on profit — no matter who benefits from it or within what
border the exploitation occurs — the latter as enemies of a world based
on the profit (of the ruling class) of the richest countries at the
expense of the profit (of the ruling class) of the power countries. But
whoever merely protests against the limitless global expansion of
capitalism, against its lack of respect for borders, in substance shows
themselves to be in favor of a form of local capitalism, even if ideal
controlled from the bottom. Therefore, within the movement against
neoliberalism and globalization two spirits live together, which for
linguistic convenience we have differentiated as the “more extreme” —
who want the elimination of capitalism and declare themselves against
all governments and their representatives from whom they have nothing to
demand — and the “less extreme” — who support or at least end up
accepting the necessity of capitalism with a human face, limited and
regulated by a democratic government, and whose intention is to explain
their reasons to the current rulers. Not a small difference. But then,
how and why did they come to find a point of agreement? For convenience,
above all. Alliances draw together to gain strength. But it would be
foolish to believe that in an alliance the sides in play are all
situated on the same level. There is always a stronger side and a weaker
side. And naturally, it is the stronger side that dictates the
conditions of an alliance, decrees its slogans, determines its
movements, derives the greatest advantage from it and — if it is
sufficiently able — causes the potential disadvantages to fall on the
weaker side. The only thing left to the weaker side, if it wants to do
anything, is to conform itself. So then, the alliance of the two spirits
present in the movement is determined by the choice of a common enemy:
neoliberalism. In the face of the great power of the opposing side, it
is said, differences must be set aside for now: “First we stop
globalization, then we will see what to do.” The condition posed would
even be understandable if it were mutually respected. But how do things
really stand? Do both the components of this Sacred Alliance stand to
benefit from it equally? Are the existing differences expressed in the
same manner and do they hold the same possibilities?
What then is the declared enemy of the anti-globalization movement,
capitalism as such or neoliberalism? And when we are present there at
the summits of the superpowers convinced that we are “putting pressure”
on the Masters of the Earth to which side’s needs is it responding? At
the various anti-globalization demonstrations, violent clashes with the
forces of order have occurred. This is what has forced the mass media to
pay more attention to the disputes. Here is the usefulness of the
alliance — some of the more extreme will say. In the final analysis, if
it hadn’t been for the thousands of other, less extreme, demonstrators
whose mere presence served to hinder the maneuvers of the police, these
clashes wouldn’t had such a favorable outcome for the demonstrators. But
the less extreme are also satisfied that there have been clashes. In the
final analysis, if the “extremist menace” that needed to be averted had
not been there on display, the Masters of the Earth would have had no
reason to listen to them. As to those demonstrators who use clashes with
the police in order to gain recognition from the earth’s Masters as
go-betweens [Most notably, the Tute Bianche (white overalls), closely
associated with YaBasta! — Translator’s note.], it is clear that though
they speak out of both sides of their mouth (“we are not violent, but we
clash with the police”, “we give advice to government officials and sit
on municipal councils but we are antagonists”), they belong by right an
by deed to the less extreme objectors to neoliberalism since their
objectives are the same and they only distinguish themselves from the
latter through the means they use to pursue these objectives. Now
battling the police is not the primary objective of the more extreme,
while being heard by the earth’s Masters is the primary objective of the
less extreme. Paradoxically, who has the most reason to exult in the
disorders that have happened up to now? In other words, to whom is this
strange anti-neoliberalist coalition benefiting the most, the more
extreme like the Black Bloc or the less extreme like the Monde
Diplomatique?
Let’s digress for a moment. It is not at all strange that the mass media
has rebaptized the movement with the name “the people of Seattle”. It is
as difficult to find a gram of intelligence in the head of a journalist
as to find water in the desert. But we don’t understand why this idiotic
description is repeated by a large part of the movement itself. It is
useless, the American dream even enchants its would-be opponents, those
who on the one hand announce their refusal to live “like Americans” and
on the other hand accept protesting “like Americans”. So if the friends
of neoliberalism look to Washington, D.C., its enemies look to Seattle.
It matters little, after all its only a matter of miles, as long as all
eyes are turned to the USA. In spite of the much praised Autonomy.
Autonomy would like every one to be more or less free to choose what,
when, how, where and with whom to act. The “people of Seattle”, on the
other hand, like all People, is afflicted with a political defect.
Within it are aspiring mayors, aldermen, councilors, even up to
parliamentary whip. Of course, we are referring to those who intend to
be elected as legitimate representatives of the “people of Seattle” in
order to be invited by the earth’s Masters to sit with them at the next
negotiating table, after having sat at the police chief’s table. At
bottom this is all more than understandable. Less understandable is that
the others adapt themselves to this ignoble game and allow themselves to
be treated as citizens who are requested not to disturb the public
peace. For months we have witnessed a painful spectacle. The Masters of
the earth meet in the most varied corners of the world to formalize
decisions made elsewhere. Their opponents follow them like puppies in
search of attention: they stand on two paws, bark, growl, at times even
nip at the edge of the pants of those who rule them.
Now it is quite clear. Though there is nothing to say to the true
citizens of “the people of Seattle, we would like to address some
observations to the others — to those without fatherland, to the
deserter from all citizenship. At Gothenburg, the police fired, wounding
a demonstrator who was throwing a rock. The Italian government has
already made it known that it is interested in listening to the less
violent opponents, provided that the more stubborn are left out of the
dialogue. This can only mean one thing: having achieved their first goal
— the much sought after institutional recognition — the less extreme
opponents will quickly cease to be interested in continuing to march
along side the more extreme who were useful up to now, having at first
contributed to keeping the tension that created such excellent publicity
high, but who will only be an encumbrance to them from now on. As soon
as they are admitted into the presence of the earth’s Masters, what use
will it be to them to continue using certain means? And at that point,
what will happen? Those who have participated in this movement stirred
by a hatred for capitalism have fought against its guard dogs, smashing
shop windows and destroying machines, determined to destroy this world
from top to bottom. But who chose the place and time from which to
launch this attack? The earth’s Masters chose it. They chose the
battlefield, they chose the method of conflict. Up to now, most of the
opposition has behaved as the police expected. Now this game is coming
to an end. The police are quick and even given permission to shoot in
the back. [A sadly prophetic statement. — Translator’s note.] As petty
politicians, the leaders in overalls, whether white or red, have every
interest in centralizing the movement of opposition to neoliberalism. As
subversives, we have interest in expanding rather than “globalizing” the
movement of struggle against capitalism. The police are waiting for us
in Genoa at the end of July in order to beat us, photograph us, film us,
arrest us and maybe shoot us. And instead we could be anywhere at any
time. The shop-shutters of McDonald’s and the banks of Genoa will be
armored during the days of the summit. The multinationals, the
supermarkets and the banks of the rest of the world will be at our
disposal at any time. And this would only be the beginning since as soon
as we leave off following the due dates that others set for us, we will
finally be able to choose when, where, how and who to strike.
If we decide for ourselves, we will be unpredictable. We will lose
allies, but we will find comrades along the way.
— a few nobodies neither want to represent or be represented by anyone