dteh on 12 Sep 2000 04:32:16 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> draft article on WTO |
i must voice my hearty agreement with the views expressed by m. robbins. the current misguided attack on corporate globalisation certainly seems to me to stem from a monumental mis- characterisation of the 'corporation' itself. as you say, there is certainly an overwhelming tendency amongst (particularly, and most disturbingly, the young) leftists to treat the face of corporate capitalism like a Human Face, that should wince at their many taunts, and that masks an ultimately human conscience. this is the greatest failure, thus far, of the recent movements against 'Globalisation and Corporate Tyranny' - a thoughtless attribution of humanity to instruments of capital that are not only purely inhuman, but are obviously and explicitly so. this unthinking anthropomorphic approach is characterised by the common claim that it is "People that are working for these corporations at the end of the day". this is true but immaterial. ('people' also work for military organisations. many go insane in the process, doing things they don't necessarily 'believe in', but it's an objection that can be subjugated to their need for survival/pay/acceptance/identity/whatever.) corporations will simply never behave like humans, in the interests of humankind, or on the basis of human values. from their very inception, they are created with the specific goal of defying/manipulating these values for profit. people arguing against corporatisation do not seem to understand the very nature of the corporate veil, which is cast over every such company at its creation and ensures, in practice and in law, that although the company enjoys the peculiar advantage of legal person- hood (explicitly distinct and separate from any other (real) people's identities), it is furthermore granted the latitude to pursue its rights as though it were a person, at the expense of other 'persons', ALL without the set of moral and 'human' obligations attendant upon human beings at law. many legal countermeasures, particularly in the modern field of 'Equity' have set out to temper this weird machinic/economic franchise; but it's not much use when the constitutional foundations ensure its survival in all key jurisdictions. this very imbalance is the core of the domination of society by 'faceless' corporations we seem intent on pinning faces to. a waste of time and effort. this personification problem also extends to group identities; take a simple example. at recent anti- corporatisation rallies here in Sydney, a crowd of protestors marched on the CBD's towers of capitalist inequality in order to disrupt the operations of some of the BigBadCorporations. But the banner under which they marched, which is really the residual or 'catchment' platform of much of today's activism (at least in the 'West') was 'Stop Corporate Tyranny'/'Anti- GLobalisation'. In the best cases, this action involved making a scene on the steps of some skyscraper, and thus momentarily dragging the name and logo of some BigBaddie through the teflon-based mud of the Murdoch/Packer press. but at worst, this was a poorly conceived general complaint leveled at the oft-invoked "Captains of Industry", as a group. To expose and embarrass a corporation for its nefarious practices, even to the short-memoried media-sphere, is one thing; to call for the Death of all Corporations is another all together. the problem with this, as i see it, is that corporations simply don't ASSOCIATE. there is no 'body' that winces when you scream for the death of corporations. scream !down with the Evil North Ltd! and North Ltd hurts momentarily. scream !down with Evil Corporations! and nobody gives a shit. because nobody's listening. insofar as these corporations do identify AS corporations, they do not identify with OTHER corporations, or with corporations GENERALLY. that sort of group identity is what humans do, not legal-economic instruments. and nor is the Business Council of Australia, which does bring together most of these BigBaddies, listening - simply because it represents their interests as employers and traders, not as politicians. what's more, it has a full-time staff of LESS THAN FIVE actual people. so the cries of this rally disappear like so much nostalgic, down-with-the-system, pseudo-anarchistic fluff into the background counter-cultural static - this is merely an aesthetic appeal now, not a political one. none of which is intended to discount the value of symbolic protest; but it must be recognised that this is all it is. it is fundamentally important to understand now, (but is almost never understood here), that the current activist-m.o. is a pasty hangover of a 30 year-old model of dissent than ultimately dissolved from staring at its own reflection for too long. attempts to revive the street-activism model of 1968 will fail as long as the movements are united by targetting the ethereal specter that is corporatisation/globalisation. david teh [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through the ArtsIT web email interface. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]