FORUM
12
Imprint, Friday, November 30, 200 1
In it for the monev?
Wrapping up loose ends GREG MACDOUQALL Imprint staff
L
.
ast week's paper had a fair amount of IMF/World Bank/ 6 2 0 coverage -two news pieces, *ree in the opinions section, and dne more in features. The first piece I'll address is Aaron Lee-Wudrick's. There was too much inaccuracy for me to correct it all, but here are the highlights. How about, "All international trade barriers will be removed, since they undeniably hinder the livelihood of people in d l countries -especially the Third World." That is pure bullshit. Undeniably wrong. Or, "All the meetings of the &ganizations protesting should be &en to anyone." They are. Imprint's editor, Ryan Matthew Eierkley also talked of protestproblems. "The anti-globalization movement . . . has done little to explain their cause to the masses. It's not an easy concept to grasp; most reporters don't even understand it, which may have a lot to do with why coverage usually centres around the dolence." ! They have done a lot to-explain it, it's just they don't have control of the distribution channels to get their explanations to the masses. The people who control the distribution
1
media are the problem. Counter to what Mr. Merkley says, it is an easy concept to grasp. The organizers of the protests against the IMF and the WorldBank embraced a set of four demands of those two institutions, which they released to the media in a press conference on Parliament Hill the day before the meetings began. The problem was, the press didn't bother runnine" them. A lot of effort was put into simplifying and packaging the problems of the IMF and World Bank into four understandablepoints, and over 200 organizations worldwide had endorsed these four demands. Unfortunately, you didn't get to see them in your newspaper or on your TV, and you certainly didn't see a lot of discussion in the media about them. So don't put the blame on the people whose message isn't being covered. Put it where it belongs, on the people in the media who choose to ignore it. In the news article by Janice Jim, these four demands are presented. However, it was a rather short article and simply writing out the four demands took up almost half the space. The other news article, by Liam McHugh-Russell, was longer but blataatly ignorant of the complete story. It was simply a regurgitation
of what the G-20/World BanknMF leaders had to say about the institutions for which they work. I guess that's what happens when you're accredited official press -you are allowed inside, they give you the official press kit, and they tell you want they want you to write. Many people don't notice how wrong it is to do this, because we've been conditioned to accept what our leaders tell us as being important, and that what we have to say is not as much SO.
When the leaders are lying to the people (like saying they'll help the poor, when the past 20 years have shown us the opposite), then hopefully we'll get some responsible journalists and editors who'll make sure that their claims aren't allowed to stand as truth. The last article, by Chris Edey, was a good account from the streets of Ottawa, but the opening sentence was incorrect. The impassioned protests against these types of institutionshave notbeena "ritual for the past half-decade." In fact, it has been exactly two years since the opening day of the 1999 protests in Seattle against the WTO. Only two years ago, pretty much no one (myself included) had heard of any of this stuff. Only 730 days later, a lot has changed. What's in store for the future?
ANY SIZE PIZZAS
AARON LEE-WUDRICK special to Imprint
S
ince the inauguration of this column, I've been called - both verbally and in print a number of interesting names, most of which have either proven amusing or offensive, depending on my mood. Among them is one that seems to be invoked consistently, and it bears repeating: greedy capitalist. Now, those people that would use such a term in the first place would probably agree that capitalism itself implies greediness, so let's just drop the "greedy" part in the interests of keeping out redundancies. So, I am an alleged capitalist. To this charge I enter an enthusiastic, passionatepleaof "guilty, guilty, guilty!" Capitalism certainly gets a bad rap. It has been under heavy assault for decades - bent and twisted by governments of all ideological tendencies into all sorts of oerverted and politically expedient forms. It has also been berated by a dwindling number of hardcore socialist/ communist/anarchists oblivious to its irrefutable virtues. On top of all this, few people even realize that pure capitalism - that is, capitalism completely free from the interference of the state - has never even existed in the world. This is a pity, of course, but the absence of pure capitalism doesn't mean we can't continue to promote capitalism as the social system which will ensure our prosperity as human beings into the indefinite future. I know what you're thinking. Did I mean to say economic system, and not social system? Isn't capitalism just boring old economics money, profit, labour, corporations? Isn't it, as my critics charge, really all about greed? I save my digression on the difference between greed and ambi-
-
-
-
-
r p l u s taxes ; delivery extra *excludes Party Pizza and double toppings **extra cheese additional cost
'
I I I I
465 PHILLIP STREET LOCATION ONLY
'
I I
:
I NOT VALID WITH V.I.P. CARDS I COUPON EXPIRES Jaanuary 4,2002 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
tion for another time. But in a word the answer is no. Capitalism is not just economics, and it is not premised on greed. The principles which underlie capitalism are crucial, universal humanvalues and whencapitalism is attacked, we should be aware that these principles are similarly under siege. But enough with the abstract bullshit. How is capitalism about more than just the almighty dollar? One of the most important features of capitalism is the salience of freedom. Free markets and free minds are inextricably linked. As Ayn Rand astutely noted, under capitalism "if a man does choose to think, he can act accordingly. No one has the power to neutralize the mind; no one can force on another his ideas, his values or his errors." The point she makes also alludes to a value upon which I think most of us agree: the rejection of physical force as a legitimate tactic, except in self-defense. Capitalism rewards effort and punishes laziness; values innovation and decries stagnation; gives no guarantee you will succeed but always provides the chance that you might. Capitalism is colourblind and gender-blind, and does not discriminate based on religious belief or sexual orientation. Space constraints restrict me from going on, (if you think I'm just wimping out, convince them to give me another 500 words each week and you'll see that I'm not!) but I think I've made my point. Capitalism is the framework in which we all have the potential to succeed as far as our efforts will take us. I urge you to bear this in mind, and investigate it for yourself. Might I suggest www.capitalism.org and consider the Walk For Capitalism this December 2 inToronto. Details can be obtained from the posters around campus or by emailing me at