GENOA IS EVERYWHERE
(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