Homepage van De Fabel van de illegaal
april 2000
In june 1999 the Dutch anti-racist organisation "De Fabel van de illegaal" ("the myth of illegality") quit the international campaign against the MAI and the WTO. Within the struggle against "globalization" and "free trade" coalitions were being formed with organisations working from a nationalist or even New Right ideology. The IFG plays a central role in building these coalitions. It is now widely known that their founder Edward Goldsmith is a New Right ideologist, but what political positions are taken by the other IFG-members?
The IFG network consists of some 60 activists, researchers and opinion-leaders, representing 40 non-gouvernmental organizations (ngo's) from 20 countries. The San Francisco based network is runned by an executive committee, a board of directors and dozens of members. Their first meeting was back in 1994, during the struggle against the North American "free trade" treaty NAFTA. "A complete reorganization of the world's economic and political activity was underway, and with it the effective takeover of global governance by transnational corporations and the international trade bureaucracies that they established" 1, the IFG wrote. The IFG network quickly became an influencial elite think tank for developing strategies against "the uncontrolled global capital". 2
Reactionary worldview
The radical Left wants to end capitalism on a world scale, that is: both at home and abroad, and replace it by a system that is not devised for making profit, but which satifies needs. State and capital are seen as two sides of the same coin; it is nonsense to take sides with either of the two. And, liberation is not something to be delivered by some elite, but will have to come from below.
The IFG, on the other hand, wants to reinforce states to be able to harness the "international" capital. They refuse to see that states are in fact the political arm of capital. IFG-members have stated that history shows us good examples of states that have been able to control capital succesfully. Such states "have demonstrated a higher degree of stability, and are better able to act successfully in the interests of their own resource and economic bases and in the interests of their own populations". According to the IFG states have got to stop taking "dictates from distant bureaucracies who have proved they do not know what they are doing" 2.
The IFG spreads a shortened and ideologically split off criticism of capitalism: "global" capital is bad, "local" or "national" capital is good. The IFG's reactionary view of humanity and the world furthermore characterizes itself by its desire for the good old times, by a desire for a back-to-nature politics like the sociobiologists, by an incredible lack of anti-patriarchal criticism and by a reluctance to any form of technology. The IFG loves its image of "not Right, not Left", because in that way they can mobilize as many people as possible for their campaigns. They build up contacts with conservatives and even the far Right. Every opponent of "free trade" en "globalization" is, in principle, a political friend of theirs.
It is of course bad for your reputation when your name is in any way connected to the far Right. That's what the IFG probably thought in july 1999, when they declared that they wanted not to work together with the Right within the international anti-globalisation movement. Although IFG-members do participate in discussions with Right wing organisations, they acknowledged, one should not call that support or collaboration with racist or fascist ideologies. 3 But, if one looks closer at the practical politics of the IFG-members, the opposite seems to be true. The IFG itself actually forms the heart and the brains of the Right wing movement within the anti-globalisation movement. Left wing organisations should better stay at a save distance from the IFG.
Neo-Malthusian money
"Natural laws", "nature" or "the natural", should not be thought of as organising principles of our society or economy. Any analogy to "nature" that is being used to argue for some form of society, like the socalled right of the strongest, should be completely refused. Capitalism cannot be thought of as a living organism or an ecological system. The radical Left wants to build a society based on principles as justice and equality, without calling on "nature", for in "nature" there are no norms or values.
Within IFG circles, however, sociobiological ideas are common. That includes their main sponsor, the Foundation for Deep Ecology (FDE). The FDE is a project of Doug Tompkins, former owner of the clothing company Esprit. Tompkins always was a ruthless fighter against trade unions in his companies. In 1972, for instance, he closed a factory in San Francisco after the workers formed an union. They called Tompkins paternalistic, because he thought of unions as a sign of worker ingratitude. It took 10 years (!) before Esprit paid the workers their salaries.
At the end of the eighties Tompkins turned his back on Esprit. He became sick and tired of the fashion industry and the ever unfullfilled artificial consumer wants. 4 He sold his Esprit shares and together with Jerry Mander founded the FDE. The FDE first of all wants to fight the ecological crisis. Since 1990 it gave at least 25 million dollar to ngo's active on issues like biodiversity, organic farming, technology criticism and population politics. Ironically, the FDE holds shares in companies that promote the "economic globalization" that Tompkins so fanatically argues against. The FDE has financial interests in foreign banks and insurance, telephone and television companies. 5
Ideologically the FDE is very close to Goldsmith and other IFG-members. It is therefore no accident that the FDE sponsors the IFG. Central to the FDE is the filosofy of deep ecology, "a new movement among westerners that rejects the prevailing anthropocentric (human centered) paradigm of technological society, in favor of a biocentric ethic and practice" 5. But biocentrism sometimes directly leads to misanthropy, hating humanity. Dave Forman, for instance, one of the founders of the deep ecology organisation Earth First, welcomed the Ethiopian famine as a natural method to reduce the growth of the human population. Forman is Tompkins favorite ideologist. Tompkins sponsored Formans Wildlands Project designed to give more space to the grizzly bear, and to reduce to North American human population with one third. FDE also sponsors other neo-Malthusian projects. Malthus used to say that the growht of the human population would increase hunger. He proposed to stop hunger by distroying the poor.
Cancer cells
Not only the IFG sponsor, but also a lot of the IFG members endorse sociobiological ideas. Take for instance leading IFG member David Korten. This influencial anti-globalisation ideologist once was a student at Harvard Business School and worked at the Worldbank. "My political values were conservative." 6 Nowadays he is president of the Positive Futures Network and the People-Centered Development Forum, that also has branches in Europe. Within the IFG Kortens book "When corporations rule the world" and "The post-corporate world" are compulsory reading. "When corporations rule the world" was partly financed by Tompkins. Just like him, Korten wants to reduce the world population. From 6 to 2 billion, without clearly stating how. 5
According to Korten there are two realities. "One reality, the world of money, is governed by the rules set by governments and central banks and by the dynamics of financial markets. The other, the world of life, is governed by the laws of nature." 7 Just like Goldsmith Korten thinks totalitarian ecological. 8 "The problem is not the market as such but more specifically global capitalism, which is to a healthy market economy what cancer is to a healthy body. Cancer occurs when genetic damage causes a cell to forget that it is part of a larger body, the healthy function of which is essential to its own survival. The cell begins to seek its own growth without regard to the consequences for the whole, and ultimately destroys the body that feeds it. As I learned more about the course of cancer's development within the body, I came to realise that the reference to global capitalism as a cancer is less a metaphor than a clinical diagnosis of a pathology to which market economies are prone in the absence of adequate citizen and governmental oversight." 6
With his imagery of the "cancer cells" of "global capitalism", which are making our "healthy" society sick, Korten is getting awkwardly close to the ideology of fascism. It is usually the far Right that talks about a "sick" society that should get "healthy" again, aided by the powers of a strong man and a strong state.
Small scale capitalism
Some Left wing activists only struggle against capitalism. When that system is gone, they think, the patriarchal power relations will disappear automatically. History shows that's a fairy-tale. The radical Left therefore should not only struggle to end capitalist power relations, but all social power relations.
Korten believes in a similar fairy-tale. Get rid of the global economy, he thinks, and all injustice will vanish. According to him, a balanced, democratic and ecologically sustainable society can only be based on a local economy. Therefore, "From global to local" became the IFG battle slogan.
Korten promotes a local economy that is still capitalist at its core. That is why one encounters warnings against his thinking on the internet. "Some who are now our friends turn into opponents down the road because they posit "the corporation" as the root of evil, and not the social relations of which corporations are only one form, only one part. Take David Korten, for instance, or even many Greens, who project a small-scale community-regulated capitalism, sort of, as an answer to today's crisis." 9
To Korten the problem is "not business or the market per se but a badly corrupted global economic system that is gyrating far beyond human control. The dynamics of this system have become so powerful and perverse that it is becoming increasingly difficult for corporate managers to manage in the public interest, no matter how strong their moral values and commitment." 10
His ideal economy is "composed primarily, though not exclusively, of family enterprises, small-scale co-ops, worker-owned firms, and neighborhood and municipal corporations". 10 If you want to change the property and production relations you will eventually have to fight against capital and the state. Korten doesn't ever talk about that, because he believes in a revolution of consciousness that the elite and the powerless will go through together.
The good old days
A revolution always looks at the future. It is senseless romantics to glorify the good old days. The radical Left should learn from earlier experiences, without wanting to turn back to some mythical past.
Everthing used to be better, Korten and other IFG members are dreaming. "Rich and poor alike shared a sense of national and community interest." 10 Nostalgically, they look back to a fictitious golden age of local economies, that really never was. They like to call on Adam Smith, the eighteenth century ideologist of liberalism. According to Smith, capital should have firm roots in one nation. He thought that local or national capital would automatically serve the local community, which would not be the case with more international orientated capital. That part of capital would roam around the world, have no roots and could only become perverted. It is exactly this separation, between healthy national production capital and fatherlandless speculation capital, which New Right ideologists are also making.
Border crossing "transnational" companies are supposed to have become traitors to Smiths' ideal. They created a centrally command economy with monopolies, which according to Korten, is not a real "market economy" as Smith would have liked it. Smith wanted an economy of small buyers and sellers, with equal opportunities, without public sponsoring of private profitmaking, and with a strong state imposing rules to keep the competition fair. The state would have to be protectionist and keep foreign capital out.
But Smiths' ideal economy has never existed. Capital has been international from the start. Capital has never bothered with national boundaries and has always been looking for new markets to conquer. Korten tries hard to actually give his mythical good old days a place somewhere in history. He argues against marxism and the ideology of "free trade" by introducing a "third model": democratic pluralism. According to Korten, this model prospered in western countries after the second World War. It was based on "a system of governance based on a pragmatic, nonideological, institutional balance among the forces of government, market, and civil society". 11 Korten seems to refer to social democracy. This system was created after a long struggle from the workers movement and was for some time able to make capitalism look a little bit better. With workers struggle at an all time low, the system nowadays shows its ugly neo-liberal head again.
Korten considers himself a "populist". In a speech at the Alliance for democracy, which says it defends the interests of the "common working American", Korten said: "True populism rejects big government as well as big business. It is neither left nor right. It is progressive as well as conservative." 12
To Republican Brian Derdowski Korten was best able to inspire the rich part of the Seattle population to take part in he protests against the WTO summit in november 1999. At a strategy meeting Derdowski mentioned that he thought that only Korten would be able to get the Republicans out on the streets and mix with more progressive actvists. "Korten fits the image they can accept", said Maria Cain, Derdowski's cooperator. 13
Our asshole
The struggle against nationalism should be an important aspect of radical Left resistance. By only serving the needs of fellow countrymen, political organisations will drift to the Right. Left wing liberation struggles should be internationalist or even anti-nationalist.
In the United States, just as in the Netherlands and elsewhere, nationalist feelings are common. A lot of American lobby organisations say they defend the interests of "the average American", who is being threatened by the "global" economy. That also goes for the consumer and environmental organisation Public Citizen (PC), which is represented in the IFG by Lori Wallach.
PC was founded in 1971 by Ralph Nader and by now has 150.000 members. The organisations is sponsored by the Ford Foundation. PC has a leading role in the campaigns against the MAI and the WTO. In 1997 PC started the campaign against the MAI by publishing the first draft of the treaty on their internet website. It has a dominant position in the Citizens Trade Campaign, an anti-globalisation coalition of environmental, union and other organisations.
Global Trade watch (GTW), is the PC branch that resists "uncontrolled globalisation" and "free trade". In an analysis of the North American "free trade" treaty NAFTA, GTW director Mike Dolan chauvinistically emphasizes the dangers that are threatening the US from abroad. He stressed that NAFTA would make the import grow of unclean Mexican products, and also of Canadian meat that is not carefully examined. Dolan is a chauvinist American.
PC-president Nader is also a follower of Adam Smith. He likes competion, but abhores monopolies. He often criticizes the power of big companies and the way that money corrupts the American democracy. He remains completely silent, however, on issues like abortion, homosexuality and migration. "Ralph Nader may look like a democrat, smell like a populist, and sound like a socialist - but deep down he's a frightened, petit bourgeois moralizer without a political compass, more concerned with his image than the movement he claims to lead: in short, an opportunist, a liberal hack, and a scab", says Tim Shorrock, who for a long time worked with Nader. 14
Others also aren't happy with the politics of the PC directors, like the PC volunteer who worked last autumn at the Seattle office, that PC had organized to coordinate the campaign against the WTO summit. His office colleagues, "local people", weren't racist, nationalist or homphobic, he said. But he wasn't so sure about the national PC leaders, one of them being Mike Dolan, who was the Seattle office manager. "We all found out at different times the back door dealings that PC has with Pat Buchanan and Jesse Helms and for various reasons decided to stick it out in the office." The volunteer openly asked the national PC leadership about their working together with Buchanan and Helms, for they are known far Right politicians. Buchanan, for instance, plays down the holocaust and hates gays, jews, and communists, amongst other groups, and struggles against the perverted "foreign" capital that threatens "the average working American". Buchanan will probably be a Reform Party candidate for the presidency.
Dolan and other PC leaders acknowledged the cooperation, and praised Buchanan: "Buchanan may be an asshole, but he's our asshole." The volunteer got really angry and wrote: "With this level of political cynism, we would have worked with Hitler on these issues". He decided to never work for PC again and is now planning to tell everyone "their dirty secrets". 15
America First
Buchanan also admires Nader. In an article called "The millennium conflict: America first or world government", Buchanan writes that a couple of years ago Nader asked the managers of 100 big American companies to show their loyalty to "the country that bred them, built them, subsidized them and defended them". Nader asked them to bring a tribute to the American flag on their yearly shareholder meetings. 16
Whilst some American "populists" are dissociating themselves from Buchanans xenophobia and nationalism, IFG member Mark Ritchie praises the coalitions with the Right. Ritchie is director of the American Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, which supports small farmers. "Traditional antagonists as politically far apart as Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan are finding some common ground on trade issues", according to Ritchie. The political differences between Nader and Buchanan could really be a lot smaller than their resemblances. "Aside from Nader and Buchanan, the anti-GATT and NAFTA trade alliance included a wide spectrum of what would have previously been called right and left elements. This diversity of views and constituencies gave the campaigns much of their strength." 17
However, others worry about campaigns like that. Mark Swanson, for instance, calls for activists to ask PC and the IFG to immediately end their cooperation with far Right politicians like Buchanan. He points out that Buchanan is the only candidate for the presidency that time and time again spoke out against "globalisation". 18 Buchanan is supported by a middle class of nationalist white collar workers. Being the foremost politician against "free trade", his person and opinions got a lot of media attention during the campaign against the WTO summit. With his public appearances Buchanan was able to influence the debate around the Seattle summit and he now profits from the anti-WTO atmosphere in the US. Now that public opinion has been swinging to the Right for decades, Buchanan has the power and the possibilities to triumph, and not the Left wing movement, that for tactical reasons cooperated with conservatives and the far Right.
Secret sponsors
Journalist Ryan Lizza discovered even more of PC's "dirty secrets". He wanted to know the truth about rumours that PC is being sponsored by billionair and textile-tycoon Roger Milliken, who also sponsores Buchanan, and earlier sponsored the far Right Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich. Milliken has got the money and the experience to easily build a complete infrastucture for political movements. He is therefore considered very dangerous.
Milliken has a bad name in progressive circles. So most organisations do no like to be associated with him. When Lizza asked Mike Dolan on the phone about the backgrounds of PC, Dolan was ordered by his boss Lori Wallach to break up the call. He was not allowed to talk any longer with Lizza. PC has a policy of secrecy on sponsors. Both PC and Milliken deny nor acknowledge their financial ties.
Such relationships were unthought of in the sixties and seventies. During the Cold War period, Milliken fought every communist and union activist in sight. Back then he also fought Ralph Nader, because he made public the abuses in Millikens textile factories. Nowadays the extremely conservative Milliken has focused his attention on protectionism and nationalism, and he finds plenty of political friends in the anti-globalisation movement. 19
Anti-Mexican jokes
Milliken has a special lobbyist towards the government, Jock Nash, who has brought together the followers of Buchanan and Nader in 1993 on a couple of anti-NAFTA strategy meetings. According to the Wallstreet Journal those meetings were rather xenophobic: imported wine was boycotted and people made sick anti-Mexican jokes.
Nash became well acquainted with the prominent PC-lobbyist Wallach. They became political allies. In 1995, when Canadian IFG member Maude Barlow visited Washington, Wallach sent a man with a car to pick her up. Barlow was surprised about the conservative ideas of her driver, who turned out to be Nash. "I thought, who is this man? Why is this man driving me somewhere?" Barlow wanted to visit the PC leadership and was picked up by Millikens lobbyist. This shows how familiar the PC leadership and Millikens cooperators are.
The followers of Nader are calling their relationship with Milliken "a tactical alliance". But according to others they also share an ideology. "What is Lori Wallach's or Ralph Nader's positive agenda for the global economy?", a trade union leader asked. "At times it seems to me to be not that different from Buchanan's view." 19
Political illiterates
Whilst some of the American lobby-organisations display an almost paranoid suspicion of foreign capital, the Canadian anti-globalisation activists are, on their turn, afraid of the import of American products and investments in Canada. The same Barlow who disliked Nash' talking, is herself always stimulating Canadian nationalism.
Barlow is president of the 100.000 member Council of Canadians (COC) and together with Tony Clarke wrote the book "MAI, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the threat to Canadian sovereignty". The COC says it resists "with a critical and progressive voice" 20 the wholesale of Canada to the American companies. According to Barlow Canadians are politically illiterate people, who need to be awoken. "We are sleepwalking into a system of politics foreign to our culture and our history" 21, says Barlow. As if capitalism is not an integral part of modern Canadian society.
The COC is very worried about the supposedly deminishing powers of the Canadian state. "The very people who believe most in weak government and have the greatest to gain from the destruction of federal power are promoting an agenda that will be our undoing as a nation." By breaking down state power these Right wing politicians are risking the well-being of Canadian civilians. And that would be un-Canadian, because Canadians supposedly to like to see their country as "strong, caring and united". 22 Fighting proponents of "free trade" with an inflated Canadian nationalism, that's what the COC calls "progressive" politics.
Nationalist anti-Americanism
Barlow adheres to a keynesian state model: "Over the past sixty years or so, it has generally been understood that governments have the right and the responsibility to intervene in the marketplace for the purpose of defending and protecting the economic rights of their citizens, especially during downturns in the business cycle." "By the 1960s, however, it was evident that the federal government and the provinces could not maintain their commitment to full employment as long as the Canadian economy was dominated by foreign-owned corporations."
The baddies, according to Barlow, are the American companies that are investing Canada. "Canadians began to see an increasingly large proportion of the nation's wealth leaving the country to line the pockets of foreign investors." She apparently wants the Canadian investors to get rich instead of their American colleagues. She denies being guilty of anti-Americanism. "It is not a case of 'wonderful Canada', with its excellent environmental record, versus 'terrible US', with its inferior record and bad transnationals." 23
But those words are not very convincing in the context of the rest of her stories, because she's always kicking at her American neighbors. "Big business' interest in our schools is symbolic of the Americanization of Canadian education." According to her Canada is adopting "American-style individualism", "unabashed entrepreneurialism" and "a culture of competitiveness" 24. "Governments and peoples around the world are increasingly concerned about global cultural homogenization in which the world is dominated by American values and lifestyles, carried through the massive U.S. entertainment-industrial complex." 25 It is dubious to speak of "the" national American character or a "typical" American economic system.
Many countries view culture as their richest heritage, according to Barlow. Without this heritage "they have no roots, history or soul". Barlow speaks of "the Canadian culture" which should be protected from "the American culture". It is very unclear what, according to her, the contents of these cultures are, what the differences between them are and why "the Canadian culture" is supposed to be better than "the American culture".
Buddhist paradise
Most religions and spiritual currents have a strong patriarchal basis. The separation between state and church is one of the civil liberties that has been gained in Europe, but only with blood, sweat and tears. It was important progress, when the power of the mighty church was broken and people were allowed to think more freely. Religion is often in the way of liberation struggles and should not get the benefit of the doubt.
A great number of IFG members, however, believe that religion can solve many of the current problems. Take, for instance, prominent Buddhist IFG-member Helena Norberg-Hodge. Like many other IFG members, she regressively longs for a regional paradise somewhere on earth. For some 30 years and on three continents this Swedish filosofer and teacher has been fighting the western model of progress. She put a lot of energy into saving disappearing "traditional societies" and "local cultures" 26. In Norway she campaigned in a coalition of Left and Right wing forces against becoming a member of the European Union. She also founded the elite International Society for Ecology and Culture (ISEC), that campaigns against "globalisation".
Norberg-Hodge has been living in Ladakh in Northern India for years. That region has a Buddhist culture, comparable to that of the Dalai Lama's Tibet. In her book "Ancient futures", which has been translated in 20 languages, Norberg-Hodge writes about the enormous changes in the lives of the Ladakhi, after they came into contact with the west. "The story of Ladakh serves as a source of inspiration for our own future. It shows us that another way is possible, and points to some of the first steps towards kinder, gentler patterns of living", according to the bookcover.
Norberg-Hodge thinks the western model of progress is getting so dominant that ideological differences are getting less important. "Large-scale environmental destruction, inflation and unemployment are the consequences of a technoeconomic dynamic that has little to do with 'right' or 'left' politics. In a fundamental way, the world has experienced only one development model, based on one type of science and technology. The consequent specialization and centralization have led to a dramatic transformation of life that has outweighed and overshadowed the difference between capitalism and communism."
Patriarchal shamans
Despite the rigorous climate and the harsh environment, the Ladakhis were happy and contented for centuries, writes the Dalai Lama in his foreword to "Ancient futures". Everyone had enough to eat, families and communities were strong, and women were enjoying a high status, Norberg-Hodge knows. But the Ladakhi society is characterized by outspoken feudal-patriarchal and religious-fundamental power relations. Norberg-Hodge acknowledges that "traditional culture" is far from ideal."There was a lack of what we would consider basic comforts, like heating in the freezing winter temperatures. Communication with the outside world was limited. Illiteracy rates were high; infant mortality was higher and life expectancy lower than in the West." But, if you look at this society from the inside out, you start looking at it differently, says Norberg-Hodge.
As a Buddhist and inhabitant of Ladakh she strongly identifies with "local culture" and considers it normal that shamans and astrologers take a central position in everydag life. They decide for instance when to sow or harvest, when to marry, and with whom. Disease is, for instance, being fought by healers in trance, who regularly accuse the mother of being the cause of the sickness of her child: "You have been behaving badly. You have not shown reverence for the spirits; you have not kept their ceremonies and you have disturbed them. You must stop this or the child will not be well." The power of such religious leaders is comparable to that of the vicar or the priest in earlier times. In Ladakh, there is no separation between church and state, between spiritual and worldly power.
Norberg-Hodge adheres to a sort of blood-and-soil theory. "The Ladakhis belong to their place on earth. They are bonded to that place through intimate daily contact, through a knowledge about their immediate environment with its changing seasons, needs, and limitations. They are aware of the living context in which they find themselves. The movement of the stars, the sun, and moon are familiar rhythms that influence their daily activities." 27
Older brother
"Undoubtedly, monks rank higher than nuns in the formal hierarchy, yet the balance between male and female plays a central role in Buddhist teachings." 27 Norberg-Hodge also doesn't mind that women are being excluded from the more important religious functions and rituals. Only a man can become Dalai Lama, the highest riligious leader, or "god king". The ultimate goal of all rituals is to make the male religious leaders spiritually able to take in the female principle. That's what is meant with "the balance between male and female". According to the Buddhist doctrine, monks can, in the end, conquer women and the female principle by using tantric rituals. In that way they will supposedly be able to become ruler of the universe. Only monks high up in the hierarchy are allowed to become such a being, women are not. 28
"The role of the monasteries in Tibetan culture has often led people to describe the society as feudal. Initially, I too assumed that the relationship between the monasteries and the rest of the population was an exploitative one. Some monasteries own a lot of land, which is worked by the village as a whole. There are also farmers who, in addition to their own land, cultivate monastery fields in return for some of the yield", says Norberg-Hodge. But according to her, the monasteries also offer "real economic benefit" in the form of "social security". "If an individual family should find itself with too many mouths to feed, any number of sons - usually the younger ones - become monks." Norberg-Hodge speaks adoringly on "the process of give and take between the monastery and village". In fact, however, the Buddhist monasteries have an enormous worldly wealth and spiritual power, which they use to keep the villagers obedient.
In Ladakh society women sometimes have more than one husband. A woman can be married to two brothers at the same time. The woman calls both men her "older brother". The oldest brother is the head of the household and its political representative. "He is 'the boss', but the hierarchy is not very rigid", according to Norberg-Hodge. The oldest son inherits the land of the family. He manages it, but doesn't own it. Private property and the selling of land is not known in Ladakh. If there are no sons in the family, only then can the daughter manage the land. A classic feudal patriarchal societal structure, with which Norberg-Hodge does not seem to have a problem. She does not argue against it. 27
Technophobia
Humanity has always used forms of technology to make life more bearable. In a capitalist and hierarchical society technology is developed to support profitmaking and social control. But, technology can also serve resistance and liberation and can be applied striving for justice and equality.
In IFG circles criticism of technology often ends up as technophobia, as is the case with Jerry Mander, writer of books like "Four arguments for the elimination of television" en "In the absence of the sacred". Mander once was a professional maker of advertisements and later an activist at the rather conservative environmental organisation Sierra Club. Since 1980 he works at the Public Media Center, that sets up campaigns for non-profit organisations.
According to him, technology has the most powerful influence on our society. Technology is intruding on our consciousness and is taking every next generation further away from nature by locking us in a purely techological environment. Cars, telephones, tv's and computers are supposedly all part of a stupid "megatechnology", that is destroying the world's natural resources and transforms people into robots. Mander once proudly mentioned that he uses only "an old IBM Selectric". 29
According to Mander modern technology leads us to "the greatest setback" of democracy in history. He speaks of a "conspiracy of technical structures" and considers "the recently restructured global economic system" as "a technical form" that is especially devised to conquer the resistance against the "megatechnological homogenization drive". 30 He also believes that "the megatechnology" is causing all the problems of the world. But he puts the situation on its head. The capitalist and patriarchal power relations are at the roots of the type of technology that is now destroying humanity and nature. First those power relations should disappear. Only then, in a liberated society, technological advance can really be in the service of humanity and nature.
Just like Korten, Mander looks back with melancholy to the life of former generations that was supposedly not diluted by consumerism and technology. His technophobia is even enhanced by his middleclass position. He obviously does not need to make dirty hands and so he thinks he doesn't need any technological appliances. But in the course of history technology has in fact helped humanity a lot to make our existence more bearable.
Contradiction
All around the world, on congress after congress, meeting after meeting, on paper and digital, IFG-members preach their message: we should go back to the village, back to nature, back to life as it used to be. The IFG village politics are simple: keep it small, withdraw yourself, revive the days when everyone was happy and knew his place, when the community still offered certainty and safety.
However, there's one problem: those days and that life never existed and so they will never come back. A struggle for a society without exploitation and oppression cannot go together with a reactionary nostalgia for some good old times. Because back then, just like today, society was defined by patriarchal, and feudal or capitalist power relations.
Harry Westerink
Notes: