What exactly is wrong with Live8?

go admin!

Answer to question; no I wont provide links, partly because I'm too lazy but also because you should be able to see for yourself merely by simple logic what pop concerts and appealing to politicians can do and have done for social justice. If it can make a minor approvement on the lives of the poorest (etc.) you would think that's a good thing until you look at the bigger picture, where in fact it only perpetuates that poverty and mass delusion that we change things by letting someone else deal with it. No reform is good enough, but even then it will be measured to suit the needs of capitalists.

An exploiting class can't end exploitation!

Beltov.

Live8 and simular attempts to exploit the third world's image and poverty in the same way we continue to exploit them materially do not deserve our support or respect.

These so-called anti-poverty popstars act as if world poverty was some sort of sickness or weakness, and that is good, well-off, "first-worlders" need to be more charitible and towards them.

Nothing could be further from the truth, it is our robbery of them that makes them poor, and these new campaigns are nothing other than transparent attempts to tie our charitable "Aid" with yet more forced liberalisation of trade, forced privitisation of natural resources and public infrastructure and forced retrenchment of social services.

All of wich will continue to make them poorer and more exploitable for our benefit.

Live8, and the pop stars behind it just add legitimacy to the process by taking advantage of a thier sway over their "fans", and being a fan of a manufactured pop star is nothing more than consumer fetishism in the first place. They are nothing but "brands" created by the elite.

In order to "make poverty history" we would all need to stop robbing them, and consume far less ourselves as a result, especially the richest among us.

We would need to "make the rich history."

Do you reallly believe that is what the organizers of Live8 have in mind?

Regards.

If you want to know what was wrong with Live8, perhaps look at one element of yesterday's gig.

Alcohol was banned in the public arena, yet alcohol was available in the VIP and musicians areas.

Even the Evening Standard could spot that if you want a fairer world, treating those who actually agree with you as second class citizens may not be a good idea.

Oh and here's a link for you:

http://www.londonclasswar.org/g8.htm

Hm well first you'd need to know the history, following on from the original Live Aid.

Counted a massive success, the original formula raised hundreds of millions for aid, of which (I think, haven't got the exact figures to hand) about 30% actually made it. The important bit to note though, is it made no long term difference. The total money raised by Band Aid up to 2004 was £144m. The debt repayment for Ethiopia that year alone was £150m, more than was given to them by our 'generosity' even if it had all got there, which it didn't.

It did however act as an enormously useful way for western governments to call Bob a saint, promise they would do more, and then ignore the problem for another 20 years with the charitable middle classes able to go home saying 'I did my part' having chucked a couple of quid in the pot.

So when Bob went back to Ethiopia, 20 years on, he found, quelle surprise, that not alot had changed. People were still starving, the debt was bigger than ever, businessmen were still exploiting them for their resources to line their bulging pockets, buying off national leaders, corrupting officials, enslaving/slaughtering locals etc.

His solution to this has been twofold.

1) Repeat the same plea he made last time to western governments to save the poor Africans from themselves.

2) Suggest a means to do so.

The means he has chosen is debt relief, and the lowering of Western trade barriers. He is hailing Tony Blair's plan to do both of these as the great leap forward - 'I can't believe we're nearly there' he said. It's a shame he's not saying that in a sceptical way.

Labour does indeed plan to alleviate debt repayments via the use of copious western monetary funding. They are indeed attacking Europe's subisidising of farmers and asking the US to take a full role in the whole scheme to 'make poverty history'. But there are strings.

If you look at the actual proposals (reported in Freedom fortnightly, www.freedompress.org.uk if you want to subscribe), the strings for debt alleviation are as follows:

- The only countries eligible will be those who have adhered to 'neo-con' principles of privatisation of services and deregulation of business. As has been shown in the UK, this leads almost without exception to monopoly cartels taking over vital utilities such as water, which they then run into the ground and hike the prices. Bolivia is a good case in point, where privatised water led to a cartel raising water prices higher than the poorest could pay, and even preventing people from collecting rainwater in the courts. It took mass dissent to get the bastards out. Bolivia's actions in terminating that contract would render them ineligable for aid.

- 'Debt relief' stands only for reilef on the interest payments, over the course of ten years. This will lead to not a 100% write-off, but 30%, which will fail utterly to make a dent on the problem.

Conventionally well-respected NGOs such as Amnesty and the World Development Movement have already condemned the terms and conditions suggested as a waste of time, and worse than that, afaic they are an actual attack on the poorest countries in the world.

The second measure is to remove trade tarrifs in Europe and the US. Now on the face of it, fair trade is an ineffably good thing. But that's not what we're talking about, it's certanily not what Bob is talking about. We are talking here about Free trade - the ultimate aim of the Friedmanite dream.

Currently, trade tarrifs are what keeps Europe rich. In order to make the extra money that keeps us in the Western lifestyle, we have erected a system of quotas and tarrifs that form a near-total barrier to third-world goods flooding our markets. We in turn use our clout to open the third world markets to product dumping of our excess,0 at prices they can't compete with.

To remove all trade barriers would allow the massive production capacity on other continents to flood our markets, driving our farmers and industries - indeed all practical production skills - out of business. However, that would not solve the problem. rather than dragging the third world out of poverty via free enterprise, it would mean that we would simply have to fight on the same field for industrial production, agriculture etc to stay on our shores.

It would merely accelerate the 'race to the bottom' that we are already partially engaged in - you've seen places around your way outsource I'm sure, wherever you live. Friedman has already pointed out that in his ideal world, France would have already collapsed because the Indians already work harder and for a tenth of the salary. That is the outcome the neocons want for all workers.

That is the policy Saint Bob is calling on world leaders to pursue.

Now Live 8 is not just a concert dedicated to raising awareness of African plight. It is a means to set up a global, mass movement to promote this policy to ruin Europe. It is not billed as such, and the motives behind are not such. But that is what it is doing.

It is also why it will be unsuccessful. The G8 leaders are aware of what I have outlined above. They are in it for 'their country', and have no wish to usher in the final collapse of the west in favour of a truly global poverty run by a truly global elite.

So trade barriers will remain. Another policy to rip off Africa will be set in motion and it will be loudly applauded by Bob and Bono, along with all the guilty liberal masses who want change, but not equality.

Leftists meanwhile will continue pointing out that as long as the world is controlled by businesses and governments, poverty will not stop. They will point out that you can't 'wish away' bad things, you can only retake control of the world that is yours and reorder it so it finally makes sense. And doubtless, they will continue to be ignored.

That's why I'm against Live 8.

Hi All

Cool posts Quirk and Saii.

Quirk, your insights underline how events like Live8 take the exploitation of the “developing world” to its logical conclusion. Having stripped the poor in far off lands of their resources we add insult to injury by allowing “charities” to profit by selling sacrifice to the local working class. Our relationship with Africa remains one of passive consumption, whether in the form of tenable goods or as a set of mediated experiences to satisfy our desire to play out our roles as altruists, or activists.

Saii, I’m convinced your perspective is sound. There’s no doubt in my mind that our local bourgeoisie’s approach to poverty in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe is tied up with their desire to deindustrialise our own countries and ramp up the pressure on the working class at home. The patterns we see in our everyday lives are played out on a global stage, taxing the working class in the post-industrial countries to fund the middle class in the third world.

Given that we have been exacerbating poverty in Britain since the early 70’s, I doubt we are qualified to formulate solutions to the economic problems of Africa. I remain astonished at how oblivious these Geldofian bleeding hearts are to the hardship experienced by people in their own back yards, but then part of Live8’s brief is to distract us from problems at home.

The third-world debt is an abstract construct to regulate demand for the purposes of global price control. Its cancellation is really a transfer into the consumer debt of our own lands.

I’d suggest that there should be no difference to the solutions to poverty at home and abroad. Even reformist, “respectable” organisations like the Green Party propose a universal citizen’s income. Their inability, or unwillingness, to effectively put their case in the midst of Live8 (or indeed the last UK General Election) leaves me with not a clue as to how we might best show up Live8’s altruistic-awareness-raising campaign as regressive and degenerate and promote a practical way forward.

Geldof and Blair’s enthusiasm for cancelling the debts of the third world’s bourgeoisie would evaporate should the case be put for cancelling the crippling personal debt in their own countries.

Anyway, peace and love

Chris

Us Anarchists should be the first to realize that the problem is not "debt," but "property."

Not saying that debt is not a real problem for African countires, especially in light of the highly suspect terms and circumstances that debt has been acquired.

However, in terms of Robbery, there is no robbery if I lend you something, and then you later return it. Assuming the terms were negotiated fairly, this type of Debt is not itself the problem.

The fact is, as a result of monopoly interests charged by the international financial cartel of "development" gangsters, in addition to manipulation of the borrowers currency, not to mention the combination of trade liberilization forced on "developing" countries in concert with trade protectionism among the OECD. Every Cow in Europe recieves $2 in subsidies, which is more than the total income many Africans. Any actual "Debt" has been paid back long ago, in fact it has been paid back many times over. We are not talking about Debt, but Robbery.

Property on the other hand allows Foreign interests to directly appropriate the wealth of these nations, that, to me, seems to the main con-game being played here, using (minor) elimination of "debt" to take an even greater stake in Property.

"Make Poverty History" is nothing other than a thinly veiled Property grab.

Given the Situation being faced by Western Capital, such as the US, Europe and Asia since the Asian Currency crisis in the late 90s. with Asia, especially China, acquiring more and more Property in the traditional spheres of influence of Western Capital, even within the US itself, this latest campaign to grab as much Property as possible in Africa seems to be just another example of the current western elite trying to get as much as it can while the getting is good, as we are seeing with US's power grabs in the Midle East, Eastern Europe and South and Central American.

Hold on to your hats, there's a trade war a brewin'.

Regards.

Yes, I realise I'm somewhat late to this thread oh well.

Just felt like adding my two cents worth.

Apart from all the arguments stated above, I find the whole Live 8 thing, and all those who focus only on Western aid incredibly patronising. It's like suggesting that they are totally incapable of doing anything for themselves, those poor, useless African countries. But we're not going to help you do anything, we'll just throw money at you. So you can keep living in a hell-hole and very few, already-wealthy people in your country can take more money.

Fuck that.

What poorer nations need is grassroots efforts to support the population, not their leaders (and a lot of them still are tinpot dictatorships). Teach them skills, help them to get a decent education.

There's no point in throwing money at these countries that the majority of the population will never see, and there's no point cutting barriers to trade that will send all nations into a slump.

Just give them a bit of dignity for God's sake!

Hoping this makes sense, as is my first longish post

cinders x

Feel a bit late posting this, but never mind,

Quirk: thanks for mentioning Bolivia.

If you take the whole of the global south,

Africa is the one area where conflict is based

solely (please enlighten me if I'm wrong)

on tribalism and religion, instead of either

localised opposition to capitalism (India and

peasant China) or two simultaneous pan-national

movements i.e the mass peasant/indigenous

movements and the election of several left

leaders in South America.

Have to go now, may make my point another time.