We hate the G8

 This weeks G8 Summit is typical of meetings of the heads of state these days. Held in a remote location, well out of sight and sound of protest marches, and protected by an army of police, the meeting will be carefully choreographed to convey an impression of competence and confidence — but in the end only expose the impotence of government leaders in the face of grave problems arising from their beloved social system. One obvious reason why the various leaders will  find it difficult to solve problems is that there is no clear consensus among them regarding the actions to take, which reflects the different and often directly opposed interests and standpoints of their respective nations, not to mention the political divisions within each nation. Not surprisingly, each government seek to frame the problem in a manner that lays the maximum blame on others.

The G8 shamelessly expresses the principle of the rule of the most powerful states beyond the formal international equality and diplomatic niceties of the United Nations or the World Trade Organisation. The G8, a self-selected club of the richest countries in the world, co-operating together on trade related issues: an open acknowledgement of the golden rule – them as have the gold rule. Unlike the WTO or the UN, it is not an international bureaucracy, but an opportunity for the leaders of the powerful states to meet and discuss policy – a caucus rather than a conference. International diplomacy is clandestine, furtive, removed as far as possible from the democratic gaze. The meetings at Camp David will be held behind locked doors, far away from the eyes of anyone, conducted behind a ring of steel and firepower.

However,  it is not to be suggested that world problems could be solved if only there was a clear consensus among the leaders and sufficient political will. The deeper issue is that the heads of state  have set out to solve problems that stem directly from the social system (= capitalism) that they are paid to serve and protect. (And it is worth emphasizing that their role is indeed as servants, rather than masters, of this system.) In other words, the reason that our self-styled “leaders” are unable to arrive at solutions is not that they are shortsighted, selfish and stupid—although more than a few fit that description—but that they are naturally reluctant to pursue the root causes of problems if it calls into question the capitalist system.

It is hopeless to imagine, as some more soppy minded such as Geldof and Bono, that the G8 can be turned into a force for good in the world. As the most powerful figure in the G8, the President of the United States has shown, the self-interest of  the powerful comes first. If it doesn’t fit with America’s plans then he won't agree. For some commentators the G8 is just a photo-call by the puppets, not a meeting of the puppet-masters of Wall St and the City

Should the G8 should be reformed or abolished? Become the G20? Capitalism existed before the G8 and it would exist without the G8. It does not take much digging, incidentally, to unearth the direct relation between a system of production for profit and a whole range of problems. It is capitalism – the system of minority ownership of the means of producing and distributing goods and services and allocation according to ability to pay – that causes poverty and war, breeds racism and alienation, and hampers social organisation. If there are profits to be gained, capitalists are not too bothered by the long-term, or even short-term, consequences for other people or future generations. Political leaders lecture about the need to address economic and environmental problems, while turning a blind eye to the role played by this rapacious system of profit chasing.  If you were to abolish the G8 then another organisation, for example the G20 or the annual and semi-mythological Bilderberg conference could take its place and its back to square one. What is important is not challenging aspects of capitalism and trying to change them, but challenging the system as whole.

Some socialists will participate in the G8 protest but not to beg for a nicer kind of capitalism out of the G8 leaders but to try and convey socialist ideas across to all those there who recognise that the world is in a mess and are willing to do something about it. If the G8 were smashed, if its meetings did not happen, the mere practicalities of the existence of these hyper-rich states would mean that they would still have to collaborate and co-ordinate their interests. Clearly then, the only way to make progress is to remove the obstacle of these powerful camps and end the interests and powerbases they represent. This can only be done by raising a force adequate to resist them – a movement on a global scale, coherent and co-ordinated, so that one day the rulers of the Earth will wake to find 6 billion strong has occupied their doorstep. Our strength won’t be military or financial but creative. We have made the world as it is by our labour, and by the light of our industry and reason we will finally dispel the shadow of privilege and power. Hundred of different organisations are not a movement. Many are not even anti-capitalist, in the sense that they haven't yet agreed on a definition of capitalism. Far less is there yet any talk of "post-capitalism", or what that might mean. Whilst there is no denying that such campaigns have made tremendous strides their mindset is locked onto the belief that a 'fairer' global society is possible within the framework of capitalism based as it is on the false assumption that capitalism can be made to work in the interest of all - rich and poor alike. In a world where political parties all offer soothing platitudes austerity, the initiative for change obviously does not lie with G8 governments. With capitalism failing to deliver for the majority it has become more obvious that now is the time to move on to a system of common ownership that is capable of meeting the self-defined needs of the great majority and not just the interests of a wealthy minority.