I did feel a bit unsettled and unsure about Nareena Hertz, knowing that she was a part of all that.

But I think she's totally genuine. I've saw her giving a talk at a big conference about globalisation and stuff and she means every word of it.

Think about it this way. She was a part of the business establishment, she saw exactly how it all worked, from the inside, and she decided that it sucked and now she's firmly part of this movement.

That's fair enough isn't it.

She didn't know that neoliberalism was a disaster back in the day. Most people don't. Like, most junior workers in like um.. the IMF and World Bank and stuff think that they're actually doing good. It may defy belief that people can be so blind, but we just can - that's human nature. That's what The Emperor's New Clothers by hans christian andersen is all about - the fact that grown up people can be so stupid as to not notice or to kid themselves that they're not really noticing stuff that's blatently going on.

Be careful not to demonise people who haven't seen the light, or even people who are doing serious damage. They don't mean to be like that, it's just the way they are (not that people can't help them to realise what they're doing and to change).

For example, most people in business or accounting or management consultancy or investment banking or commercial lawyering (yeah lawyering) are just people who left university, wanted to get 'a good job' and those jobs were the kind of thing that people went into (and still do) and they basically followed the herd. They didn't think about these things from the point of view of the wider world and how it all fits together and whether or not it's fair.. they were just doing the done thing and embarking upon a career, as far as theyw were concerned.

And so people join these orgnaisations and they get drawn into their worlds. Some of them realise that it sucks and that they want to do something about it, but these are a special kind of person and the exception rather than the rule. People with great vision and also a strong social conscience. Like John Pilger for example - when he was just starting out in journalism all his colleagues told him that he'd grow out of his childish phase of wanting to always go after the truth and resist censorship and hunt out uncomfortable truths about what was going on in the world. Most other people just learn to get used to it - it's just human nature... they shouldn't do that but it's not surprising that they do.

WHAT SHE SAID - judge for yerselves - and read the bits in between by following the above link:


Last year I stood with the protesters in the snow outside the World Economic Forum. Last week I stood within the hallowed ground of the Waldorf Astoria in New York.

It had been a dilemma whether to accept my nomination as one of their 'Global Leaders of Tomorrow' and I had been planning to go to Porto Alegre to the alternative World Social Forum instead. But the opportunity to challenge the corporate face of globalisation from within was far too tempting. Trojan horse, rather than co-optee, was how I saw it.



I determined to use the forum to provoke debate, to ensure that the voices of the voiceless were heard and to get across the key issue at stake, namely that globalisation, in its current configuration, does not work for most of the world's population.



The bad news was that although such issues were being aired and heard, I left unconvinced that the business leaders in attendance are really willing to turn their caring rhetoric into any actionable reality.



As Richard Parsons, head of Time AOL, said: 'Once the church determined our lives, then the state and now it's corporations.' While he didn't dwell on whether he thought this acceptable, I felt the sense among many in the room was that this was how it should be.



I am not convinced that the progressive grouping within the forum can succeed in its quest to establish a new agenda that seeks to make globalisation work for the many.

What's pretty clear? What exactly are you trying to say?

I can't see what your accusation is, other than the fact that maybe she's not a raving trotskyite.

Well neither are most of us.

She's certainly not a neoliberal thatcherite.

people don't write books called "Global Capitalism And The Death Of Democracy" unless they have strong feelings that the way corporate interests are taking over the world are a serious problem.



--


"-What are we going to do today Ren?
-Same thing we always do stimpy: try 'n' take over the world"

Calling for 'limited' military action against afghanistan and condemning the people of paletsine for 'terrorism', what kind of ally is this ?
incidentally, she has been quoted in the london evening standard as employing the use of 'fake blood' at demos, which is a bit close to provocateurism if true...