CONTENTS

Background Information/
Biographical Note

Introduction

We are not winning...!

The Problem

Tabloid and celebrity culture... Why democracy does not exist.

A conspiracy?

The problem with the private sector...

The problem with the public sector...

The Solution

Criteria for the Ranking of "Evil-Doers"

1. Contribution to the General Good

2. The Precautionary Principle: Pre-Emptive Strikes?

3. Maximising Participation and Minimising the Cost to the Individual

Implementation: The Launch, One-at-a-Time, Stick-and-Carrot and The Domino Effect

First Blood, and Beyond…

Murdoch (The Sun and Fox News)

Exxon Mobil (Esso)

The Conclusion

An "International Hope-ist Movement?"

Acknowledgements

John Cornwall

Bill Wilson

Introduction X

Most of us are only too aware of global poverty, disease, hunger, war, crime, environmental degradation and terrorism (the so-called "war on terror" reeks of fraud to anyone who has read George Orwell's 1984). Many of us are attempting to tackle one or more of these problems, but the news bulletins and statistics speak for themselves: we are not winning. Even in the UK, one of the world's wealthiest nations, the gap between rich and poor is scarcely improving, at best, and widening, at worst (see these articles, for example). In addition, data suggest that while GDP has risen considerably (and a rise in GDP has long been virtually the be-all and end-all of economic policy) there is no direct link between this and quality of life, far from it. Furthermore, some sources state that quality of life in the UK has not significantly improved for thirty or fifty years, and certainly not for the poorest. (Have a look at this, for example: The failed consumer suffers not just from exclusion from normal society but isolation. The poor of the past had each other in a community of poverty. Misery could be shared and countered through class solidarity and the hope of a different life. The new poor lick their wounds alone in their council flats, with nowhere to hide from the messages on billboards and TV that constantly remind them of their social failure. The new poor, without the right labels and brands, are not just excluded but invisible.)

What is going wrong? How can we be more effective? Here I present what I believe amounts to an original contribution to this debate, although much of the terrain may seem familiar. It may, at times, appear to be a mite repetitive but I believe that clarity demands this. It is by no means an exhaustive discussion of every aspect of the problem and its solution, but I hope it will be enough to stimulate vigorous debate and push the political left (the real political left!) to effective action, long overdue.

The Problem X

Key to finding a solution is an accurate definition of the problem. Of course, just about everyone knows what's wrong with the world. Go to any primary school class and ask the kids, and you'll end up with a long list of global ills, a dishearteningly long list. It's human nature to procrastinate or to turn away from anything that looks like a lot of work. Turning away from such an exhaustive and exhausting compilation, often justified as "minding one's own business" (see this excellent essay on this subject!), overlooks the fact that "one's own business" is ultimately linked to global affairs. An option might be to pick just one of the items and tackle that - at least one would be "doing something". Surely, if we all chose issues close to our hearts and suited to our talents then great good would result? Common sense? Yes, if the individual issues were unconnected and there were sufficient people tackling each problem. This approach would be ineffective, however, if one were tackling symptoms rather than causes or, to mix metaphors, if a large number of battlefronts reduced the numbers of troops at each to an ineffectual few. You will understand from this that I believe that most left-leaning human rights, environmental and political groups lack either a coherent analysis of global issues or co-ordination and therefore effectiveness: global problems are not unrelated diseases, but rather are the symptoms of one particular disease, a disease that can be cured only by well-planned and co-ordinated therapy.

At this point you could be forgiven for thinking that my main target is single-issue (or few-issue) pressure groups, and that I am about to advocate a new and better political party. The supposed purpose of most political parties is to promote and implement co-ordinated policies elaborated on the basis of a coherent philosophy and analysis of global and national issues. The reality is otherwise.

I contend that the larger political parties become (i.e. the nearer to power or the more "successful") the more removed they are likely to be from the promotion of democratic ideals. There are several reasons for this. Small parties are often founded on the basis of ideals, of coherent and strongly-held beliefs. One might expect them to grow simply by convincing people of the merits of their positions, and therefore to flourish or fall by the validity of their arguments. Unfortunately, they operate in a world shaped and controlled by big business, and in this environment they must compete with other political parties. In order to effectively access the voting public it makes sense to use the mass media. On the one hand there is advertising, which costs money. Money is most readily obtained from big businesses, big businesses with an agenda. On the other hand one can give the media what they want in terms of "good stories". In this so-called era of choice and competition (against the background of seriously under-funded basic education, the systematic undermining of teachers and the crude forcing of large numbers of mediocre students through our educational institutions with little regard for standards), tabloid and celebrity culture dominate. One can, if one wants, take cheap shots at one's opponents' personalities. One can consort with celebrities. One can indulge in various facile publicity stunts. What one cannot do, if one wants mass coverage in the media owned by tax-dodging big businesses, is expound serious proposals about democratising society. In other words, in order to accumulate battle funds and compete successfully with other political parties, the easy option is to play along with the system, to quote Dr William B. Cushman: "This system has now evolved to the point where no politician can survive without the active support of the corporate interests that support his campaigns, and this fact argues strongly that the great majority of our current politicians are corrupt." (Incidentally, I recommend Dr Bill Wilson's excellent essay outlining his view of a socialist Scotland in which he tackles the issues of party funding and the control of the media. The essay is to be published in a book edited by Gregor Gall on the subject of the future of socialism in an independent Scotland.)

Surely, setting aside obvious cases of graft, corruption and election-fixing (see Clint Curtis testify abour election-fixing software in the USA and read about him here), parties nonetheless ultimately compete on the basis of which policies are thought by the electorate to be the best? It would follow, then, that the people, through the political parties they elect, are the ultimate arbiters of power. It is we, the electorate, who control the world, not big business… We still have that freedom. Surely?

Why does this ring so hollow? We sense that this isn't how things are. Fewer and fewer of us can be bothered to vote, yet most of us are dissatisfied. We don't feel that we have real political power. The trouble is that true democracy presupposes an educated and motivated electorate with free access to accurate, unbiased information of which they readily avail themselves. Furthermore, it requires voters who have the ability to balance short-term self-interest and enlightened long-term self-interest, both intellectually and in concrete terms. (To illustrate the latter: you might not be able to afford to switch to an environmentally friendly energy company; you might not vote for anti-greenhouse gas legislation if you thought electricity prices might rise…) As I have hinted above, these conditions, of an educated electorate with ready access to high-quality information, are a long way from being met, and as long as they are not met those with more wealth and power will seek to maintain the system that sustains their positions. The super-wealthy and super-powerful (largely one and the same) look after themselves at the expense of everyone else, occasionally even brazenly proclaiming the virtues of social and economic Darwinism. (See this article on the latter: A main conclusion is that if externalities are positive (negative)... it systematically leads to socially worse outcomes.) They must foster inequality in order to maintain it. (The more subtle, of course, like to give the impression of philanthropy.) Sensing this, many people are understandably apathetic.

Am I saying that globalisation, as we currently see it manifesting under neo-liberal capitalism, is an evil conspiracy, a conspiracy to promote evil?

(The main features of the global neoliberal order include the following:

        1) a high degree of global economic integration including in trade, production, and finance;

        2) deregulation and privatization of large transnational corporations and banks;

        3) strengthened enforcement of the “rights” of large transnational corporations and banks, such as in the area of so.called “intellectual property rights”;

        4) reductions in, or elimination of, state social programs that benefit the working class and other popular groups.

...

The US and British governments have been the main promoters and designers of the global neoliberal order. The US Government acts as the supreme enforcer of the new order, based on its overwhelming military power. While some states have been reluctant to fully adopt the neoliberal model, the US and the international economic institutions exert relentless pressure on such holdouts to conform to the requirements of this system...)

After all, what is the purpose of the Bilderberg Group, represented by the Big 200 in my novel, a group I imagined before I discovered its reality (actually the neo-Conservatives in the USA are probably more worrying, see the above reference and The Global Dominance Group)!

It could be argued that the powers-that-be are as assiduous in protecting their perceived interests as they ever were, the only difference between now and the past is that they sometimes act in a more subtle way, no longer necessarily with their own soldiers (and, in any case, these are often the poorest in their societies, and first- or second-generation immigrants) and blatant burnings-at-the stake, but also through the media, by manipulating the social pressures acting on people, and by economic oppression. In doing so they have conjured a myriad potential targets to which we might attribute society's ills. Are they deliberately making it increasingly difficult to identify a clear "enemy" upon which our efforts to shake free of this oppression could be focused?)

Actually, no. I am not saying that there definitely is such an organised conspiracy. While it may be true, and undoubtedly certain elements are this calculating - Rupert Murdoch, discussed below - there is no need to invoke such an elaborate explanation for the state of the world. X Globalisation, with its proliferation of mind-numbing and essentially empty choice, its "dumbing-down", and its playing off of one group against another, one country's workforce against another, is the inevitable outcome of the competition of business entities or units of power with each other: just as political parties compete, so do businesses. Ironically, the blind logic of evolution which brought this situation about, also equipped us with the intelligence to understand it and the compassion to fix it. We need not remain slaves to the law of "survival of the fittest", on any level.

Here we can usefully return to the primary school we started in, and visit the very youngest children there. You'll find they have an annoying habit of asking "Why?" and when you give an answer, they ask "Why?" again. Do the same thing, look at any of the issues on the long list the kids gave us and ask away. I'm convinced that you will trace most of the problems back to the self-interest of a particular unit of power, and usually this will be a multinational corporation. War in Africa? Oil, diamonds, guns: multinationals. Frequent droughts and famines in Africa? These are at least exacerbated by deliberately induced debts in the service of corporations, and by global warming, related to oil company profits (multinationals). (There are long-established standard arguments to excuse the self-interested actions of big business, of course. Those opposing Wilberforce's call for the abolition of the slave trade argued that they if ceased to trade in human beings, others would step into the breach, the only change in the situation being the loss of profit to British business. Ring a bell when it comes to today's arms trade? No conscience then, no conscience now.)

Sometimes, of course, it's not so much that there's self-interest in promoting a problem, rather that there's little to be gained (and some money to be lost) from tackling it. Pharmaceuticals companies have little interest in developing drugs and vaccines for diseases that affect mainly poor people - there's no money in it.

Power is the ability to influence things, to effect change. Big businesses are arguably the most significant units of power in this world. Political parties might appear to wield power, but a little digging will reveal just how much their decisions are influenced by what the biggest companies desire. (You can amuse yourself for hours by using Internet search engines to identify links between politicians and the corporations that influence or control them. Have a look here, here and here, for example. Go on, have fun and do a bit of searching yourself!) My first major conclusion is that, in today's world, if you want to change things you are more likely to be effective by focusing on multinational corporations rather than on political parties or the governments they form. Don't waste energy on the stooges, proxies and pets - go directly for the masters.

So what? Most of you have probably long believed that the multinationals have a lot to answer for. You might be thinking that this hardly whittles down the list of problems, all it appears to do is to substitute an extensive inventory of companies for a list of problems. How can this help? In any case, you argue, there are a number of organisations already focused specifically on tackling the misdeeds of corporations. Yes, but working on too many fronts. That's part of the problem.

Having decided that our "way in" to improving the state of the world is through putting pressure on large corporations, we are still left with the problem of umpteen potential targets. We cannot tackle all of them simultaneously. Even to tackle one appears daunting. These massive business entities are so powerful and so omnipresent, often labyrinthine in their complexity and international in their reach. Could their international nature, however, be their Achilles heel? I shall come back to this point later.

The rallying cry of those in favour of the predominant economic system (which some call "neoliberalism" or "neoliberal capitalism") is "free trade". I have written elsewhere (years ago) of the way the Newspeak positive connotation of the adjective "free" makes "free trade" such a powerful and effective slogan: surely anything "free" must be good? To oppose freedom is wicked, immoral, retrograde and old-fashioned, ergo "free" trade is good. In reality, of course, we know that in most cases the freedom pertains only to large corporations and powerful interest groups, an Orwellian freedom. Developing countries are forced to throw open their doors to megacompanies' depredations. Trade barriers against the incomers are swept away and the human rights of workers ignored. Small local concerns cannot compete with their foreign competitors and disaster often results. (Read, for example, Joseph Stiglitz. Further details on this page.) Of course the home countries of the multinationals, in which they were nurtured for decades by trade barriers, often continue to protect their own. The USA and Europe claim to be concerned about the developing world but in reality spend far more on subsidies for their politically organised agricultural sectors than they do on aid. (To make matters worse they then sell the heavily subsidised produce in the developing world, stifling these countries' agricultural development and so perpetuating dependence. If that were not enough, far from being of benefit largely to small farmers in Europe, EU agricultural subsidies are substantially milked by large corporations.) Developing countries would be far better off with no aid and a level playing field. (In fact "aid" is often used as a lever to force them to further liberalise.) As things stand, they don't have a hope. In summary, so-called "free trade" is selectively applied and usually benefits those who are already powerful. On the back of this hypocritical philosophy the megacorporations grow ever more powerful (notice the tax-avoidance mentioned on this link!).

At the risk of repeating some of the points made above, I shall state where I take issue both with capitalism and with traditional socialism.

The Problem with the Private Sector in a Capitalist Economy X

The argument goes, of course, that only the most efficient and productive companies will thrive in the competitive environment of free-market competition and that this is therefore good for society as a whole; that non state-owned businesses are the only logical way to improve the lot of mankind. The fallacy of this is readily demonstrated. Profit is decoupled from productivity as money is increasingly accrued by speculation.

(If you can be bothered to wade through this jargon-ridden piece, I think you'll get the point, and here's something in French which also makes the point - read "2.1.1. Une fiction". Profits, and especially share prices, reflect very poorly the overall contribution that businesses make to society. In the current jargon, externalities are not adequately accounted for.)

Private sector businesses do not invariably produce the goods and services needed by society more efficiently. They may, however, be good at providing what the market wants. In reality this means viewing people as mere consumers (or, in the case of the poor, as slave-labour production units) and the manipulation of market demand by advertising and the related cult of the celebrity. The young, badly educated and poor are often the ones who suffer most as a result of such marketing; the peer pressure experienced by schoolchildren to own the most recently advertised designer gear is enormous, and resistance to pervasive consumer culture often comes at the cost of vicious bullying. Depression amongst youngsters in our supposedly well-to-do western society is rife. Without adequate public scrutiny or regulation, private business will not help in those areas where there is no profit to be made: there is little incentive to maintain public transport on little-used routes for example, no matter the importance of such services to the local inhabitants. In addition, every trick in the book is employed to outcompete the opposition, certainly not just by producing a better product at a better price. It is the standard practice of many large businesses to undercut competing smaller businesses only to push their prices up once their competitors have been eliminated. The legislative framework under which businesses operate is brazenly manipulated through deals with corrupt politicians. Consequently, despite some laws against cartels and monopolies, the world's economy is increasingly dominated by a few big corporations who can potentially afford to forget about the greater good. Arguably, private businesses have powerful incentives to control education and the media - more of this later. The important thing to note, however, is that there are still competing corporations in most sectors. This gives us an opportunity which might not last indefinitely and which, again, I shall talk about later.

The Problem with the Public Sector

On the other hand, there is no doubt that state-owned and -run businesses can be inefficient. Bureaucratic hierarchies are not necessarily the best and fastest decision-makers, and there is a fine line between job security and the retention of dead wood.

The Best of Both?

The answer, I believe, is to shine the bright light of public scrutiny on the doings of private corporations, effectively democratising them while retaining the best aspects of private businesses.

But how does one educate and motivate the general public to become involved? Many of us are under too much financial or time pressure to be involved to anything other than a token extent, many profess to have no interest whatsoever in politics, and probably the majority of the world's population feels completely powerless and so is apathetic. Traditional "democratic" legislative bodies have already lost credibility with most of their electorates, are highly susceptible to subornation and would be far too slow to respond to the rapid changes inevitable in any realistic "saving-the-world" project.

The Solution X

So what's the solution? There are several clues in the foregoing. I hinted that we must tackle the multinationals but that we cannot possibly take on all of them at once. I suggested that their international status and competitive natures could be exploited for our benefit. I alluded to the power of the media when I mentioned the way that market demand is manipulated by advertising and the cult of the celebrity.

The first task would be to identify those units of power (de facto: units of power = the large corporations) currently most harmful to the general good, those most likely to hamper attempts at improving the global situation and those which, by modifying the way they operate, could make the most significant contributions to making the world a better place. These bodies then need to be assessed for their susceptibility to international boycotts. So far, so airy-fairy, feel-goody, vague and useless! What, precisely, is "the general good", who decides on such apparently subjective criteria and how would, say, one company's bad environmental record be weighed against another's abuse of human rights?

Fortunately, the problem is not as complex and refractory as it might at first appear. Firstly, more of the groundwork has been done than is generally realised and it's largely a case of assembling the pieces. Secondly, some organisations are so patently marked out for positioning at the top of the putative list of "evil-doers", as measured by multiple criteria, that their ranking is unlikely to be contentious. Thirdly, once one moves down the list of "evil-doers" the precise order becomes increasingly irrelevant - all that is required is that there is an order, coupled with precise demands to be made of each company.

Criteria for the Ranking of "Evil-Doers" X

1. Contribution to the General Good

Numerous organisations and individuals have amassed data on and publicised the dubious doings of big businesses and their interactions with each other and governments. Here are just a few names (most can be found on this page of my website): Adbusters, Amnesty International, Campaign Against Arms Trade, The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, Corp Watch, Corporate Watch, www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk ECA (Export Credit Agencies) Watch, Friends of the Earth, Globalise Resistance, Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation, www.theyrule.net, Tony Benn, Viviane Forrester, Naomi Klein, George Monbiot, John Pilger, Joseph Stiglitz and Hilary Wainwright (not to mention all-out ethical businesses, such as the Co-operative Bank - which, incidentally, recently ended its final salary pension scheme, tut, tut! - and various worthy political parties and publications).

Most excitingly, www.Ethiscore.org has already implemented a scoring system, allowing consumers to choose between products and companies on the basis of an ethical rating taking into account, for companies, fifteen environmental, human rights and animal welfare issues, and for products, five sustainability criteria. X(Setting my feelings on the monarchy aside, relating to this latter issue I must congratulate Prince Charles for establishing the Accounting for Sustainability Group. If I might digress for a moment on the question of the monarchy… While many of us might be opposed to this institution, a successful campaign very much needs to focus on an effective step-by-step strategy for democratising the world. An outright attack on what for many remains a cherished part of the national fabric might well do more harm than good. I would like to think that if the strategy I outline in this essay were successfully implemented then, with people feeling a new sense of moral purpose and empowerment, the apparently problematic issue of the old hierarchy, notionally headed by a royal family, would simply cease to be an issue. In the meantime, where we agree with the ideas espoused by a public figure, let us not be shy of saying so.)

By taking the facts and figures unearthed and exposed by Amnesty International et al., and modifying the techniques used by Ethiscore, it ought to be relatively straightforward to come to a broad agreement, among all interested parties and individuals, on a rating system for major businesses on the basis of their ethics. I suggest that among the criteria to be considered should be the pay differentials within corporations (both between employee ranks within countries and between similar ranks in different countries), the tax paid as a percentage of profit in the various countries in which they operate, and the recognition of trade unions. Most important, if we are to shift from plutocracy to democracy, would be to factor in the money donated to political parties and spent on lobbying (the more money, the poorer a company's rating). Figures roughly representative of corporations' contributions to "the general good" (or "general bad"!) might then be calculated by multiplying these ethical ratings by their annual turnovers. An additional benefit of targeting large companies (brought about by the inclusion of annual turnover in the score) would be the "encourager-les-autres" effect - what chance would a small company perceive itself to have by holding out against the campaign's demands if its larger rival had already succumbed?

Is a list of companies' "contribution-to-the-general-good" ratings sufficient basis for a boycott campaign? No.

2. The Precautionary Principle: Pre-Emptive Strikes? X

It would be foolish to launch an attack on the dominant global economic system without considering how those benefiting from the status quo might respond. Fortunately history is instructive. On numerous occasions when left-wing, environmental and human rights groups have campaigned against the actions of multinationals (and/or governments implementing policies dictated by these corporations) public opinion has been manipulated by the media and, all too often, swung against those groups and their campaigns.

Even the BBC, a publicly owned and relatively impartial body, has admitted switching around footage from the miners' strikes in the 1980s. (See, for example, "Doctored film footage was shown on the BBC – which years later conceded that a ‘mistake’ had been made – demonstrating that the miners attacked first" and this) in an attempt to portray the miners as aggressors in their encounters with the police rather than as merely responding to provocative baton charges. How much more, then, have privately owned media distorted such events as the Seattle protests, and, more recently, the anti-G8 protests in Scotland? Typically, a violent minority is portrayed as representative.

A widespread tactic amongst the right-wing media is the creation (often total fabrication) and regular airing of stereotypes (and read Simon Woolley's contribution on this page). The Sun, expert at this, ran an entirely spurious story about Big Issue vendors earning a fortune and leading the high life (on 28 October 1996). As a consequence, not only did sales of the magazine fall and several admirable projects it funded shut down, but vendors were subjected to a spate of assaults by inflamed Sun readers (who, incidentally, with an estimated three readers for every paper sold, comprise over a sixth of the entire UK population, man, woman and child). (The information on the reaction to The Sun's falsehoods was obtained from The Observer of 3 November 1996, incidentally one of the best and most useful issues of any newspaper I have ever come across.)

In cases where campaigns have been successful they have often involved only a few individuals, these being highly disciplined and scrupulously "well-behaved". In fact, the obvious David-versus-Goliath courage of Greenpeace protestors, frequently photographed dangling precariously from the bows of whaling ships and the like, has made them relatively invulnerable to media attack, and Greenpeace relatively successful. Small wonder, then, the French Secret Service's desperate and counterproductive sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.

So what can we glean from this? Firstly, media companies must be considered as prime targets in any systematic campaign. If many capitalist mouthpieces are not disabled at the outset, the chances of a campaign succeeding are considerably reduced. Secondly, extreme care must be taken to avoid violence, or any actions which would be easy to misrepresent.

3. Maximising Participation and Minimising the Cost to the Individual X

Initiation rites are probably as old as mankind. Once one has taken part in something - has "blooded one's spear" - one has a sense of belonging, of ownership, and one is likely to stick with it. If a campaign is to be successful it must involve as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Consequently, the corporations at the top of any campaign list would preferably be international, and their products and/or services widely available and widely used, not just by the elite few. For this reason specialist arms dealers and manufacturers, heinous though many of them may be, would not be suitable for high placement on such a list. There is also little point in targeting the sole provider of an essential service or commodity: very few people would be able or willing to participate in such a boycott.

The companies at the top of a campaign list would ideally produce a widely consumed but inessential product, or one for which alternatives are readily available, a product purchased by many people who could, at very little or no additional cost or difficulty, buy an alternative made by another company. Any campaign requiring extraordinary sacrifice is doomed to involve only "the usual suspects": the so-called "loony lefties", largely successfully denigrated, stereotyped and marginalised by the media. Such a campaign would fail.

Implementation: The Launch, One-at-a-Time,
Stick-and-Carrot and The Domino Effect X

Assuming one has compiled a list according to the above criteria, what does one do with it? The launch would require massive publicity. With any luck, when Saving the World and Being Happy (The Computer Ager) is conventionally published (breaks away from print-on-demand status) such publicity would follow naturally. Alternatively it is up to you, the readers of this article, to put your heads together, assuming you agree with the broad thrust of my arguments! In the novel, the kidnap of a journalist marks the start of the campaign, but in reality I would not advocate such drastic action for the reasons outlined above.

Once launched, the campaign must put forward a clear series of accusations and demands, targeting only one company and/or product at a time (or, where several countries are involved, possibly sister companies with the same ownership). The targeting of only one corporation at a time would make the campaign much easier for people to understand and participate in. The accusations would simply be a list of the facts and figures that went into calculating the "contribution-to-the-general-good" rating. The demands would follow directly from the accusations. For example, if the CEO of Corporation A were paid 200 times what the lowest paid employees received, the campaign might demand that the differential be reduced to twenty; if Corporation A, by dint of clever accounting, succeeded in paying corporation tax at 4.8 % of its profits, the campaign might demand that it paid such tax at the standard rate. Naturally, full disclosure of a corporation's tax affairs would be another demand.

What incentive would there be for corporations to accede to the demands of the campaign? Surely they would argue that to comply would be financial suicide? Here's where the carrot part comes in: as soon as a corporation complied with demands, the campaign would urge participants to support that company and its products in preference to rival companies, until the rivals clearly demonstrated their compliance with the campaign's demands. If a major corporation were targeted first, and successfully hit, then one would hope for a domino effect: the competition between companies ironically compelling them to implement policies they had previously regarded as inimical to financial success. This domino effect should certainly not be taken for granted, however, and it would be essential to have a clear and comprehensive campaign list. By the time several corporations were successfully "converted", the campaign might well benefit from the amplifying effect of speculation: share prices could potentiate and accelerate the process. (There would be a danger of accusations of "insider dealing", a topic dealt with in the novel.)

First Blood, and Beyond… X

Taking all criteria into consideration, one target presents itself as the obvious choice to head the list: former Australian, now US citizen, Rupert Murdoch. Granted, he is a man and not a business, but his corporations (as most readers of this article will know) have established a virtual stranglehold on the media of the Anglophone world (well over a third of UK newspapers by circulation). His media appear unashamedly to promote neoliberal capitalism, and systematically to blame the poor and disenfranchised for the world's problems, letting the rich off the hook. (See, for example, www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk on this subject (read a bit down the page, below News International's papers' circulation figures etc.).

Murdoch, through Fox News, played a major role in convincing the US population of the case for attacking Iraq. Before he received The Sun's blessing and was duly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair met Murdoch. It is reasonable to suppose that legislation against media monopolies was discussed. Join the dots: In preparation for the 1997 election victory, Tony Blair, leader of New Labour was careful to court Rupert Murdock, whose support he believes he needs in the election. One way of gaining Murdoch support is to propose more lenient legislation than the Conservatives on cross-media ownership, which is indeed the position New Labour has adopted.

Recently there was much hoo-ha about The Sun editor's (Rebekah Wade) alleged assault of her husband, the East Enders actor Ross Kemp. The really significant part of the story, that she had earlier been dining with David Blunkett, largely escaped comment. Blunkett, for many years at the heart of New Labour, clearly has a very cosy relationship with Murdoch's pernicious publication.

Apart from exerting an unhealthy influence on politicians, Murdoch is one of the most skilful tax-dodgers the planet has ever seen. His interests, blatantly furthered by his media, run totally counter to those of most of the world's inhabitants.

I suggest that The Sun be subject to boycott in the UK.

(Those who receive Sky TV have already subscribed, and would not be likely to give it up. Arguably, News of the World and The Times might also be boycotted. I leave the choice of which of his US and Australian media to boycott to citizens of those countries, but strongly suggest Fox News in the former!)

Were we not to target Murdoch first, you can be sure that the campaign would be savaged, and possibly irretrievably damaged, by his media. The specific demands I suggest we make of Murdoch can be found in Saving the World and Being Happy (The Computer Ager), but the simple message for Sun readers is: how dare he lecture us what to do about asylum seekers (the unemployed, single mothers…) when he doesn't live here and avoids contributing to our economy! Parasite, get your hypocritical nose out of our affairs, or pay up and come clean about your agenda!

Obviously, targeting The Sun would have the advantages that it is the UK's biggest paper by circulation and that boycotting it would involve minimal sacrifice by readers, who could easily buy a rival tabloid. Furthermore, were The Sun, with its massive circulation, to "see the light", it could become a powerful ally and voice of the campaign.

X The second target I propose (setting aside other media to follow The Sun), would be Exxon Mobil, largely represented in the UK by Esso. I won't labour the story here, as a minute on the Internet will tell you how beautifully Exxon Mobil fits most of the criteria discussed above. A major backer of the Bush regime, and a major hindrance to effective action on climate change, Exxon Mobil is already the target of a Greenpeace campaign and one or two others. It is international, but everywhere has powerful rivals whose fuels would be easy to buy. (Amongst these rivals is BP, a company which, while still far from perfect and guilty of appalling deeds in the past, has, following hostile media attention, made significant progress on both the human rights and environmental fronts in the last few years. Well done, BP!) One might object that only the relatively wealthy would have the opportunity of boycotting Exxon Mobil. While it's true that only the wealthy could fill their vehicles' tanks (or not) at Esso garages, these establishments invariably have readily "boycott-able" shops, and there's nothing stopping people from mounting peaceful demonstrations on petrol station forecourts, or asking bus drivers where their buses are fuelled.

As the campaign progressed, and further corporations were "converted", democratic governments would find themselves increasingly powerful. Not only would interest and faith in democracy be revived and awareness of global issues be improved, but tax contributions would rise and the disproportionate leverage exerted by a few wealthy self-seeking donors disappear, giving governments much greater credibility, authority and clout: more people voting and more money in the kitty. Under such circumstances it would be relatively easy to enact and enforce legislation to control the activities of companies not especially suited to boycotting. With an enthused and better-educated electorate, it would be easier to implement policies for the long-term good.

Conclusion X

It is beyond the scope of this essay to spell out the worldwide improvements in quality of life that would result from a successful campaign along the lines I have suggested. In Saving the World and Being Happy (The Computer Ager) I explore the links between health, longevity and relative socio-economic status, and how the latter is affected by unchecked capitalism. In the novel I also propose the establishment of a compensation fund to mitigate the potential short-term financial difficulties of the employees of companies subjected to boycotts. I suggest how the education system and the pharmaceuticals industry might be reformed, how the massive global trade in illegal drugs (estimated in 1998 to be worth $400 billion and growing, larger than the oil and gas trade, larger than the chemicals and pharmaceuticals business and twice as big as the motor vehicle industry!) might be effectively dealt with, and how our materialistic system of values might be superseded following the campaign led by what in the book is known as The International Hope-ist Movement.

In summary, I believe that it is possible to make the world a better place, but we must think beyond political parties and national boundaries and focus on the real units of power, who respect neither. The idea is simple: look at the world as a network of power and influence, effectively traced by the money that flows through it. At every junction or decision-point count the number of voices influencing the direction in which the money will go. While governments are major junctions, there are several voices competing to influence their decisions (the voters, yes, but often they are disenfranchised, poorly educated and/or ill-informed, if not brainwashed by the corporations, their media and advertising; the corporations themselves, shouting directly at governments through their donations, bribes and threats). Attempting to influence decisions at these junctions would be difficult, as we would be competing with the other voices, often covert. It makes more sense to tackle the junctions that individual corporations represent. We could then marshal our forces to bear on the single voice that each represents. Targeting them one-by-one, then, we could systematically alter the voices acting on governments, and eventually leave the latter nakedly exposed to the voices of the people only, a frightening prospect for many of those who currently rule us as proxies of their corporate sponsors. Along the way, a personal dream would be to expose the secretive Bilderberg Group - just what do they discuss?

Finally, we must not make the mistake we have repeatedly made in the past of expecting too much of individuals. We, the "liberals" and "lefties" of the world, should forget our petty differences and get to work. Our time has surely come. The alternative is horrible.

This is being discussed now! Please take part or let me know what you think!

Background Information/Biographical Note X

Born in Edinburgh, Scotland, Eric grew up in Harare, Zimbabwe, and Centurion, near Pretoria, South Africa. On qualifying as a vet in South Africa in 1987 he returned to the UK, obtaining an MSc in Ecology and later embarking on a PhD in Ecotoxicology (both at the University of Aberdeen), in line with his childhood ambition to become a conservation biologist.

Following his PhD, depressed by the deteriorating state of the planet and "disillusioned with science's potential to help in the light of the power of corporations", he moved to Paris, improved his French, joined and translated for Le Parti des Travailleurs, and, over three years, researched and wrote most of Saving the World and Being Happy (The Computer Ager), ISBN 141371756x, finishing it in Aberdeen and Manchester. It was published in 2004.

The novel was inspired and influenced by several works of literature and political writing, including Machiavelli's The Prince and Cervantes' Don Quixote. He chose a romantic comedy as the vehicle for his ideas, explaining that he wanted a wider audience than a political essay would reach. The book is informed by "hundreds of cross-referenced newspaper cuttings", his experiences working throughout the UK (most notably in Aberdeen, Manchester and Sunderland), by his time in Paris, and by his interest in art and Scottish traditional music and dance. Despite encouraging feedback from readers, and excellent reviews in such publications as Resurgence (July/August 2005: "…a delicious mixture of messianic message, wicked satire, sweet romance and utter hilarity…"), Scottish Socialist Voice (30 September 2004: "Happy is as happy does! …fast-paced, lucid, humorous, uplifting, warm, deep…" ) and Scottish Left Review (July/August 2005: "…managed to combine a funny and readable novel with a highly researched analysis of global economics…" ), the book's print-on-demand status has hampered its distribution and limited its readership. Furthermore, reviewers have revealed little of the strategy he outlines - perhaps to avoid spoiling the read or possibly worried about bringing the wrath of Murdoch upon his head?

Eric has now settled in his native Edinburgh and is seeking a conventional publisher. "But in the meantime," he says, "the time has come to take the gloves off!" If you intend reading "Saving the World and Being Happy", you may wish to look away now.

Acknowledgements X

Thanks, for helpful comments and encouragement, are due to John Cornwall of the Faculty of Education, Canterbury Christ Church University, and Dr W.L. (Bill) Wilson, a well-known SNP activist.