DUNCAN HAMILTON

SO EDINBURGH Sheriff Court has been cleared of all other criminal business, prosecutors and defence agents have been put on standby and a former RAF base is being considered as a massive holding unit for those arrested. In Edinburgh, this is known as preparation for the G8 summit. In Glasgow, it would just be another Old Firm weekend.

We are told we face "two weeks of mayhem" as a result of the influx of protesters determined to cause maximum disruption and damage to the summit. The images of rioting in Genoa in 2001 remain vivid.

But the big question for me is: what exactly is it that the protesters want to achieve?

I decided to indulge in a crash course of internet activism. The most popular and influential source of information appears to be from a group called Dissent! In the spirit of fair play, let me quote directly from the group's website. It says they are a network "formed in the autumn of 2003 by a group of people who have previously been involved in radical ecological direct action, Peoples' Global Action, the anti-war movement and the global anti-capitalist movement". OK, with you so far.

To be part of this network you have to sign up to the principles of "People's Global Action". These include "a very clear rejection of capitalism, imperialism and feudalism; all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation". Moreover, they demand a "confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational capital is the only real policy-maker". Right, so we are clear then - global capitalism is bad and needs to be confronted. But that, I'm afraid, is it. There is no philosophy, creed, agenda, principle or manifesto for change. Nothing positive, nothing constructive. Am I alone in finding it depressing that so much energy, passion and commitment can be centred around so little?

This anarchist, anti-everything brigade undoubtedly represents a failure of the political process. The fact that large numbers of people believe they cannot influence government through the democratic process is a real problem. But that does not excuse the laziness of those who just want to shout and scream about the inequity around us and take no responsibility for proposing a solution.

Serious political campaigners cannot be against everything and in favour of nothing.

The disparity of the anti- capitalist, anti-globalisation agenda is almost inevitable given the sheer spectrum of campaigns those terms encompass. But that is all the more reason to try to move towards some form of coherent, positive, possible alternative. In the absence of such an agenda, this is not a movement, it is a rabble.

What does it really mean to be anti-capitalist anyway? Do we take it as a denial that the market has a role to play in the efficient allocation of resources? Are we being asked to accept that competition is intrinsically wrong, that productivity is an evil or that profit is inherently unacceptable? That is childish and idiotic.

Serious campaigners are concerned with questions of how to use those same market forces to create a level playing field for all of the world, not just for the lucky few. They seek to understand how we can work towards a position where rich nations accept a responsibility for the developing nations - not just as charity cases but as potential trading partners. They seek to reform the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the International Monetary Fund. They consider how to combat climate change in a sustainable way within a global economy. Those are the questions that should matter.

INSTEAD, the paranoid nihilistic tendency undermines those who genuinely try to engage, to lobby and to suggest workable alternatives. Far from supporting those of us who want reform, they force the vested interests they so despise to further close ranks. That is not political activism, it is destructive self-indulgence.

The question for the protesters should not be whether capitalism is preferable to communism or whether globalisation is to be encouraged. These questions have long since been resolved. They need to focus on tangible benefits, such as fair trade, supporting the developing world and encouraging transparency in global governance. Sadly, it appears that while the silent majority wants progress on these matters, this vocal minority would prefer to be martyrs to a cause it cannot explain.