Perhaps because the protesters are already showing considerable restraint and the police are acting hideously out of line.
Perhaps my presence in New York City explains my lack of tolerance for police brutality.
As a further point, recall that anarchists make up a large contingent of the anti-globalization crowd. It would seem rather nonsensical to criticise them for failing to follow a single leader.
Why do you feel that the anti-globalization message is somehow obscured or drowned out by the violence? I am hearing it loud and clear. Revolutionary violence seems to render the message even more urgent and powerful.
Many protesters are showing restraint, but many are acting hideously out of line. There is no excuse for looting local stores and breaking into ATMS. Those are the actions of simple thieves. That they hide behind the idea of a political idea makes them no better.
The idea that some of the actions of the police might be justified never seems to even cross the mind of many anti-globalization crusaders. And anyone who stops to consider the fact that maybe utter chaos is a bad thing is labeled a knee-jerk supporter of the system “spouting a conditioned response.”
Of course the anarchists don’t have a leader. They don’t have a point either. But they do seem to enjoy hurting others.
The “revolutionary violence” in this case is senseless and plays into the hands of multi-national companies. Any economic hardships that they may bring to the world are easily overlooked when there’s a fire-bomb throwing anarchist on the TV screen. How exactly is that image going to bring sympathy and support for any cause? What it does is bring the conflict into a false perspective. On one side the stability of economic expansion brought by globalization and on the other chaos and destruction brought by those who oppose it. It’s a false choice because the situation is not nearly so simple, but that’s the choice many people are going to see and it’s not too hard to guess which they will choose.
Someone once put forth the idea (and I don’t know who it was), that perhaps, just perhaps, that the only reason the leaders in Washington listened to Dr. Martin Luther King and others like him who preached non-violence, was because they knew it would steal the thunder from those who preached a more violent course.
Globalization is a harder issue to educate people on, because of the complex layers of things that it entails. Also, there’s nothing like an “imported goods only” store which one can boycott. Try to buy some kind of electronic goods (computer, VCR, TV, etc., etc.) that isn’t produced with low wage labor. You can’t.
One could buy used equipment, but when it breaks you either have to throw it out (as the replacement parts are prohibitively expensive), or buy parts which are made by low wage labor.
There’s also no central “authority” which one can single out to protest. Its not simply GM who’s pushing for globalization, its practically every company on Earth, behind the move.
If the globalists ever unite behind a single spokesperson, it’ll be their undoing. Because then, and only then, will you have a symbol powerful enough to roust the masses into fighting for change. Until then, all you’ll get are people who appear to be on the lunatic fringe.
Here’s an additional link for those who want to learn more about the motivations behind the “anti-globalization” movement (which I personally would prefer be called something like the “fair trade” movement): http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/12/kuttner-r-2.html
By clicking on the link to the issue in which that article appeared, you can then get an index of other articles on the topic. (That issue of the American Prospect had a special section devoted to the issue.)
Concerning the violence that is occurring, of course it is a bad thing. However, it is very hard from here to know who is causing it and where the blame lies. I.e., it only takes a few bad apples and a tense and/or overreactive police force and you’ve got a big problem on your hands. Blackclaw somehow seems privileged to have a firsthand view of all the events from his home in Cincinatti; the rest of us are not so lucky and have to rely on a media that is going to tend to be drawn to the most sensational aspects of the story to get our accounts of events there.
Then why, pray tell, do you persist in uniformly tarring all protesters with a single battered brush? Is it not possible that most protesters abhor the (seemingly inevitable) manifestation of violence at these events as much as you do? That they too are frustrated by the media attention given to the lunatic outliers while the causes which they perceive to be more legitimate go unremarked upon?
These are three distinctly different concerns. They may all be perfectly valid, but they can’t easily be lumped together. Especially not under the auspices of a thread entitled “The Anti-Globalization Crowd.”
If the spectacle has destroyed the message, then the solution would be to reduce the spectacle or increase the visibility of the message. Of course, I’d argue that the “spectacle” isn’t the problem so much as the automatic disdain/dismissal with which most mainstream policymakers view any challenge to the accepted spectrum of debate on free trade. That the “spectacle” is a symptom of marginalization more than a cause.
If there are so many messages that none stand out, then surely greater cohesion is in order–to the extent that it’s possible. (American isolationists, displaced factory workers, Rainbow Warriors, and third-world debtors may share a common antipathy to the mechanisms of neo-liberal free trade, but their respective messages can’t necessarily be combined into a television soundbite without being rendered fatally simplistic.) Personally, I think it’s as much the responsibility of the news media to recognize the diversity of messages and react accordingly (not everything–indeed, almost nothing–can be boiled down to two competing soundbites in the six o’ clock news) as it is for the representatives of manifold sides on the fringe of an issue to put aside their (sometimes irreconcilable) differences and present a unified front.
Similarly, if the violence which inevitably accompanies these protests serves to drown out the strife of interests expressed therein, perhaps we should seek ways to accentuate the process of dissent rather than validating the violence by paying it the utmost courtesy of our undivided attention. Hint: making sure that no one gets heard at these things (the “free speech zone” in Quebec was priceless) courtesy of preemptively hostile measures is not the way to go about it; you only feed the flame.
Fine. Start by separating in your head the handful of violent protesters–usually self-styled anarchists who glory in their lack of a concerted political perspective–from the millions and millions of people who seek to raise those cautions you describe in civil and considered ways.
(Add, if you wish, the likelihood that entrenched institutions which profit by the status quo are liable to legitimize subtantive dissent, violent protesters or no violent protesters.)
I have two points that I would like to share with you.
1)It really is possible to disagree with me and not come off sounding like an arrogant snot.
2)As you your link so generously offers as an example, it is possible to get multiple sides of a story even from my comfy home in Ohio. And since we all seem to be getting diluged by “mainstream” media here’s a link to some of the protesters’ own media.
Now while reading various points of view is not as good as being there, I do believe that it is possible to do so and reach an opinion of some kind on the matter. I do hope my belief in this is correct because I simply haven’t the funds or time to jet off to Israel, Washington DC, and a host of other places to observe first hand events that I would also like to have an opinion on.
Perhaps I am guilty of painting this group with too broad a brush. I am quite certain that many of the protesters are frustrated with the violence on both sides. But even the goal of those who practice non-violence is to shut the summit down. I deeply question what shutting down an avenue for discussion will achieve.
I don’t wish to merely seperate these groups in my head. I want to seperate them physically. Preferably by a continent or two. These many groups of protesters are allowing the fringe groups to set the agenda, another avenue must be found. And I admit freely that there is no easy course to set in this matter but I hope that the chaos of a mob isn’t what sets our future. New alliances can be formed. Massive peaceful marches can be accomplished, the numbers seem to be there. Why let others set the date? The UN is open year round…
It is my opinion that the violence makes the status quo all the more easy to defend.
Blackclaw: “But even the goal of those who practice non-violence is to shut the summit down. I deeply question what shutting down an avenue for discussion will achieve.”
But this avenue of discussion, despite its seemingly well-intentioned agenda, is an invitation-only affair; the protesters are the gate-crashers. Attempting to shut the summit down–a goal that won’t be achieved anyway–is a way of exerting pressure to include the citizen groups that have so far been shut out. Claw, I do believe that you want to have an open mind on this issue, but, in spite of your best efforts, you’re head is still full of the official story. That’s all you’re likely to get out of most mainstream media. I don’t say this to insult you; only to shed some light on why you’re seemingly reasonable attitude–“let’s encourage discussion by letting the summit go on”–doesn’t fly with those who’ve been following the issue through non-mainstream sources (as you have now begun to do).
Here, for what it’s worth, is an excerpt from the “Q&A” for the BBC World News Service: hardly a radical news organ, but usually more in-depth than your basic wire service.
"The people taking to the streets of Genoa believe that the G8 summits are fundamentally undemocratic, because the world’s rich countries are taking decisions that affect the
vast majority who have no say.
"There will be disappointment that the G8 leaders appear unlikely to go further in providing debt relief for the world’s poorest countries.
“Many also argue that the trade decisions taken by the G8, for example in encouraging poor countries to open their markets to foreign multinationals, and encouraging free trade talks, are likely to lead to further impoverishment of those countries.”
Source:
magdalene: "I spoke with many, many World Bank/IMF/Globalization protestors a year ago in D.C. and my impression then was that a) it was a bunch of very disparate groups, b) there exists no comprehensive mission statement or articulation of principles, and c) many were caught up in the street theater activism but few could explain what was actually going on."
I think this can be a very prevalent experience just approaching a number of people or even chatting with one’s friends. On the other hand…
“The protest effort would do well to cultivate well-informed, articulate, polished spokespeople who can handle press and conversations with decision makers, decide which issues are worth fighting for balls to the wall and which can be left for another day, and keep the violent idiots out of the media as much as possible.”
Let me assure you that the protest effort is full of such cultivated and articulate people. Unfortunately, your local news station (which is itself probably owned by a multi-national) would rather show you endless repeated footage of a hooded youth smashing a window, then give any airtime to such an individual. Not only that, as someone has already said, the issues aren’t reducible to soundbites. What is required (and what any decent media could easily produce) is a series of documentaries on the subject that would cover the range of attitudes that are out there. As to “deciding which issues are worth fighting for,” that’s pretty much up to people to decide for themselves, isn’t it? Unfortunately, without the kind of quality press coverage that I’ve just described, the various movements are bound to look incoherent to the general public. And, again, many mainstream media have a vested interest in making them appear even more so.
I happened to have been living in England during the Seattle WTO protests. It was quite surprising seeing the difference between reportage on British television and in newspapers like The Guardian in contrast to a Time magazine story that came out a few days later. That doesn’t mean that the British mainstream coverage was perfect, but what I saw of the American mainstream coverage was geared towards sensationalizing the violence and portraying the protestors either as goons, hippies, or luddites.
Let me add a few disclaimers for those who are convinced that I’m a “negative American exceptionalist,” as SuaSponte has recently put it. I have seen some pretty good stories on some globalization issues even in Time. The mainstream media is not the only problem. The US is not the only problem.
I have this appliance at home (I think they call it a TV) with a screen where you can see news and stuff. I saw today images of what was happening in Genoa and there were dozens of young people attacking the police and destroying property. They were not being attacked by the police of by the property they were destroying. There were large numbers of them; it was a full-blown riot.
It is disingenuous to say not all are violent. Many are and those that aren’t are still using the situation for their ends. Here in DC they are already preparing the police for the next meeting in September or October and they figure it will cost the city $25 million. I for one do not appreciate people coming here from outside to create problems.
There are many legitimate groups like Amnesty International and other ecological groups which do a very successful job without need to resorting to this kind of crap. We have freedom of expression and democracy. If you believe something needs to be changed you have valid avenues open without need to resorting to violence or being a nuisance to others. If you cannot get other people’s attention this way it probably means they do not think your cause is so important and imposing your views by violence is not a good idea. Especially because it gives the right to the other side to use violence against you and they have more of it at their disposal.
I find it ironic that we have all these people in developed countries protesting globalization because it hurts poor countries… the only problem is poor countries beg to differ and not only are they not protesting but want those jobs eagerly.
These protestors mainly are young people who know everything about what is wrong with the world and should be destroyed but really have no idea of what to build in its place. They are against everything and for nothing… and I am just too happy to know they do not have a chance in hell of getting anywhere. If there was any chance these people would get to be in power (like has happened in unstable moments in history) any country they took over would go to hell in handbasket.
In 25 years they’ll all be settled down and realizing the foolishness of their youth. In the meanwhile let the police beat the crap out of them. It’s a good lesson to learn that what goes around comes around. That’s just my humble opinion.
And then of course there’s the irony of a vocal minority attempting to use violence to dictate terms in the name of “democracy”. If these people are so interested in democracy, how about actually pursuing democratic avenues?
sailor*“It is disingenuous to say not all are violent.”*
Let me get this straight. Assuming you’ve read through the thread you’ve now seen numerous links–everything from Reuters to The American Prospect–all of which explain that the protest movement is composed of a majority of non-violent groups of various kinds and a small minority of violent anarchists. Please explain why it is disingenous to restate this undisputed fact while in the midst of responding to the OP.
BTW, here is an interesting link, also from the BBC, to one person’s eyewitness account of how the violence began.
I know you were talking only about the violent minority, but I just want to remind everyone that public manifestation has a very, very long history of being a democratic avenue. Democracy doesn’t get suspended the day after Election Day.
Small hijack, but the contrary message is one of which I am very tired indeed.
sailor again: "I find it ironic that we have all these people in developed countries protesting globalization because it hurts poor countries… the only problem is poor countries beg to differ and not only are they not protesting but want those jobs eagerly."
From one of the links posted by jshore
"The other wing [of the movement] is centered in the developing world, where the lives of the vast majority of people have become even more precarious because of harsh social policies demanded by first-world financiers as the price of their loans and aid. It includes peasants being forced from the land by corporate agriculture and mining, political leaders disempowered by rumors in faraway bond markets, civic organizations fighting for human rights and democracy, and trade unions struggling to give voice to workers. Though largely unreported in the U.S. media, their protests are widespread. Virtually every day somewhere in the third world, people are clubbed, rocks are thrown, and shots are fired in what Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank, has termed "IMF riots."
Heh, Blackclaw has his experience with Cincinatti, and I’ve got my experience with Columbus. Here at The Ohio State University, idiotic students and residents decided to riot three weekends in a row, for no particular reason. Cars were overturned and destroyed, dumpsters were ignited, and police officers were pelted with beer cans, rocks, bottles, and so forth.
Anyways, during the riots, no one made the claim that every student or neighborhood resident was violent or dangerous. However, everyone agreed that the situation was dangerous. Someone said something earlier in this thread that was very wise, but was unfortunately overlooked. For the most part, you can’t expect the cops to differentiate between the peaceful protestors and the violent ones. If rocks and flaming bottles are flying from that general vicinity and I have a tear gas gun, I’m gonna fire. I’m not going to interview every protestor and see if they’re peaceful or scum.
The cops have a fucking dangerous job in riot situations. I’ve talked to a friend of mine who worked security for a party during the OSU riots. His word to describe it was scary. Is it really that incredible for some of you to accept that cops could be scared when they have Molotov cocktails flying at them? Riot gear or not, training or not, it’s not exactly a fun situation. Scared people don’t always act (or react, as it were) in the best manner.
I’m not saying that the cops are always excused in their actions. I do wish that some of you wouldn’t be so hasty to hang 'em high. There seems to be a stereotype of the Hippie Protestor, singing Kum-by-ya and putting daisies in each other’s hair. This isn’t the cops banging on Flower Children.
The cops aren’t there to act as a giant human shield, standing there, taking any and all abuse. They’re allowed to use force to prevent abuse.
Quix
P.S. Mistress Kimstu has a saying, and I’m going to steal it. The violent protestors may be bad apples, but they’re in YOUR barrel.
>> Please explain why it is disingenous to restate this undisputed fact while in the midst of responding to the OP
Because though it may be technically true, they are all using the violence for their ends and doing nothing to prevent it. That is very disingebous to me. They know full well that what they are organizing and the way they are organizing it will lead to violence. They could take very active measures to prevent this and they don’t. They let it happen and then blame the cops. The actual violent ones may be a small number but the organizers are setting the climate and the conditions for the situation and they are responsible for that. And the ones actually committing the violence, I have no sympathy for them. If it is my car or house they are destrying, I want the police firing at them. If they are so concerned about conditions in the third world they can f*cking go there and do something useful but destroying my property is not something I consider useful for anything.
Oh, bullshit. There are no “organizers” overseeing some vast umbrella of activist groups from green-blockers to black-blockers, as has been explained to you. It’s a string of groups acting together. And they may (in my experience, invariably do) commit to pacifism. However, if the Black Bloc decides to show up, just what is the Council of Canadians or FTAA-Alert McGill supposed to do about it?
Do you honestly believe that the inclusion of citizen groups would change the protests in ANY way? Or do you think that perhaps their inclusion would be derided as a meaningless gesture, irrespective of whether ot was or not?
My honest belief is that there is nothing whatsoever that could be done to appease the protestors.
Since when were diplomatic summits normally open to any and all “citizen groups” that wanted to show up? Haven’t these sorts of things always been invitation only affairs? I don’t expect the government to invite me into every Cabinet meeting. I’m a little unclear as to why we have governments if we don’t want them doing this sort of thing.
I don’t see riots when NATO holds a meeting, at least not as regularly as at G8/WTO/GATT meetings - yet that’s an organization of rich countries that could, in theory, blow the world up. You never see anyone violently protesting the United Nations, but it’s no more democractic than the G8 and probably fifty times less effective.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the news media would rather show pictures of things getting busted up and burned down than anything else, but they’ll apply that rule to ANYONE, not just “anti-globalization” protesters.
The popular icon of anti-globalization around here, Naomi Klein, gets an enormous amount of air time, her own newspaper column, and a semi-regular spot on a popular talk show. I see her everywhere. So inasmuch as anti-globalization protestors are a “Group,” they get their fair share of press HERE.
And yet, why loot stores and attack police officers? The fact is that these summits are now invariably accompanied by mass rioting, and it’s not the G8 leaders who are throwing fire bombs. Like it or not, anti-globalization protests bring violence and destruction in their wake, no matter what percentage of the protestors are individually responsible. And that makes their message - well, hard to swallow.
That only seems to be the case because certain people and presses are incapable of looking at the anti-neoliberal movement as anything other than some pullulating whole, which it is not.
I understand that it is difficult to listen to the arguments of window-smashers. However, other than not smashing windows ourselves, and doing our level best to get our own message out, which are what we are already doing, what exactly do you propose we do?
A lot of hot air goes around in re ‘poor’ country support or not for the demonstrators. Icons are held up on all sides as ‘proof’ of their support.
Given the socio-political systems in place in much of the third world, the sketchy quality of information deseminated, I hazard the opinion that the comptetition for moral superiority of one’s position due to supposed mass support is meaningless here.
Jshore’s link claims daily protests against globalization blah blah. All well and fine. Unverifiable claims. Of course if one is an extreme reductionist one can count every social protest as an anti-globalization protest but this is without any real logical underpinning.
Actually living and working in the 3rd world (MENA region) I have not noted daily protests myself, but leaving that aside yes there is high sentiment against combined in an inchaote way with high hopes for globalization.
The issue depends on what one means by globalization. Does one mean cultural changes? Does one mean internationalization of the industrial production chain? Does one mean liberalization of trade policies (that is lowering of tariff barriers)?
Each of these things is a discrete process. As far as I can tell from my limited contact with the anti-globalization crowd, few if any understand what they are protesting against except again in an inchoate way, change. Tough, the world changes, like it or not. So, ze see claims like those below that international financial interests (shall we just drop the pretence and just call it International Capital?) driving farmers off the land, blah blah blah.
As I have noted in exchanges with Kimstu, our anti-globalization crowd rather typically ties anything they are angry about to the word globalization without much thought as to actual causation. Increase in poverty in the 3rd world? Obviously evil international capital keeping the comrades down (normally I rather detest red-baiting but my disdain for this sort of illogic and my feeling the same lack of critical examination leads me to this).
We should not keep in mind the combined influences of failed state driven development policies, over-spending on unproductive military goods, rampant population growth which results in creeping or even galloping impoverishment even when there is economic growth, economic and legal environments which punish private investment and discourage investment, painfully low levels of productivity conditioned by problematic work culture etc.
All nice and very fashionable in many circles to blame this on international capital. And the comfy elites of many 3rd World nations love to feed the gullible ‘protestors’ supporting quotes, the same protestors having little inclination or capacity to critically examine the hypocrisy of the same elites.
Frankly, I have rarely heard anything substantive from these folks, peaceful or not, which merits airing.
What I would propose for the “anti-neo-liberal movement” is they first educate themselves about economics, international financial flows and the real roles of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, instead of engaging in poorly founded propaganda.
I respect your opinion, but I simply don’t agree with it. I’ve tried my best to get the other side of the story, but as Collounsbury so eloquently pointed out, very few of these organizations that are involved seem to have any real understanding of the system they wish to tear down and I haven’t seen any feasible ideas on what they wish to replace it with. The topics of this current G8 summit includes a proposal for the World Bank to issue developing nations grants instead of loans thus not adding more debt burden to those nations. The proposal at this time lacks adequate funding to make it a reality, but should we close that discussion down before it becomes a possibility?
I agree with Collounsbury and Rick_Jay’s point of view.
quixotic78, I remember the Ohio State riots. I didn’t get their point either. At Ohio University there use to be an annual riot when the bars closed an hour early because of the time change. Maybe there is something wrong with Ohio…
