NationStates Jolt Archive

There is going to be a big G8 meeting soon in Heiligendamm on the German Baltic Coast.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,482855,00.html
A Taste of the Coming Showdown

Chancellor Angela Merkel wants nothing to disturb the seaside harmony at the G-8 summit in northern Germany next month. But nationwide raids last week have upset leftist protesters of every stripe -- and set the stage for an unwanted showdown on the Baltic Sea.

First off, I disagree completely with all these raids, the surveillance and "preventative custody" (which was what that lunatic Schäuble apparently mentioned).

On the other hand, I find that I have no sympathy whatsoever for the protesters at G8 meetings, WTO negotiations, World Bank conferences and IMF summits. Exactly what are they trying to achieve? Why do they think that being loud will be a better option than simply voting for a government that supports their stance? Why do they tolerate, if not encourage, violence at these things? What the hell was that in Seattle?

In short, do you think "Direct Action" (as in the destruction of property or trespassing to try and create a disruption) is a legitimate tool? Why?

Note the "why" is not just there for its good looks. I want to know what goes on in the heads of these really loud, really obnoxious and potentially violent types.

On the other hand, I find that I have no sympathy whatsoever for the protesters at G8 meetings, WTO negotiations, World Bank conferences and IMF summits. Exactly what are they trying to achieve? Why do they think that being loud will be a better option than simply voting for a government that supports their stance? Why do they tolerate, if not encourage, violence at these things? What the hell was that in Seattle?

i think that the thing they want to achieve is attention for their opinion and their cause. After Seattle for instance, the whole world suddenly knew there was something like an anti-globalization-movement, and a lot people became concerned about it. they kind of tried to put it on the political agenda. (or at least that is wat i think)

if you live in america for instance, what party would you vote for that is against globalization, or against whatever they are protesting against?

the majority doesn't tolerate or encourage violence, it often are small minorities (teenage 'anarchists' etc), people who come just to fight or possibly red flag operations or police provocations. it's like saying that all football supporters are hooligans.

i believe that in seattle it was a small group anarcho-primitivists from another town where there were riots earlier that year, but i'm not sure. originaly they planned to hold 2 large marches with people from all over the world (each march representing the north or the south i believe), others wanted to disrupt the summit by preventing the 'officials' from getting there by sitting on the crossroads leading to the summit. Remember that this is all from the top of my head and that i wasn't even there or involved in any way, so someone who knows a little more could probably clarify it a little better.


In short, do you think "Direct Action" (as in the destruction of property or trespassing to try and create a disruption) is a legitimate tool? Why?

i'm not really in favor of violence and destruction of property etc, mostly because i think it's counterproductive, and because it mostly harms just hard working people (if they destroy property of shops etc) or police men (if they use excessive, as in "not for self defence", violence against policemen) who are simply doing their job and probably would prefer to be doing something else, instead of the companies or institutions the violence should be targeted against.

Note the "why" is not just there for its good looks. I want to know what goes on in the heads of these really loud, really obnoxious and potentially violent types.

to little time (i really should start studying), and someone can undoubtly explain it better than me. i do think that you have a wrong image of the average protester though.

Here we have 2 kinds of protestors.

The real protestors who care about an issue. All of them except vegans are clever enough to protest peacefully as they know violence would turn public opinion agianst their cause.

The other kind of protestors are the hooligans of politics. They show up on any major protest regardless of if it is an issue they care about or not. Just to attempt to start chaos, wreck havoc and loot. There are 2 factions, the nazis and the lefties, if one faction shows up the other faction starts an anti-protest only to attempt to reach their rivals and battle it out.

There must be something seriously wrong with the last kind and what they do has nothing to do with showing opinions so lock them all up, perferably in a mental hospital as they seem to need it. Then the first kind can display their opinions in peace.

Direct action does little more than alienate the general populace whom you are trying to win over. When people see protesters smashing windows and burning cars they don't think that they're trying to make a point, they think they're violent thugs to be detested.

It's like that whole "Social Jamming" movement, absolutely ludicrous and destined for failure.

Why do they think that being loud will be a better option than simply voting for a government that supports their stance?

so if I vote, and my candidate doesn't get in, I should remain silent about any action the government brings in?

so if I vote, and my candidate doesn't get in, I should remain silent about any action the government brings in?

No, but don't burn or break things.

What IS the objective of all those idiot protesters, anyway? Are they anti-money or something?

On the other hand, I find that I have no sympathy whatsoever for the protesters at G8 meetings, WTO negotiations, World Bank conferences and IMF summits.

Exactly what are they trying to achieve? Ideally, the end of such organizations, or at least shutting them down temporarily so they can't meet.

Why do they think that being loud will be a better option than simply voting for a government that supports their stance? Because right now, the majority of people don't support the stance, and so there's no chance of such a government getting in.

Why do they tolerate, if not encourage, violence at these things? It depends on the individual protest, but usually violence is discouraged.

What the hell was that in Seattle?A handful of destructive people blown way out of proportion by the media and by the Seattle Police Department's response.

In short, do you think "Direct Action" (as in the destruction of property or trespassing to try and create a disruption) is a legitimate tool? Why?Nonviolent civil disobedience - trespassing, blocking traffic is absolutely a legitimate tool. I am neutral on the subject of the destruction of private property. I oppose private property, so I don't think it's morally wrong, but I also oppose violence. Also, it makes it way too easy for the media to slander the protestors that way.

Note the "why" is not just there for its good looks. I want to know what goes on in the heads of these really loud, really obnoxious and potentially violent types.As Emma Goldman said - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." I don't quite believe that, as I do vote, but there's certainly no denying that voting changes much. The vast majority of social change done here in the U.S. was done out on the streets, not in the voting box. Are you familiar with the Civil Rights Movements and the Anti-Vietnam War protestors? In both cases, government action was the last step in the process, not the first.

As Emma Goldman said - "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." I don't quite believe that, as I do vote, but there's certainly no denying that voting changes much. The vast majority of social change done here in the U.S. was done out on the streets, not in the voting box. Are you familiar with the Civil Rights Movements and the Anti-Vietnam War protestors? In both cases, government action was the last step in the process, not the first.

By appealing to the better sensibilities of the majority of the populace though.

The key to a successful social change movement is to embrace the whole of the population, and to appeal to their values. That's what the civil rights movement did so very well. King and company made it easy for the majority to identify with the movement, and that's where it's successes came from. Normal people watching brutal beatings and assaults by policemen with dogs against people who were literally on their knees before the police, when watching the evening news on television, and they knew something was wrong.

Smashing and burning, on the other hand, alienates the general populace, and removes the ability for them to identify with a group.

In short, do you think "Direct Action" (as in the destruction of property or trespassing to try and create a disruption) is a legitimate tool? Why?


No, I put it on the same level as terrorism. I know it's not the same thing, but it's still overwhelmingly pointless in terms of what it achieves.

By appealing to the better sensibilities of the majority of the populace though.

The key to a successful social change movement is to embrace the whole of the population, and to appeal to their values. That's what the civil rights movement did so very well. King and company made it easy for the majority to identify with the movement, and that's where it's successes came from. Normal people watching brutal beatings and assaults by policemen with dogs against people who were literally on their knees before the police, when watching the evening news on television, and they knew something was wrong.Certainly, but the only reason this happened was because the protestors were trespassing in the first place.

Smashing and burning, on the other hand, alienates the general populace, and removes the ability for them to identify with a group.This is what generally happens, yes, which is most of the reason I only support nonviolent civil disobedience.
Of course, this succeeding would rely on the willingness of the protestors to be beaten, something many people aren't willing to do.

When it comes to protesting world meetings:
Seattle: Wrong way
Live8: Right way

I say that they organize another Live8 concert near the G8 meeting. Hell, this could be a regular event.

Oh, great idea. Offer each G8 leader a backstage pass if they fulfill a certain demand (depending on the primary issue of the Live8 Concert). For instance, the the Live8 Concert is focused on AIDS, the price of a backstage pass (if you're a world leader) is $50 million in HIV relief.

i like to break things.

The G8, WTO, World Bank and other such institutions should be protested against, destoryed, and dismantled. I am 100% okay with destorying property to get your point across against such organizations, as that is the only thing which gets attention and has a chance of succeeded.

The G8, WTO, World Bank and other such institutions should be protested against, destoryed, and dismantled. I am 100% okay with destorying property to get your point across against such organizations, as that is the only thing which gets attention and has a chance of succeeded.

*nods* Nigerian women take oil rigs, Italians have general strikes, at least the protests in Seattle trapped Bush and co in there hotel room when police gas blew into there hotel :D

I take it everyones heard machine gun in a clowns hand here