NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,486307,00.html
German City Rocked by Violent Riots

At least 146 police were injured and dozens arrested in the northern German city of Rostock on Saturday afternoon during a major protest in the run-up to Wednesday's G-8 summit in the nearby resort town of Heiligendamm.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,486280,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,486296,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,486256,00.html

Gee, good thing they're only trying to make the world a better place. Otherwise they'd be pretty big arseholes, wouldn't they.

There's a G8 summit coming up in a little place close to Rostock. As you can imagine, it attracts quite a few globalisation critics and protesters, who decided to march in the city. The police was informed, and had planned to make the thing a big party ("Volksfest" was the word they used) so that everyone could make their point and be happy about it. There were policemen who had their faces painted by protesters as they marched alongside and in the crowd.

Well, it turns out that a bunch of idiots saw a police car parked somewhere and decided that was "provocation", so now it was time to throw stones and bottles and ruin everyone's day.

My question is now, is there anything the protesters could have done to prevent this? The majority of people obviously wasn't after trouble. But how can it be that virtually every time such an event occurs, some manage to implement their "direct action" philosophy to the detriment of everybody else?

*starts singing The Beatles Revolution*

*starts singing The Beatles Revolution*

The police in danger need to get to some helter shelter... Sorry.

What proof is there that the people attacking the police car were in fact protesters?

When all the world 'leaders' are together there, wouldn't it be cool if the got in the middle of such a riot? Imagine Bush, Blair, etc thrashed by 'ordinary' people... :p

What proof is there that the people attacking the police car were in fact protesters?their protesting

It only takes one rogue smashing up Starbucks to taint a protest, and it only takes one rogue policeman to make things even worse.

their protesting

Errr.... riiight. Its a great way to discredit that anti G8 movement...to start riots.

Of course there has never been a case where a government has never used agents provocateur...

Errr.... riiight. Its a great way to discredit that anti G8 movement...to start riots.

Of course there has never been a case where a government has never used agents provocateur...oh please, could you kindly put your government conspiracy theories back in your butt...

oh please, could you kindly put your government conspiracy theories back in your butt...

I'd say you were rather naive to think that it does not happen. There is enough documented evidence. Of course I just raised the possibility. Not that it actually happened. Of course a person like yourself who has plenty of experience going on demonstrations and protests knows full well that the state will do all it can to assist you in your protest...against the state.

In the US there was the FBI's Cointelpro programme.

Because I can't be arsed to find all the references I'll copy some wiki references just for you regarding Cointelpro. Of course I think it futile as I know you will not bother to either read nor research the subject.

If you want to be a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed shit) be my guest.

Books

* Blacstock, Nelson (1988). Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on Political Freedom. Pathfinder Press. ISBN 0-87348-877-6.
* Carson, Clayborne; Gallen, David, editors (1991). Malcolm X: The FBI File. Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN 0-88184-758-5.
* Churchill, Ward; Vander Wall, Jim. (2002). The Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States (2nd ed.). South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-648-8.
* Churchill, Ward; Vander Wall, Jim. (2002). Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (2nd ed.). South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-646-1.
* Cunningham, David (2004). There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, The Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23997-0.
* Davis, James Kirkpatrick (1997). Assault on the Left. Praeger Trade. ISBN 0-275-95455-2.
* Garrow, David (2006). The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Revised ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08731-4.
* Glick, Brian (1989). War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It. South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-349-7.
* Halperin, Morton; Berman, Jerry; Borosage Robert; Marwick, Christine (1976). The Lawless State: The Crimes Of The U.S. Intelligence Agencies. ISBN 0-14-004386-1.
* Olsen, Jack (2000). Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt. Doubleday. ISBN 0-38549-367-3.
* Perkus, Cathy (1976). Cointelpro. Vintage.

[edit] Articles

* John Drabble, "The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Mississippi, 1964-1971," Journal of Mississippi History, 66:4, (Winter 2004).

* John Drabble, "To Preserve the Domestic Tranquility:” The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and Political Discourse, 1964-1971," Journal of American Studies, 38:3 (August 2004): 297-328

[edit] U.S. Government reports

* U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Internal Security. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Operations for Internal Security Purposes. 93rd Cong., 2d sess, 1974.
* U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Intelligence. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Programs. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Hearings on Riots, Civil and Criminal Disorders. 90th Cong., 1st sess. - 91st Cong. , 2d sess, 1967-1970.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings — The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings — Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report — Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report — Book III , Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.

grow up :rolleyes:

grow up :rolleyes:


So you really think that the state (despite plenty of proof) has never used agent provocateurs?

I think naive is a suitable word. Truth hurts 'eh?

Funnily enough I did not state that this happened in this case. Just the possibility. ITs happened before...and it will happen again.

Except in your little dream world evidently.

It only takes one rogue smashing up Starbucks to taint a protest, and it only takes one rogue policeman to make things even worse.

Well exactly. I havent heard of any illegal detentions directly related to the protests though; maybe German LEO asshattery finished with those sweeps earlier on. *hopes*

Errr.... riiight. Its a great way to discredit that anti G8 movement...to start riots.

Of course there has never been a case where a government has never used agents provocateur...

I see your point, but this is rather unlikely, seeing as the Black Block (and others, of course) would be out in force regardless of the government intervention. The authorities don't need to bother placing assholes, they're there already.

So you really think that the state (despite plenty of proof) has never used agent provocateurs?

I think naive is a suitable word. Truth hurts 'eh?

Funnily enough I did not state that this happened in this case. Just the possibility. ITs happened before...and it will happen again.

Except in your little dream world evidently.Now cut the crap, will you?
Not every country on this planet is as conspiracy-infested as yours with weirdos to believe in every bullshit.

So you really think...
Don't bother. UB has more important things to get past before discourse on the nature of political opposition can proceed.

Well exactly. I havent heard of any illegal detentions directly related to the protests though; maybe German LEO asshattery finished with those sweeps earlier on. *hopes*



I see your point, but this is rather unlikely, seeing as the Black Block (and others, of course) would be out in force regardless of the government intervention. The authorities don't need to bother placing assholes, they're there already.

Yeah. Remember though that these folks are a small percentage of the total protesters.

Its not about placing assholes...its about kicking off a riot. Having been in more than a few it is pretty easy to turn a crowd from peaceful to full on nuttiness. An example would be the Pro Hunting protest a while back. These people went from peaceful (and no anarchists amongst them!) to fighting pretty quickly. Once more though it was a very very small percentage who were involved.

Anyway...it has happened. Which is why when I read about these protests I always wonder who actually kicked off the violence. I have no doubt that there have been protests that kicked off from the Black gangs...I am not saying in any way that ALL protests turn violent because the state has placed agents provocateurs.

Don't bother. UB has more important things to get past before discourse on the nature of political opposition can proceed.yeah, and you surely as well believe in the big illuminati conspiracy, and the jewish world conspiracy, and the ex-kgb conspiracy, and whatnot... :rolleyes:
how old are you? 12?

Now cut the crap, will you?
Not every country on this planet is as conspiracy-infested as yours with weirdos to believe in every bullshit.

Whatever it is you are smoking or drinking...you'd best stop before your remaining braincells rot son.

What crap? Please...point it out. Be more specific...so far all you have done is engage in invective not worthy of a dung beetle.

Or take your own advice and grow the fuck up.

By the way...what country would that be?

yeah, and you surely as well believe in the big illuminati conspiracy, and the jewish world conspiracy, and the ex-kgb conspiracy, and whatnot... :rolleyes:
how old are you? 12?

Wow! Do you even understand what a reference is? I posted references to one programme in the US that used agents provocateurs. That includes Congressional materials.

Now there is this wonderful thing called precedent.

I'd suggest you read The Prince but I fear your head would implode.

Yeah. Remember though that these folks are a small percentage of the total protesters.

Its not about placing assholes...its about kicking off a riot. Having been in more than a few it is pretty easy to turn a crowd from peaceful to full on nuttiness. An example would be the Pro Hunting protest a while back. These people went from peaceful (and no anarchists amongst them!) to fighting pretty quickly. Once more though it was a very very small percentage who were involved.

Anyway...it has happened. Which is why when I read about these protests I always wonder who actually kicked off the violence. I have no doubt that there have been protests that kicked off from the Black gangs...I am not saying in any way that ALL protests turn violent because the state has placed agents provocateurs.
Yes, I wonder if UB entirely wishes to understand that. :p

Having said that, yeah I know what you mean about protests, its the old mob mentality - found at football games as well. Anyhoo, I suspect that for the most part these particular troubles have been kicked off by police/(radical) protester interaction and not by any subversive action. Show the police and someone will provide enough rope to hang themselves, and once it starts, they all join in.

how old are you? 12?

Or take your own advice and grow the fuck up.
I could swear we were just talking about eejits on both sides of political debate disrupting peaceful discussion...

Yes, I wonder if UB entirely wishes to understand that. :p

Having said that, yeah I know what you mean about protests, its the old mob mentality - found at football games as well. Anyhoo, I suspect that for the most part these particular troubles have been kicked off by police/(radical) protester interaction and not by any subversive action. Show the police and someone will provide enough rope to hang themselves, and once it starts, they all join in.

I am amazed UB managed to get such a high post count!

Yeah...mob mentality...its so chaotic its predictable! LOL

All it takes to kick off is the slightest incident.

Way back when I was attending a protest/concert in front of Leeds City Hall. New Model Army were playing. Well near where I was, was also the cities Cenotaph.

Some punk pissed out of his brain decides to piss on it. Before I could kick shit out him the police had nabbed him and dragged him to the paddy wagon. Within seconds the police were surrounded and it all kicked off. One minute I was enjoying some decent sounds and the next I was right in the middle of a riot.

I strategically removed myself out of the firing line but hung about watching the entire keystone cops moment.

I could swear we were just talking about eejits on both sides of political debate disrupting peaceful discussion...

Yeah....well....I have a temper innit.

Wow! Do you even understand what a reference is? I posted references to one programme in the US that used agents provocateurs. That includes Congressional materials.

Now there is this wonderful thing called precedent.

I'd suggest you read The Prince but I fear your head would implode.
I could swear we were just talking about eejits on both sides of political debate disrupting peaceful discussion...
Please, can we drop this? In all seriousness, this is something he needs to work out, and villainising him for it isn't going to help.

UB, TG.

Please, can we drop this? In all seriousness, this is something he needs to work out, and villainising him for it isn’t going to help.
I thought it was clear I was chastising RC as much as UB.

If the G8 violence can tell us anything, it’s that silly, disruptive behaviour (no matter from which political angle it comes from) encourages violence, and violence begets itself.

I thought it was clear I was chastising RC as much as UB.

If the G8 violence can tell us anything, it’s that silly, disruptive behaviour (no matter from which political angle it comes from) encourages violence, and violence begets itself.

Um...bollocks. There is a difference between invective and simple plain on your nose truths.

Um...bollocks. There is a difference between invective and simple plain on your nose truths.
And would telling someone to, “grow the fuck up”, be a simple plain on your nose truth?

nothing new happens ever G8 i've been alive for

And would telling someone to, “grow the fuck up”, be a simple plain on your nose truth?

In the context of this thread...yes.

In the context of this thread...yes.
Interesting epistemology.

Interesting epistemology.

I'm an interesting kinda lunatic ;)

I’m an interesting kinda lunatic ;)
Most lunatics are.

And they often wear dapper hats.

Most lunatics are.

And they often wear dapper hats.

Funnily enough I did used to wear a pork pie hat... :eek:

Funnily enough I did used to wear a pork pie hat... :eek:
*skanks furiously*

*skanks furiously*

:D

Bravo Sir!

:D

Bravo Sir!
‘you gotta love that ska. ;)

And hate the G8.

‘you gotta love that ska. ;)

And hate the G8.

Indeed! I love ska...I'm a bit unhappy as my CD collection is still in the UK...and I so need to listen to some Jackie Mittoo...

G8 - well...

I am not a fan. Then again I am not a fan of the anti's either. Both sides have their issues with their own greed.

*ahem*

Then again I am not a fan of the anti’s either. Both sides have their issues with their own greed.
The Global Justice Movement (Anti-Globalisation Movement, whatever you want to call it) is so diverse, made up by so many differing views, that it’s hard to tar everyone with the same brush.

The Global Justice Movement (Anti-Globalisation Movement, whatever you want to call it) is so diverse, made up by so many differing views, that it’s hard to tar everyone with the same brush.

But us humans are so good at sweeping generalisations ;)


however...what meant in my post is that there is no equilibrium possible between all the disparate opinions

Now cut the crap, will you?
Not every country on this planet is as conspiracy-infested as yours with weirdos to believe in every bullshit.

And not every poster on this thread is as blithely gullible as you.

...what meant in my post is that there is no equilibrium possible between all the disparate opinions
I really don’t think so.

IMO there’s a wealth of common ground the various members of the Global Justice Movement hold; whatever political plane or geographical area they inhabit.

To name a few: democratisation/replacement of the economic international institutions, especially the WTO, World Bank and IMF, democratisation of the UN/UNSC, a lessening of US hegemony in said institutions/generally, and a fair market, as opposed to a ‘free’ market.

Yes these causes are quite vague, and yes, these causes do not fulfil the desires of much of the GJM (including left-libertarians such as myself), but as so much of the GJM is made up of democratic, popular mass-movements in the developing world, these causes (and others), rather than ideologies, can be agreed upon by all members.

Anyhoo, I suspect that for the most part these particular troubles have been kicked off by police/(radical) protester interaction and not by any subversive action.
Well, the Black Bloc types came prepared with crowbars, fluids to wash out the tear gas and so on. So that obviously wasn't spontaneous...they'd gone there with the clear expectation of getting into fights with the police.

On the link there's a little video box showing some of the action. As far as we can tell at the moment, when they started smashing that police van was when the whole thing started, and it's actually caught on camera.

I'd say you were rather naive to think that it does not happen. There is enough documented evidence.

Look at Austria in the 1930s. Prime Example. And Chezcoslovakia as well.

As to this, those that started the protest should face the maximum sentence possible but I doubt they were caught.

Although I am in favor of protests (wether I agree with them or not is irrelevent) they should be peaceful. Violent protests does nothing but cause anger at the protestors.

Shame on those who started this dust up.

grow up :rolleyes:

I just love a denier of evidence.

For some strange reason, I doubt the protesters who acted violently much cared that they were ruining the "big party"... perhaps because protests aren't supposed to be big parties, and generally tend to be pretty irrelevant when they are.

I'd suggest you read The Prince but I fear your head would implode.

That is a good book.

And would telling someone to, “grow the fuck up”, be a simple plain on your nose truth?

When dealing with UB? Yep. :D

This is how you handle a violent riot....

:mp5::sniper:

People will stop rioting if you shoot them.

Don't bother. UB has more important things to get past before discourse on the nature of political opposition can proceed.

Ain't that the truth.

The Black Bloc are an irrelevance. They always have been. The G8 anti-globalisation protest movement is useful for police forces as free (or relatively cheap) training for surveillance etc. The real vanguardist revolutionary urban guerilla types don't go anywhere near those protests, and have unassuming, boring, normal jobs. ;)

The people on the G8 marches are a collection of yoofs, crusties, and naive loons, none of whom have the potential to do any more than publicise the cause.

Unfortunately, that alone - the publicisation of the possibility of an alternative social system to international capitalism - is enough to bring the law on them. I'm glad they fought back, it's just a pity that this time the police didn't change sides and fight with them.

When the police swap sides - that's when you'll know The Day has come. :)

Violent protests does nothing but cause anger at the protestors.

Yes, that's one of the things it causes.

It also tends to draw a great deal of attention to whatever issue the protest was about... and an excellent opportunity for the more moderate types to exclaim "We're not like them!" and gain some legitimacy.

And, in all honesty, if the protesters are even half-right about the institutions they attack, means far more violent and disruptive than a few street riots are probably justifiable.

People will stop rioting if you shoot them.

Let's see how long you can keep that one up, with the domestic and probably international outcry.

And, in all honesty, if the protesters are even half-right about the institutions they attack, means far more violent and disruptive than a few street riots are probably justifiable.

Thing is... we're almost completely right. I have no doubt that we are slightly wrong to some extent; but I'm pretty confident that about 90% of the charges we level against the bastard class and its puppets and running dogs are accurate.

That means that, in all honesty, we should be blowing the fuckers to shreds and lining them up and shooting them by the truckload.

However, that doesn't work. :p So instead we party/protest, we lamely riot, we plot, we scheme, and we try to convince people that another world is possible by talking to them.

Sadly it's not as exciting as driving around in a truck daubed in slogans and shouting things like "Death to the lackey of the international boss class and quasi-fascist capitalist running dog G.W Bush and his clique!"

Nice - and I bet you also like to use equally unbiased envirtonmental research research provided by big oil.



I'd say you were rather naive to think that it does not happen. There is enough documented evidence. Of course I just raised the possibility. Not that it actually happened. Of course a person like yourself who has plenty of experience going on demonstrations and protests knows full well that the state will do all it can to assist you in your protest...against the state.

In the US there was the FBI's Cointelpro programme.

Because I can't be arsed to find all the references I'll copy some wiki references just for you regarding Cointelpro. Of course I think it futile as I know you will not bother to either read nor research the subject.

If you want to be a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed shit) be my guest.

Books

* Blacstock, Nelson (1988). Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on Political Freedom. Pathfinder Press. ISBN 0-87348-877-6.
* Carson, Clayborne; Gallen, David, editors (1991). Malcolm X: The FBI File. Carroll & Graf Publishers. ISBN 0-88184-758-5.
* Churchill, Ward; Vander Wall, Jim. (2002). The Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States (2nd ed.). South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-648-8.
* Churchill, Ward; Vander Wall, Jim. (2002). Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (2nd ed.). South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-646-1.
* Cunningham, David (2004). There’s Something Happening Here: The New Left, The Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23997-0.
* Davis, James Kirkpatrick (1997). Assault on the Left. Praeger Trade. ISBN 0-275-95455-2.
* Garrow, David (2006). The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Revised ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08731-4.
* Glick, Brian (1989). War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists and What We Can Do About It. South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-349-7.
* Halperin, Morton; Berman, Jerry; Borosage Robert; Marwick, Christine (1976). The Lawless State: The Crimes Of The U.S. Intelligence Agencies. ISBN 0-14-004386-1.
* Olsen, Jack (2000). Last Man Standing: The Tragedy and Triumph of Geronimo Pratt. Doubleday. ISBN 0-38549-367-3.
* Perkus, Cathy (1976). Cointelpro. Vintage.

[edit] Articles

* John Drabble, "The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE and the Decline of Ku Klux Klan Organizations in Mississippi, 1964-1971," Journal of Mississippi History, 66:4, (Winter 2004).

* John Drabble, "To Preserve the Domestic Tranquility:” The FBI, COINTELPRO-WHITE HATE, and Political Discourse, 1964-1971," Journal of American Studies, 38:3 (August 2004): 297-328

[edit] U.S. Government reports

* U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Internal Security. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Operations for Internal Security Purposes. 93rd Cong., 2d sess, 1974.
* U.S. Congress. House. Select Committee on Intelligence. Hearings on Domestic Intelligence Programs. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Hearings on Riots, Civil and Criminal Disorders. 90th Cong., 1st sess. - 91st Cong. , 2d sess, 1967-1970.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings — The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings — Federal Bureau of Investigation. Vol. 6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report — Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.
* U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Final Report — Book III , Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans. 94th Cong., 2d sess, 1976.

Let's see how long you can keep that one up, with the domestic and probably international outcry.

I submit the fact that domestic and international outcry have never stopped the germans before.

Personally, if I had a nation and people began a violent and destructive riot I would see it as an act of open rebellion and war. They would have thier chance to dispurse peacefully, if not LTL means would be used, barring that live fire from assault weapons should quell any rioters.

...live fire from assault weapons should quell any rioters.

And then it will start a revolution. You dickhead.

Thing is... we're almost completely right. I have no doubt that we are slightly wrong to some extent; but I'm pretty confident that about 90% of the charges we level against the bastard class and its puppets and running dogs are accurate.

I'm not so sure.

I'm as anti-capitalist as they come... but often I think capitalist globalization is not the best centerpoint for that struggle, chiefly because, whatever its faults (and there are plenty of them), it generally tends to be better than capitalist economic nationalism.

Especially since it's all too convenient to lump all of us together into an "anti-globalization" camp with people whose major concern is preserving the privilege of rich nations.

So instead we party/protest, we lamely riot, we plot, we scheme, and we try to convince people that another world is possible by talking to them.

Yeah, my intent wasn't so much to criticize the means as to criticize the moral outrage over the means.

The real issue concerns ends, not means... because if the protesters are right, their means and more are justifiable.

The "how dare they be violent!" response just abstracts away from the real issues for an insistence on keeping to norms that in a world dominated by a brutal capitalist order may just serve to maintain existing structures of exploitation. (Especially when it is combined with an antipathy towards direct action in general, even of the non-violent sort.)

I think capitalist globalization is not the best centerpoint for that struggle, chiefly because ... it generally tends to be better than capitalist economic nationalism.

Yes, I see what you mean. F'r example: I'm an anti-capitalist. The most prevelant form of capitalism at the moment is globalised, thus I'm anti-(capitalist)globalisation.

Not, however, that I am anti-globalisation. I just think that capitalism isn't what should be globalised. :)

Yeah, my intent wasn't so much to criticize the means as to criticize the moral outrage over the means.

I quite agree, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were attacking the means.

For some strange reason, I doubt the protesters who acted violently much cared that they were ruining the "big party"... perhaps because protests aren't supposed to be big parties, and generally tend to be pretty irrelevant when they are.
So attacking innocents and their property to make some obscure point that they obviously don't feel confident enough about to actually argue rationally is fair game?

Thing is... we're almost completely right. I have no doubt that we are slightly wrong to some extent; but I'm pretty confident that about 90% of the charges we level against the bastard class and its puppets and running dogs are accurate.
http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/laughoutloud.gif

The real vanguardist revolutionary urban guerilla types don't go anywhere near those protests, and have unassuming, boring, normal jobs. ;)
Yeah, we know those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction). Real heroes. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, that alone - the publicisation of the possibility of an alternative social system to international capitalism - is enough to bring the law on them. I'm glad they fought back, it's just a pity that this time the police didn't change sides and fight with them.
Did you actually read anything about what happened? "The law" was there to make sure that no one gets hurt, just like with any public event.

And then some idiots attacked the police and started taking the city apart. Maybe it's time you people stopped idolising that sort of behaviour, otherwise it's never going to stop.

When the police swap sides - that's when you'll know The Day has come. :)
They did, remember? They were marching alongside, with the anti-globalisation clowns painting their faces and stuff. Music was playing, people had dressed up and were dancing. Peaceful "let's make our point" sort of stuff.

It also tends to draw a great deal of attention to whatever issue the protest was about... and an excellent opportunity for the more moderate types to exclaim "We're not like them!" and gain some legitimacy.
That makes no sense. Look at Seattle...I can't think of anyone who actually got to say something they couldn't have said otherwise because some teenagers felt the need to destroy stuff and hurt people.

And, in all honesty, if the protesters are even half-right about the institutions they attack, means far more violent and disruptive than a few street riots are probably justifiable.
Pity is that they ain't. Never have been.

There is virtually no argument in their repartoire that stands up to reality, and no solution they propose that is actually feasible.

"There is absolutely no justification for attacks against people," said Werner Rätz, an activist with Attac, one of the major mainstream groups that is critical of globalization and the G-8 summit. The riots in no way "represent our sentiments," he said.

Interesting. So what does Attac say about the present form of globalization?

Every day, one hundred billion dollars pass through the currency markets in search of instant profits, with no relation to the state of production or to trade in goods and services. The consequences of this state of affairs are the permanent increase of income on capital at the expense of labor, a pervasive economic insecurity, and the growth of poverty.

...

Debt service requires governments to lower social service budgets to a minimum and condemn societies to underdevelopment. Interest rates much higher than in the countries of the North contribute to the destruction of national producers ;

...

Deregulation affects the labor market as a whole, and the results include degradation of working conditions, the growth of workplace insecurity and unemployment, and the dismantling of systems of social protection.

Attac platform (http://www.attac.org/spip.php?article2)

So: the exploitation of labor, economic insecurity, growth in poverty, the destruction of social services, the persistence of underdevelopment, the destruction of national production, the degradation of working conditions, workplace insecurity, unemployment, and the dismantling of the social safety net are all consequences of the present order... yet a few street riots cannot possibly be justified in this context?

No need to be throwing names at people now. Go back to bed if you're gonna be cranky. I never did anything to warrant name calling. I'm being sarcastic and you're just being plain rude.

You were being sarcastic? Sarcasm never comes across well on the internets.

Declaring that "LOL SHOOT TEH RIOTERS", however, is well worth an insult at the very least.

Seeing as you didn't mean it however... :fluffle:

And then it will start a revolution. You dickhead.

No need to be throwing names at people now. Go back to bed if you're gonna be cranky. I never did anything to warrant name calling. I'm being sarcastic and you're just being plain rude.

So attacking innocents and their property to make some obscure point

Generally their points aren't very "obscure."

that they obviously don't feel confident enough about to actually argue rationally

Um, what the hell are you talking about?

They're perfectly willing and able to argue it rationally.

is fair game?

When you're trying to stop institutions that you believe are causing immense misery abroad and at home? Yes, absolutely.

That makes no sense. Look at Seattle...I can't think of anyone who actually got to say something they couldn't have said otherwise because some teenagers felt the need to destroy stuff and hurt people.

Seattle propelled the critics of globalization to center-stage.

Pity is that they ain't. Never have been.

There is virtually no argument in their repartoire that stands up to reality, and no solution they propose that is actually feasible.

Perhaps, but if so, that is the real issue.

Don't insult our intelligence by complaining about them ruining everyone's day... as if that had anything to do with the justification of their actions.

So: the exploitation of labor, economic insecurity, growth in poverty, the destruction of social services, the persistence of underdevelopment, the destruction of national production, the degradation of working conditions, workplace insecurity, unemployment, and the dismantling of the social safety net are all consequences of the present order... yet a few street riots cannot possibly be justified in this context?
No, they can't. Because even Attac realises that simply because there might be a need for improving the process and because some people miss out on success doesn't actually equate actively hurting someone.

Not helping and actually causing pain are two different things. One doesn't justify the other.

Yeah, we know those (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction). Real heroes. :rolleyes:

You forgot a few: Brigate Rosse, Angry Brigade, November 17 (or was it 15), FAI... and more. ;) I never said I agreed with their means, just that they're the real actual violent threat to the state, as opposed to the utterly laughable Black Bloc.

Did you actually read anything about what happened? "The law" was there to make sure that no one gets hurt, just like with any public event.

Fucking rubbish. The police were there to ensure that the state was represented, could defend itself, and - if needs be - to break heads. The police are a deliberately violent organisation, regardless of the country they're from; their job is to 'uphold order' and defend the status quo.

And then some idiots attacked the police

Good show! Pity they were only using bricks. Maybe if they were using nukes...? :p

...started taking the city apart. Maybe it's time you people stopped idolising that sort of behaviour, otherwise it's never going to stop.

Idolise that? Nah. I laugh at it. Besides, it's not going to stop until the current capitalist system stops. And I can tell you, a petrol bomb is as nothing compared to, say, a Trident. Or a Police-issue assault rifle.

They did, remember? They were marching alongside, with the anti-globalisation clowns painting their faces and stuff. Music was playing, people had dressed up and were dancing. Peaceful "let's make our point" sort of stuff.

More rubbish. The Polizei were playing low-key - by 'swapping sides' I mean actually ditching their hierarchichal command structure, and assissting the protestors in attacking and destroying the system.


Pity is that they ain't [even half-right]. Never have been.

There is virtually no argument in their repartoire that stands up to reality, and no solution they propose that is actually feasible.

Whose reality? The imagined bourgeious reality of infinite growth and infinite profit, of trickle-down and gala balls, or the reality of the favelas and generational poverty on the Clyde?

Not helping and actually causing pain are two different things. One doesn't justify the other.

Sorry, no.

When the prevailing economic order is such that wealth is concentrated in a few hands at the expense of virtually everybody else, yes, it is justified to act violently to force change. Just as, during a famine, it would be justified to storm the food storages of the rich.

Even if the moral active/passive distinction weren't overemphasized, property and the economic systems upon which it is founded is active, not passive. It requires action to prevent someone from taking over your factory. It doesn't require action to let someone take over your factory.

Generally their points aren't very "obscure."
Of course they are. "Equality"? What the hell is that? No one bothers to explain these things, they've become memes that people just repeat because they sound good.

They're perfectly willing and able to argue it rationally.
Then why don't they? If their arguments make sense, people will listen. If people don't listen, it's because they don't have anything worthwhile to say. Smashing their windows in won't make them listen and sure isn't a rational argument.

When you're trying to stop institutions that you believe are causing immense misery abroad and at home? Yes, absolutely.
Hurting innocents because you've got an issue with some unrelated organisation?

Seattle propelled the critics of globalization to center-stage.
And before that they weren't? I would say Seattle neatly painted a picture of globalisation critics that they've never been able to shake. And as long as this swooning for everyone with a skimask doesn't stop, the image will stick. And as long as it does, nothing will change and any good ideas they have will never be implemented.

Don't insult our intelligence by complaining about them ruining everyone's day... as if that had anything to do with the justification of their actions.
Look, violent protest against anything is a reverse-engineered process. It basically starts out with an emotional "I hate authority" which gets transferred to a "I hate the police". The rest is then trying to find something that sounds half-way reasonable to try and justify the need to be a rebel.

Basically they did set out to ruin everyone's day. The rest is just stuff they say to make themselves feel less guilty about it.

You forgot a few: Brigate Rosse, Angry Brigade, November 17 (or was it 15), FAI... and more. ;) I never said I agreed with their means, just that they're the real actual violent threat to the state, as opposed to the utterly laughable Black Bloc.
Maybe you'll change your mind if one of their bombs goes up in your neighbourhood, killing people who wanted nothing but make it back home in time for dinner. My mum actually once witnessed an RAF bomb going off.

Not as fun as you think it is.

As for "threat to the state" - they never were. They liked to pretend to themselves that they were attacking the state or "the system", but they were just hurting people (mostly innocents) and property. The only difference between them and the Black Bloc is that they were even less considerate of the people they were hurting.

Fucking rubbish.
Prove it.

Besides, it's not going to stop until the current capitalist system stops.
There's gonna be hormone-filled teens after that too. Except then they'll be demanding some privacy and freedom.

More rubbish. The Polizei were playing low-key - by 'swapping sides' I mean actually ditching their hierarchichal command structure, and assissting the protestors in attacking and destroying the system.
"The system"...that word should be trademarked. The only thing that was being attacked and destroyed were people and property. "The system" (tm) doesn't give a shit.

Whose reality? The imagined bourgeious reality of infinite growth and infinite profit, of trickle-down and gala balls, or the reality of the favelas and generational poverty on the Clyde?
No, the real one. The one where there is no difference between the two, because there's just one physical world.

Of course they are. "Equality"? What the hell is that?

The Collins Gem English Dictionary defines it as "the state of being equal", while the radical left understands it to mean "equality of outcome", i.e. people at the bottom of the heap and at the top of the heap have as small as possible a difference in wealth.

It has also been described as "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs", and "...a society run and controlled by those who actually produce the wealth of the world. We believe that it is possible to live without government and to put in its place councils and assemblies where the "ordinary people" can decide what happens to this wealth. We believe in the equality of all and that maximum solidarity is needed between workers and other oppressed groups if we are to defeat those who live off our sweat."

Then why don't they? If their arguments make sense, people will listen. If people don't listen, it's because they don't have anything worthwhile to say. Smashing their windows in won't make them listen and sure isn't a rational argument.

We do. Frequently. The thing is, we're never asked to talk on major talkshows, any time we attempt to say "er, there's another option" we get shouted down, labelled "violent extremist bomb-throwers" and then attacked by the police. In that environment, it is unsurprising that the propaganda of the deed remains popular despite the collective decision towards the end of the 20th century that the propaganda of the word was the way forwards.

Many believe that both in conjunction with each other - a la IRA/Sinn Fein - is the way forwards; it is true that talking gets you no column inches but kicking a police officer (or getting shot) gets you many column inches.

Hurting innocents because you've got an issue with some unrelated organisation?

The police? Innocent? Fnar! The police, unrelated to government? What!? :p

And before that they weren't? I would say Seattle neatly painted a picture of globalisation critics that they've never been able to shake.

Actually, it's been a picture that's been around since the heady days of the Nihilist-Anarchist terrorists of the late 19th Century. Seattle was just a convenient update; and to be honest when you look at the footage it's a damnably one-sided fight. Ever heard of Haymarket?

Look, violent protest against anything is a reverse-engineered process. It basically starts out with an emotional "I hate authority" which gets transferred to a "I hate the police". The rest is then trying to find something that sounds half-way reasonable to try and justify the need to be a rebel.

Actually... no, it's usually not. The police are part of the armed wing of authority, they are there to enforce the existing social order through applied and legalised violence. When they cannot handle the protests, the armed forces arrive - the final line of defence for the state.

The 'I hate authority' is often emotional because people look at what it does, and decide that, actually, they'd rather not live in a world full of Bhopals, September 11ths, wars, poverty, and hideous state-sanctioned violence.

Basically they did set out to ruin everyone's day. The rest is just stuff they say to make themselves feel less guilty about it.

That applies equally to, say, arms manufacturers. :p

Maybe you'll change your mind if one of their bombs goes up in your neighbourhood, killing people who wanted nothing but make it back home in time for dinner. My mum actually once witnessed an RAF bomb going off.

Change my mind from what? The bit where I said "I never said I agreed with their means"? :p At any rate, the violence produced by such underground organisations is nothing compared to that produced by state-sanctioned militaries around the world.

Not as fun as you think it is.

Killing's never fun, comrade. Here's a tip; don't argue morality of killing with someone whose uncle was shot by the IRA. :rolleyes:

As for "threat to the state" - they never were. They liked to pretend to themselves that they were attacking the state or "the system", but they were just hurting people (mostly innocents) and property. The only difference between them and the Black Bloc is that they were even less considerate of the people they were hurting.

The urban guerillas were a bigger threat than the Black Bloc, who are made out to be a threat to civilisation by people like you. I was pointing out that they are not, that the guerillas of the 1960s-80s were much more of a threat. The only true threat to the state system is a fully-fledged revolt by the majority of the people; one which includes parts of the police and the armed forces.

Prove it.

You prove it.

"The system"...that word should be trademarked. The only thing that was being attacked and destroyed were people and property. "The system" (tm) doesn't give a shit.

Property is theft; the system is comprised of people. ;) The system gives a shit when property is damaged, and cares not a jot when people die. Economics and profits, you see.

No, the real one. The one where there is no difference between the two, because there's just one physical world.

Right, so that'd be the one where the insane goal of infinite growth and profit takes precedence over people's quality of life and the continued existence of the human species, then. Excellent.

But how can it be that virtually every time such an event occurs, some manage to implement their "direct action" philosophy to the detriment of everybody else?
You know, I wonder if the person who started it was even a protestor or just some random jerk who thought it would be fun to start throwing bottles.

Killing's never fun, comrade.

I'd like to fight them over here, in the streets, with militias and paramilitary groups and factions and renegade military units and the total breakdown of civil society.

Why?

It'd be bloody good fun. :D No, I'm serious!

...

You know, I wonder if the person who started it was even a protestor or just some random jerk who thought it would be fun to start throwing bottles.

It doesn't really matter now - people think it was a protestor and that's what matters.

The Black Bloc are riddled with coppers anyway; the chances are good it was a naive middle-class tosser of a youth egged on by a provocateur.

...

Lul. Caught outs. Or I would be, if not for the fact that I really do think that it'd be damn good fun...

...but the killing wouldn't be.

Killing =/= militias.
Killing = killing.

:p

Of course they are. "Equality"? What the hell is that?

Now you're just reaching. Economic, political, social equality are not hard concepts to grasp.

Then why don't they?

They do....

If their arguments make sense, people will listen.

Yes, and sometimes people do.

But generally people aren't too inclined to embrace radical shifts in the way things are, except in exceptional circumstances that at the moment are not present (though as ecological catastrophe and severe resource scarcity loom in the future, that may change.)

If people don't listen, it's because they don't have anything worthwhile to say.

How many people are listening to you?

Smashing their windows in won't make them listen

But it may draw attention to the cause.

and sure isn't a rational argument.

Most protests aren't about rational arguments. Never have been.

Not the successful ones, and not the unsuccessful ones.

Hurting innocents because you've got an issue with some unrelated organisation?

Well, the property destruction targeted innocents in a sense, I suppose. But the people who were injured were police and protestors. Combatants.

Effective protests tend to have collateral damage. Unfortunately that's just the way reality is. Even ordinary irrelevant ones often require closing roads.

And before that they weren't?

Not really. At least not here.

Yeah, NAFTA made a lot of people angry, but the global question wasn't that much of an issue.

And as long as it does, nothing will change and any good ideas they have will never be implemented.

Strangely enough, the insistence on labor and environmental regulations, the Tobin Tax, and debt relief have all attracted serious attention.

Look, violent protest against anything is a reverse-engineered process. It basically starts out with an emotional "I hate authority" which gets transferred to a "I hate the police". The rest is then trying to find something that sounds half-way reasonable to try and justify the need to be a rebel.

I haven't the slightest reason to believe that you have a clue about the motives of these protesters.

Unleash the Sardaukar!

Unleash the Sardaukar!I prefer Valaraukar.

Now I'm the first person to say fuck the anti-globalization crowd. Can't stand their politics. However, I'll give ten to one odds that the cops picked the fight. That tends to be the case. Especially given the absurdly massive number of cops they had there.

We do. Frequently. The thing is, we're never asked to talk on major talkshows, any time we attempt to say "er, there's another option" we get shouted down, labelled "violent extremist bomb-throwers" and then attacked by the police. In that environment, it is unsurprising that the propaganda of the deed remains popular despite the collective decision towards the end of the 20th century that the propaganda of the word was the way forwards.

So, to avoid the label of violent extremist bomb-thrower, you're going to be violent, extremist and throw bombs?

Many believe that both in conjunction with each other - a la IRA/Sinn Fein - is the way forwards; it is true that talking gets you no column inches but kicking a police officer (or getting shot) gets you many column inches.

Backwards, yeah. The IRA alone wouldn't have gotten very far and never did. Sinn Fein however... they would have been fine without the IRA.

The police? Innocent? Fnar! The police, unrelated to government? What!? :p

Sure, go ahead, claim that no innocent shopkeepers get their shops destroyed, car-owners get their cars burnt down or people just generally get hurt. You're not an elite strike force performing surgical strikes on the police, you're actually hurting society and, as a result, innocents as well.

That applies equally to, say, arms manufacturers. :p

Yes, yes it does, and I don't see what's so funny about it.

Backwards, yeah. The IRA alone wouldn't have gotten very far and never did. Sinn Fein however... they would have been fine without the IRA.
Not to butt in on your points, but Sinn Fein as it exists as a distinct political body in the present day would not exist were it not for the IRA. The historical Sinn Fein as an Irish political movement split into the various Irish parties back in the 30s. Today's Sinn Fein is explicitly a political wing of the provisional IRA, seeing themselves as representative of the diplomatic aspect of securing a unified independent Ireland (rather like Hamas's role in government in Palestine), and retains this name only by virtue of the fact that the incarnations of Sinn Fein that they've historically branched away from have all ceased to hold on to their name.

Errr.... riiight. Its a great way to discredit that anti G8 movement...to start riots.

Of course there has never been a case where a government has never used agents provocateur...
http://www.heise.de/tp/foren/go.shtml?read=1&msg_id=12873890&forum_id=118221 (unfortunately this is German, but it is exactly accusing the government of doing so and is written from someone who was at the prostest)

Fuck sake. Again, totally discrediting their cause.

And then it will start a revolution. You dickhead.

Just like tiananmen square.

actually its the overreaction by riot clad cops that typically provoke most of the violence not the protesters

My question is now, is there anything the protesters could have done to prevent this?When anyone gets violent immediately pile on top of them and hand them over to the police?
The problem is the protestors aren't in any way organized enough to control "themselves" (there isn't really a unified "them" in the first place).

I suppose they could also have their hands tied up before they start protesting; that way they can't 'accidentilly' start throwing rocks or bottles. And it would make for an ironic protest. Hmmm. Maybe straightjackets would be better, they could go with: "The world is going mad".

actually its the overreaction by riot clad cops that typically provoke most of the violence not the protesters

Only according to the protesters.

Now I'm the first person to say fuck the anti-globalization crowd. Can't stand their politics. However, I'll give ten to one odds that the cops picked the fight. That tends to be the case. Especially given the absurdly massive number of cops they had there.

Most cops do not like to pick fights! :rolleyes: Why? Because they never want chaos.

actually its the overreaction by riot clad cops that typically provoke most of the violence not the protesters

To which, I say bull. In most cases, its an idiot in the crowd that sparks a riot. There are notable exceptions (glances over at the Rodney King Riots) but in most cases, it is the crowd that sparks a fight.

If the police were allowed to use real bullets in order to quell the anarchists, the rioting would have ceased much sooner and order would have prevailed. Unfortunately, because of bleeding-heart policies, such criminals are pampered and allowed to wreak havoc almost unchecked throughout a major city. It's no wonder that Eastern Germany is still back in the stone age compared to its western neighbor.

If the police were allowed to use real bullets in order to quell the anarchists, the rioting would have ceased much sooner and order would have prevailed. Unfortunately, because of bleeding-heart policies, such criminals are pampered and allowed to wreak havoc almost unchecked throughout a major city. It's no wonder that Eastern Germany is still back in the stone age compared to its western neighbor.

Reunification?

actually its the overreaction by riot clad cops that typically provoke most of the violence not the protesters

I'm not going to say it hasn't happened; the Chicago Democratic Convention certainly shows that it has. But that is anything but the "typical" cause. The typical cause is idiots who believe that maximum publicity for their cause will increase support for it.

I call them idiots because they're playing straight into the hands of their enemies. Seattle put Anti-Globalisation on the map, yes; straight into that section of the mental map labeled "LOONIES: CLUELESS: DANGEROUS: AVOID". From now on the general populace will be automatically rejecting anything people labelled "Anti-Gobalization" do, say or advocate.

After Seattle, you'd already lost the war.

Reunification?

What about it? Eastern Germany retains many relics of its communist past, such as a bloated state sector and radical-left fringe groups.

My question is now, is there anything the protesters could have done to prevent this? The majority of people obviously wasn't after trouble. But how can it be that virtually every time such an event occurs, some manage to implement their "direct action" philosophy to the detriment of everybody else?

Not very much... the big, big problem with the left in Germany is that almost all anarchist groups feel they're part of it. And just as with the right, you've got the happy, peaceful majority, and you have the minorty that comes looking for trouble.
The pictures I saw on TV showed some of the guys throwing stones and whatnot at police, and without fail they all had covered their face (German law does not allow for demonstrators to cover up their faces). That tells me they came there already planning to attack the police.
Of course, once you have the police taking any kind of action, a situtation like that is bound to go out of control...
Sad, of course.

On the other hand, do you think you'd have seen any of the peaceful protestors' banners at all on the international news if it hadn't been for the couple of assholes turning the whole thing into a battle with the police? I doubt it. The news would at most have made a short mention of the peaceful protests, and that would have been it.
That's even sadder, I think

What about it? Eastern Germany retains many relics of its communist past, such as a bloated state sector and radical-left fringe groups.

http://www.reloaded.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/hysterical.gif

If there is one thing you will have a very hard time finding in East Germany, it's a radical left-wing group. Radical right-wingers, enough to export them. But left wing? Not a chance.

I'm not going to say it hasn't happened; the Chicago Democratic Convention certainly shows that it has. But that is anything but the "typical" cause. The typical cause is idiots who believe that maximum publicity for their cause will increase support for it.

I call them idiots because they're playing straight into the hands of their enemies. Seattle put Anti-Globalisation on the map, yes; straight into that section of the mental map labeled "LOONIES: CLUELESS: DANGEROUS: AVOID". From now on the general populace will be automatically rejecting anything people labelled "Anti-Gobalization" do, say or advocate.

After Seattle, you'd already lost the war.

In my experience and based on my knowledge, PJ actually has it right. The miners' strike, for example - BBC famously switched around footage so that it looked like the police were riding down protesters who had attacked them rather than the miners' attack being in response to the horse charge.

Seattle, too, was a case of the protesters only getting violent after the cops attacked. Any time I've ever seen violence, it has been the cops starting it, not the protesters. Generally, what happens is that the cops try to move people along, and do so in their usual fashion - push first, say please later.

If the police were allowed to use real bullets in order to quell the anarchists, the rioting would have ceased much sooner and order would have prevailed. Unfortunately, because of bleeding-heart policies, such criminals are pampered and allowed to wreak havoc almost unchecked throughout a major city. It's no wonder that Eastern Germany is still back in the stone age compared to its western neighbor.

Er.. you do realise that Eastern German police used to use real bullets on their population BEFORE the reunification, right? Western Germany is the country that didn't...

its those riot costumes that get the cops rowdy--plus they want to try out all their new riot toys on the protesters too--the cops start it then blame the protesters and the corporate media always sides with the fascists

If there is one thing you will have a very hard time finding in East Germany, it's a radical left-wing group.

Who do you think perpetrated this large-scale riot? Hell, I'll tell you, since you seem to be completely oblivious to the point: it was a loose alliance of radical-left wing individuals and anarchists seeking to cause senseless damage to the state.

Er.. you do realise that Eastern German police used to use real bullets on their population BEFORE the reunification, right? Western Germany is the country that didn't...

Well, at least they got one thing right, then. Of course, that doesn't explain why Eastern Germany coddles criminals.

Who do you think perpetrated this large-scale riot? Hell, I'll tell you, since you seem to be completely oblivious to the point: it was a loose alliance of radical-left wing individuals and anarchists seeking to cause senseless damage to the state.

You do realise that only a very, very small percentage of the protestors are from Rostock, right?
You also realise that there are roads in Germany, and even railways, that will allow groups to travel from one place to another, right?

I've lived in Eastern Germany for years, you can believe me if I tell you it has no left-wing groups to speak of at the moment.
The situation is inverted in Western Germany.

Well, at least they got one thing right, then. Of course, that doesn't explain why Eastern Germany coddles criminals.

It does? How?

It does? How?

By refusing to take decisive action against the criminals who were demolishing the city; they only used various "soft" weapons such as pepper spray and tear gas. Hell, they didn't even use rubber bullets, let alone real ones.

But how can it be that virtually every time such an event occurs, some manage to implement their "direct action" philosophy to the detriment of everybody else?

Because no other channels of popular communication exist, or those channels that do exist are ineffective. This is ultra-basic "Intro to Political Science" stuff.

People will articulate their positions, ideas and demands to government in any number of ways. In democratic polities, this is accomplished through voting, directly contacting representatives, news media, public opinion polls, social gatherings and professional relationships, etc. All of those avenues can be pursued in a peaceful manner. However, as the polity becomes less democratic, or government in general becomes less responsive, channels of communication are closed and made unavailable. There may not be elections, the news media may be ineffective (including government controlled), or social gathering and professional relationships are dominated by a select elite while excluding the majority of the masses.

In such a situation, new avenues of communication become necessary in order to draw government/elite attention to a given issue or demand. Political protest is easily the most visible and most commonly employed of such alternative channels. Of course, other channels include terrorism and violence.

By considering all of the above, it becomes obvious why protest and violence correlate with meetings of the G8, or World Bank, or International Monetary Fund, etc. The G8 itself is an elite intergovernmental organization that places control over global policy into the hands of exactly 8 persons (none of which represent the "global south" of impoverished under- or undeveloped states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South)). That factor alone means that the vast majority of humanity who are affected by the global economy have no direct say or representation by the body formulating said policy. Even those states who are represented in the G8 do not directly elect representative to the G8. As such, the channels of communication to this particular global intergovernmental elite are very few, and so the masses, in the absense of a democratic mechanism, must pursue alternative means to make their voices heard. The vast majority choose peaceful protest and alternative media. And, of course, a minority choose terrorism and violence.

The same story is true for the World Bank, and the IMF (the United States possesses the lion's share of political control of both, again leaving most of the rest of the world feeling unrepresented and ignored).

Solving the issue of violence is simply a matter of increasing the channels of communication between the masses and elite. This means that international governance must be subjected to international democracy. International organizations like the G8, World Bank and IMF must be made representative and accountable to all those who are affected by their policy. So long as there are individuals, and groups of individuals, who feel that effective channels of communication do not exist, there will be protests and violence.

Simple as that.

By refusing to take decisive action against the criminals who were demolishing the city; they only used various "soft" weapons such as pepper spray and tear gas. Hell, they didn't even use rubber bullets, let alone real ones.

Right, cause shooting at the crowd and killing people would have stopped the violence inctantly. :rolleyes:

Blah, blah, blah...simple as that.

You can't always get what you want, but there's no need use violence to express your frustration. It's as simple as that.

Violence, in this case, only existed because young, angsty hoodlums wanted to rebel against societal norms. They were unconnected to the largely peaceful protesters who had genuine (although misinformed and fallacious) grievances against the G8 . These punks don't care about the G8; they just want to be "cool." Chances are, they're lazy, unwilling to work, and blame their bad lot on the world rather than themselves. I know their kind.

Right, cause shooting at the crowd and killing people would have stopped the violence instantly. :rolleyes:

I don't know why you appended a ":rolleyes:" to the end of your statement, because it is patently true. The violence would have immediately stopped because even the most thick-headed of rioters would have realized that their pursuit of rebellious behavior was not worth dying over.

regardless about what you think about them as people the things theyre protesting over are entirely legitimate concerns that deserve to be heard and address and I applaud their patriotism in fighting the scourge of global corporate fascism

I don't know why you appended a ":rolleyes:" to the end of your statement, because it is patently true. The violence would have immediately stopped because even the most thick-headed of rioters would have realized that their pursuit of rebellious behavior was not worth dying over.

And then the shit would have really hit the fan. You kill people on a protest, fire real bullets at them, and kill multiple people... NOT A GOOD IDEA. It basically means that you cannot respond with less-lethal force any more, because once people come to see a cop as a man who will kill rather than just bash with a stick, that means they have less of a problem killing.
And your analysis of who is there and why they are using what tactics is ridiculously simple.

You can't always get what you want, but there's no need use violence to express your frustration. It's as simple as that.

Violence, in this case, only existed because young, angsty hoodlums wanted to rebel against societal norms. They were unconnected to the largely peaceful protesters who had genuine (although misinformed and fallacious) grievances against the G8 . These punks don't care about the G8; they just want to be "cool." Chances are, they're lazy, unwilling to work, and blame their bad lot on the world rather than themselves. I know their kind.

Naturally, the elite, and those who benefit from their policy and activities, will see no problem with the situation. Their channels of communication are open, strong, and effective. Naturally, they will defend the status quo against any and all empirical evidence demonstrating the inability of the political system in question to address the issues of the majority. Their special interest and thus motovation in doing so is not difficult to decipher. Attributing the motovations of the masses to ill character, malicious intentions, or other personal faults is a tactic employed by the elite to paper over the situation, employed since time immemorial by undemocratic elites everywhere, left-wing and right-.

I don't know why you appended a ":rolleyes:" to the end of your statement, because it is patently true. The violence would have immediately stopped because even the most thick-headed of rioters would have realized that their pursuit of rebellious behavior was not worth dying over.

You might be too young to remember, but police violence was what sparked the riots in Paris in 2005.
Police violence caused the massive riots in Germany in 1968 (to be exact, it was one demonstrator being shot by police which caused weeks of riots and unrest, and indirectly led to the Red Army Fraction to form.

Shooting protestors had never, ever ended violence, and it has never, ever been a clever idea. It's the one thing that will make sure that even the peaceful protestors will turn against the police.

Shooting protestors had never, ever ended violence, and it has never, ever been a clever idea. It's the one thing that will make sure that even the peaceful protestors will turn against the police.

That's because the tactic was quickly abandoned. For example, in 2005, the police employed lethal force, resulting in riots. However, they replied to the crisis using less-than-lethal force, thus protracting the unrest. If they had consistently applied the doctrine of lethal force to maintain the peace, there would have been no disturbances.

Effective protests tend to have collateral damage. Unfortunately that's just the way reality is. Even ordinary irrelevant ones often require closing roads.

Collateral damage? Fuck collateral damage. I thought you were more mature than that Soheran.

I'd like to see some of these criminals explain their great cause to to the families of "collateral damage." Look some kid right in the eyes and tell them their daddy had to die so that they could draw attention to their cause.

The only differance between an anarchist lobbing Molotovs and a pilot dropping bombs on Iraq is the amount of damage done. Well, that and the fact the pilot's been conditioned and has the whole lame "following orders" excuse. The anarchist does it of his own volition.

Free the working class by killing them and destroying their livelihoods! Since when do the rich ever get hurt in any of these things?

Attributing the motovations of the masses to ill character, malicious intentions, or other personal faults is a tactic employed by the elite to paper over the situation, employed since time immemorial by undemocratic elites everywhere, left-wing and right-.

Suggesting that all those who objurgate left-wing criminals and hoodlums are "elitist" is a tactic employed by the left-wing establishment in order to consolidate its power. Their propaganda manages to conjure up the image of a potent enemy (in this case, the G8) and praises all those who "heroically" stand up to it. In reality, however, the rioters were simple criminals fighting for nothing but to satisfy their angsty yen for "revolution" and "rebellion."

Collateral damage? Fuck collateral damage.

Collateral damage is generally an integral part of a crusade to right a wrong. If something which changes the status quo is worth doing, then you can rest assured that turmoil will ensue, and that it won't be pleasant. However, in the end, it will all be worth it. A glowing example of this is Iraq: true, there was a modicum of collateral damage, but it was justified in the view of the glorious result of democracy and freedom. Of course, this does not apply to the common criminals who perpetrated this riot because their cause, if one existed, was ignoble and, at best, moronic.

Their propaganda manages to conjure up the image of a potent enemy (in this case, the G8) and praises all those who "heroically" stand up to it.

On the contrary, I find the use of violence for any cause (other than self-defense
against direct danger) repugnant. Careful review of my posts will make clear that I simply describe why political violence occurs. On the issue of moral/ethical or legal justification, my previous posts are silent. Whether I (or you) like it or not, violence will occur so long as the channels of communication are inadequate and democratic practices impotent. If anything, we should advocate the democratization of international economic-political institutions exactly because it will help stop political violence while reducing any percieved legitimacy of those who engage in it.

I advocate democracy exactly because I hate violence.

**shrugs**

On the contrary, I find the use of violence for any cause (other than self-defense
against direct danger) repugnant.
And I agree completely.
Collateral damage is generally an integral part of a crusade to right a wrong. If something which changes the status quo is worth doing, then you can rest assured that turmoil will ensue, and that it won't be pleasant. However, in the end, it will all be worth it. A glowing example of this is Iraq: true, there was a modicum of collateral damage, but it was justified in the view of the glorious result of democracy and freedom. Of course, this does not apply to the common criminals who perpetrated this riot because their cause, if one existed, was ignoble and, at best, moronic.
The "glorious result" of Iraq is nothing but more collateral damage. In fact, I'd venture to say that the motives of those trouble makers at the riot are far more pure than those of the perpetuates of the Iraq war. Your Bush is just as much (more so) a criminal as these rioters.

Careful review of my posts will make clear that I simply describe why political violence occurs.

You claimed the following: "Attributing the motivations of the masses to ill character, malicious intentions, or other personal faults is a tactic employed by the elite to paper over the situation." However, I am not a member of the elite, yet I assert that this is the truth; you implicitly questioned the validity of my assessment by suggesting that it was a "hoax" perpetrated by the elite.

Your Bush

Actually, for the record, I do not own Bush.

You claimed the following: "Attributing the motivations of the masses to ill character, malicious intentions, or other personal faults is a tactic employed by the elite to paper over the situation." However, I am not a member of the elite, yet I assert that this is the truth; you implicitly questioned the validity of my assessment by suggesting that it was a "hoax" perpetrated by the elite.

You don't have to be a member of the elite to buy into their shit or repeat it.

You don't have to be a member of the elite to buy into their shit or repeat it.

No; however, I was defending their views because their veracity was (albeit innocuously) questioned.

You claimed the following: "Attributing the motivations of the masses to ill character, malicious intentions, or other personal faults is a tactic employed by the elite to paper over the situation." However, I am not a member of the elite, yet I assert that this is the truth; you implicitly questioned the validity of my assessment by suggesting that it was a "hoax" perpetrated by the elite.

Allow me to rephrase/consolidate:

One of the reasons why political violence occurs is that the means of communication by the masses to the government is made ineffective. One of the ways this is accomplished is through the characterization of the masses as simply being motovated by ill character, malicious intentions, or other personal faults. This characterization is then used as a justification for ignoring the masses. While it may be true that some individuals simply relish violence while paying no adherence to any particular ideology or constructive goal, characterizations as such painted with a wide brush often cause legitimate problems (like the lack of democratic avenues of communication and articulation) to become ignored. This can be accidential (and perpetuated by ignorance) or puposefully exploited by an elite concerned only with its own interests. Either way, the ultimate result is the same: the continuing failure of the economic-political system to address legitimate problems and the continuing use of violence or non-violent but nonetheless disruptive protest. If the use of violence is to be stopped (a noble goal indeed), the economic-political system in question must be made accountable and democratic.

Someone please tell me why Russia is in the G8 and why is it even trying to make anything better if all they do is abuse human rights of their own citizens.

If they had consistently applied the doctrine of lethal force to maintain the peace, there would have been no disturbances.
Well, yes. Everyone behind the guns will be safe while everyone in front of them will be dead.

I think, however, I'd rather die than kill.

Someone please tell me why Russia is in the G8 and why is it even trying to make anything better if all they do is abuse human rights of their own citizens.

well what does the G8 do for The People? are they really that much less abusive then Russia? Theyre just corporate maggots deciding how to carve up the world for their own parasitical agenda

Sorry about the chaotic quotes. I sorta tried to make the same point to two people at the same time without repeating myself.

When the prevailing economic order is such that wealth is concentrated in a few hands at the expense of virtually everybody else, yes, it is justified to act violently to force change.
Wealth is never at the expense of anyone, and even if it was, the end doesn't justify the means.

The Collins Gem English Dictionary defines it as "the state of being equal", while the radical left understands it to mean "equality of outcome", i.e. people at the bottom of the heap and at the top of the heap have as small as possible a difference in wealth...
Now you're just reaching. Economic, political, social equality are not hard concepts to grasp.
I mean actual implementation. An actual, properly laid out picture of what an "equal" society would look like and an actual, properly laid out plan of how to get there.

You can attach all sorts of meanings to the word, but without these, it's just a buzzword people like to yell when they feel they want more than they have right now without working for it.

We do. Frequently. The thing is, we're never asked to talk on major talkshows, any time we attempt to say "er, there's another option" we get shouted down, labelled "violent extremist bomb-throwers" and then attacked by the police.
Yeah, it's all a big conspiracy to keep you down. :rolleyes:

In that environment, it is unsurprising that the propaganda of the deed remains popular despite the collective decision towards the end of the 20th century that the propaganda of the word was the way forwards.
Look, there is no such thing as a collective decision. In fact, if you're all about the commune and collectivist decision making, shouldn't it make you think that apparently people just don't give a shit about this and keep doing what they think is best?

Many believe that both in conjunction with each other - a la IRA/Sinn Fein - is the way forwards; it is true that talking gets you no column inches but kicking a police officer (or getting shot) gets you many column inches.
Here's an idea: start a political party.

I hear it's been done before. I suppose it does require something of a majority to agree with you (which is where you may run into problems), so using violence to impose change that most people don't want might be out of the picture. But other than that, it works quite well. On my election ballot I had the choice between the Marxist-Leninist Party, some feminist Trotskyist Group and even the German Maoist Party. I'm sure some revolutionary anarcho-communist party would fit right in.

But generally people aren't too inclined to embrace radical shifts in the way things are, except in exceptional circumstances that at the moment are not present (though as ecological catastrophe and severe resource scarcity loom in the future, that may change.)
So, in other words it's human nature thwarting your master plan again? Or how am I meant to interpret this?

"People don't like change, so if we force it upon them by means of a violent revolution, that would be great!"

How many people are listening to you?
I don't think I'm trying to speak to anyone right now. I've got a life plan to implement, and that sorta takes priority. After that, I might try to make my views public, but more likely I'll just create a massive charity and do what these protesters tend to neglect: help people.

The police? Innocent? Fnar! The police, unrelated to government? What!? :p
Yeah, you may want to look beyond the uniform. These are just normal people, who usually do such things as direct traffic and help old ladies get their purses back.

Well, the property destruction targeted innocents in a sense, I suppose. But the people who were injured were police and protestors. Combatants.
Except that this isn't war, there's no such thing as a combatant. A peaceful demonstration of their thoughts on an issue was planned. Just because one side started attacking the other doesn't make the other fair game.

The police were there to direct and protect the crowd and traffic, as they do in any major event. They had no message to send and no political purpose for being there. Then they were attacked and subsequently defended themselves and the city centre.

Strangely enough, the insistence on labor and environmental regulations, the Tobin Tax, and debt relief have all attracted serious attention.
Though not because of rock throwing, but because academics and politicians have been talking about it.

I don't mind Stiglitz, Sen, de Soto or even bloody Montbiot making suggestions on how to make the world a better place. It would be sad if they didn't. And if their ideas are any good, they'll find supporters (and might just stand up to democratic scrutiny).

But their ideas have to stand on their own merit. We can't consider them because otherwise someone will hurt me.

I haven't the slightest reason to believe that you have a clue about the motives of these protesters.
So we're all gonna pretend we don't know what it's like to be an angry teenager with an interest in politics?

At any rate, the violence produced by such underground organisations is nothing compared to that produced by state-sanctioned militaries around the world.
In other words, it's okay then? Or were you just assuming that I somehow support state-sanctioned violence?

You prove it.
http://www.polizei.mvnet.de/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3897&Itemid=279
http://www.polizei.mvnet.de/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3881&Itemid=279
http://www.polizei.mvnet.de/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3889&Itemid=279

Your turn.

Property is theft; the system is comprised of people. ;) The system gives a shit when property is damaged, and cares not a jot when people die. Economics and profits, you see.
More buzzwords. Property can't be theft, the system is comprised of people but not a person itself, so it can't think and thus it can't give a shit, nor care. Only people can care, and often they do.

And economics is the discipline of how to allocate scarce resources, and profits is defined as revenue minus cost.

So now you should illustrate how that has anything to do why it's justified to hurt innocent people to make a point.

Right, so that'd be the one where the insane goal of infinite growth and profit takes precedence over people's quality of life and the continued existence of the human species, then. Excellent.
Hehe. I'm sure you'd much prefer the "quality of life" a few thousand years ago when growth hadn't gone on for as long as it has today.

In democratic polities, this is accomplished through voting, directly contacting representatives, news media, public opinion polls, social gatherings and professional relationships, etc. All of those avenues can be pursued in a peaceful manner.
Excellent. So there we have it.

By considering all of the above, it becomes obvious why protest and violence correlate with meetings of the G8, or World Bank, or International Monetary Fund, etc.
No.

The G8 itself is an elite intergovernmental organization that places control over global policy into the hands of exactly 8 persons (none of which represent the "global south" of impoverished under- or undeveloped states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South)).
That's what I mean when I say that the protestors' argument bear no correlation with reality.

The G8 is a group of the eight most important economies (though an argument could be made that India and China should be included at some point). The representatives, those "8 persons", are the elected heads of government of those eight countries.

They make decisions about the stance that these countries will take on big issues. They don't make global policy and they most certainly don't have control over anything but their own policies (and not even that in some cases, since they still have to deal with parliaments at home). Nor is there any reason whatsoever to have the third world have a say in a forum of these countries.

That factor alone means that the vast majority of humanity who are affected by the global economy have no direct say or representation by the body formulating said policy.
That's because the US' policy is in fact the US' policy and nobody else's.

Even those states who are represented in the G8 do not directly elect representative to the G8.
Ahem...the only two reps in the G8 with a questionable record with democracy are Putin (and say what you will, he was elected) and Barroso (who wasn't elected directly, but appointed by elected officials). Of course, Barroso doesn't get to decide much, unlike the other guys.

The same story is true for the World Bank, and the IMF (the United States possesses the lion's share of political control of both, again leaving most of the rest of the world feeling unrepresented and ignored).
The US is the main contributor to the financial resources of the World Bank and the IMF, and with that come a greater say when it comes to appointing officials. And that's as far as it goes.

Both the World Bank and the IMF are independent bodies. The World Bank finances development projects and the IMF hands out emergency loans. No one has to deal with the institutions if they don't want to. In fact, all this bitching about the IMF is usually misplaced, because if governments hadn't screwed up in the first place, they wouldn't have needed IMF money and thus they wouldn't have had to listen to IMF policy requirements.

International organizations like the G8, World Bank and IMF must be made representative and accountable to all those who are affected by their policy.
That makes basically no sense. Indonesia's industrial relations policy can have big impacts on foreign firms operating there, and thus the economies of other countries. Ergo, everyone should get a say in Indonesia's IR system.

In fact, US consumers can have a big impact on the global economy. Ergo, if there's a tax cut in the US, the whole world should be asked first.

Even the World Bank and IMF can't be democratised meaningfully. Right now they work because they're apolitical economic institutions that work to evaluate and finance specific projects according to set criteria and generally accepted economic theory. "Democratising" them just means that the World Bank will refuse money to Israel, finance genocide in Darfur and just generally act like the UN.

So long as there are individuals, and groups of individuals, who feel that effective channels of communication do not exist, there will be protests and violence.
Such goes the rationalisation of it. Doesn't mean it's actually true though.

The channels are as open as they can be without making the organisations in question meaningless. Every one of these protesters has a vote. Their problem is in fact that one vote isn't good enough for them.

well what does the G8 do for The People? are they really that much less abusive then Russia? Theyre just corporate maggots deciding how to carve up the world for their own parasitical agenda
Except that you presumably voted for them. :rolleyes:

http://g8dogs.ytmnd.com/

That's what I mean when I say that the protestors' argument bear no correlation with reality.


I'm not sure how one can draw any conclusions about the "protestor's argument" from my post. I've never been to a protest. I've never been to Germany. Besides we were talking about violence, not protest in general (yes?)


The representatives, those "8 persons", are the elected heads of government of those eight countries.


Right. The elected heads of eight out of the hundreds of states on the surface of the planet.


They make decisions about the stance that these countries will take on big issues. They don't make global policy and they most certainly don't have control over anything but their own policies


The G8 represents the largest economies. Collectively, these economies represent a minority of world population, but a majority of world wealth. To postulate that their individual national policies have no effect on the operation of the world economy, or the operation of individual national economies of non-G8 state vis-a-vis the world economy, when they possess the greatest share of the global wealth and thus control over the glboal economy is absurdity.


Nor is there any reason whatsoever to have the third world have a say in a forum of these countries.


There is when the global economic policies of the G8 members directly affect the economic environment of said countries.


That's because the US' policy is in fact the US' policy and nobody else's.


But we aren't talking about the US economy alone. We are talking about the world economy, and the bodies which organize, coordinate and develop policy for it.


The US is the main contributor to the financial resources of the World Bank and the IMF, and with that come a greater say when it comes to appointing officials. And that's as far as it goes.


Do I hear a capitalist admiting that a greater share in economic wealth gives rise to political power? It has been my experience that they try to deny the inherent connection between the two due to the unconfortable conclusions that follow otherwise. The honesty is refreshing :D

At any rate, you more or less provide strength to my own argument: the United States is able to leverage its economic advantage in order to extract political control (appointing officials, by far the largest voting share/power in both the World Bank and IMF). Again, one state executing the majority of power in making decisions that affect the entire world economy.


Both the World Bank and the IMF are independent bodies.


By tradition, the Bank president is a U.S. national and is nominated by the United States, the Bank's largest shareholder.
( http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,contentMDK:20040580~menuPK:1696997~pagePK:51123644~piPK:329829~theSitePK:29708,00.html )

The voting shares at the World Bank (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/BODEXT/0,,contentMDK:50004947~menuPK:64020035~pagePK:64020054~piPK:64020408~theSitePK:278036,00.html) are dominated by the United States, while the vast majority of states possess less than 1% of the total share. Even large coalitions of such states can't add up enough share to rival the United States.

The United States possesses its own appointed director at the IMF as well as the majority share of the voting power (http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/eds.htm). The vast majority of other states are divided into groups, and the group elects a director; that means that the vast majority of states lack the direct representation that the United States enjoys. The combined voting power of such a group again doesn't even come close to rivaling the United States' voting power.

So, the World Bank is led by a U.S. national by tradition [!], and the United States posseses direct representation and the vast majority of voting power, while the representation of the majority of states is indirect or the voting power of the majority of states is miniscule compared to the United States.

How in any remote possible way can this clear domination of the global economic and political process by one particualr state constitute "independence?"


That makes basically no sense. Indonesia's industrial relations policy can have big impacts on foreign firms operating there, and thus the economies of other countries. Ergo, everyone should get a say in Indonesia's IR system.


As shown above, Indonesia's doesn't possess the lion's share of control of the global economy. As such, your hypothetical objection here falls somewhat flat on its face :)


Right now they work because they're apolitical economic institutions that work to evaluate and finance specific projects according to set criteria and generally accepted economic theory.


Please explain how setting policy requirements on the internal political operations of states...


...they wouldn't have needed IMF money and thus they wouldn't have had to listen to IMF policy requirements.


...is "apolitical" activity? Ah, but they didn't have to listen. "Do what we say, or you may continue to starve." Free choice indeed...


"Democratising" them just means that the World Bank will refuse money to Israel, finance genocide in Darfur and just generally act like the UN.


Any empirical evidence for this, or is this just empty rhetoric?

(EDIT: I suppose next on the list is "teh ebil commiez r gunna get j00 oh noes!!!!!11!!11" ....:rolleyes:)


Every one of these protesters has a vote.


I don't recall ever voting for a representative at the G8, World Bank, or IMF. Neither do I recall ever voting for any G8, World Bank, or IMF policy. Neither did I vote for the present U.S. presidential administration or any of its appointees, so they don't represent me either. What vote?


Except that you presumably voted for them. :rolleyes:


Orwell missed one, apparently: "ACCEPTANCE OF THE DICTATES OF DISTANT APPOINTEES IS VOTING"

I'm not sure how one can draw any conclusions about the "protestor's argument" from my post.
It wasn't about your post. In a previous post I claimed that the arguments brought forward by the protesting types are baseless. Your post illustrated just such an argument, which is the reason I quoted it.

Right. The elected heads of eight out of the hundreds of states on the surface of the planet.
The G8 isn't a global body and never claimed to be. It's just like the G20, a forum made up of the heads of state who come together to discuss how to do stuff.

The G8 represents the largest economies. Collectively, these economies represent a minority of world population, but a majority of world wealth. To postulate that their individual national policies have no effect on the operation of the world economy, or the operation of individual national economies of non-G8 state vis-a-vis the world economy, when they possess the greatest share of the global wealth and thus control over the glboal economy is absurdity.
None of which explains why non-G8 nations should have a say in this. You're saying that because there are external effects to the decision, everyone affected should have a say. That's just plain impractical, and I have my doubts whether you would advocate it anywhere else.

And besides, the affected countries actually do have diplomatic and economic relations with the G8 nations, which means that they can deal with the G8 indirectly. Poor countries want debt relief, and debt relief will most likely feature on a G8 summit. What you advocate is that poor countries can decide about whether or not they owe money, which is ridiculous.

There is when the global economic policies of the G8 members directly affect the economic environment of said countries.
Again: G8 members don't have global economic policies, they have national economic policies; which may happen to influence what happens in other countries as well.

But we aren't talking about the US economy alone. We are talking about the world economy, and the bodies which organize, coordinate and develop policy for it.
The US is obviously the biggest and most influential economy in the G8. So where exactly is the difference between the US and the G8?

To get back to the example of debt relief: All the G8 does is provide a place where the leaders of rich countries meet. There they talk about debt relief and decide "yeah, we'll do that". So then every nation individually follows this. The G8 has no power to enforce anything.

So you see that there is no difference between Bush deciding for debt relief at a G8 summit or in Washington next monday. If you were to take your reasoning to its conclusion, you would advocate that the leaders of Liberia, Nigeria and Chad sit in the Oval Office with the PotUS, because afterall they are affected by the decisions made there.

Do I hear a capitalist admiting that a greater share in economic wealth gives rise to political power?
No, it's me admitting that providing most of the funding for an organisation results in having a bigger say in matters. You're generalising.

It has been my experience that they try to deny the inherent connection between the two due to the unconfortable conclusions that follow otherwise. The honesty is refreshing :D
Actually, I don't deny the connection. I deny its inherentness, as it were.

At the moment the government is heavily involved in the economy through industrial policy and the like. That means that big firms can gain by influencing government decisions.

My solution would be to strip down government to the point where it is no longer sensible to try to influence it, because it no longer has the power to give businesses and advantage over their competitors. But that's another story.

Again, one state executing the majority of power in making decisions that affect the entire world economy.
Do you actually know what the IMF and the World Bank do? I would like you to show me some decision these organisations took that affect the entire world economy.

As I said, the World Bank deals with specific development projects in regions and countries. Every one of these is undertaken independently based on its merits.

The IMF provides emergency funds for states that are going bankrupt (usually by their own making). Once a loan is approved, it comes with conditions that try to ensure that the crisis won't happen again. In the past there have been pretty stupid mistakes with these rules, and that much I will admit.

But how that influences the "entire world economy" isn't quite clear to me just yet.

The voting shares at the World Bank are dominated by the United States, while the vast majority of states possess less than 1% of the total share....
I would like you to research what exactly it is that is being voted on both in the WB and the IMF, and how that influences the way the organisation acts.

How in any remote possible way can this clear domination of the global economic and political process by one particualr state constitute "independence?"
Precisely because the organisations are run by economists, not politicians. The head of the World Bank or the IMF is meant to manage an organisation. It's the economists in their offices with their statistical software who actually identify solutions to problems and present them for approval with very clear recommendations which are hardly ever rejected.

Actions are taken based on econometric evidence and past experience. Just because the chance is greater that there will be an American at the top rather than someone from Ghana doesn't change the figures.

As shown above, Indonesia's doesn't possess the lion's share of control of the global economy. As such, your hypothetical objection here falls somewhat flat on its face :)
So it's about this non-defined "lion's share", is it? Who decides how much influence is a lion's share, how much is just a cheeta's share and how much might just qualify as a kitty's share?

Please explain how setting policy requirements on the internal political operations of states...is "apolitical" activity?
Because it's economic policy. The IMF policy requirements are reforms towards freeing up inefficient markets and making government better at economic management. They're not about "put this president in power instead of this one" or "you can't have a welfare state".

Ah, but they didn't have to listen. "Do what we say, or you may continue to starve." Free choice indeed...
Actually, once you do take out a loan from the IMF, you actually do have to listen.

The thing is that no regime will decide against it if it's bankrupt. The choice is between taking the money, implementing necessary reforms and then blaming "the West" for any painful changes and your own initial ineptitude and being overthrown and probably landing in some jail.

Any empirical evidence for this, or is this just empty rhetoric?
The UN General Assembly comes to mind (not including the Security Council). It's about as democratic as international bodies go, with every state having one vote.

It's also utterly incapable of ever solving anything.

What vote?
I was talking about the protesters. Most of them would have German citizenship, meaning they had a vote for a G8 representative (Angela Merkel) and someone who makes decisions at the IMF and the World Bank.

Orwell missed one, apparently: "ACCEPTANCE OF THE DICTATES OF DISTANT APPOINTEES IS VOTING"
No, what I'm saying is that it's unfair to dismiss the majority votes that all these leaders got as meaningless.

=====================================

And here's an updated, longer article from Spiegel with extra info: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,486330,00.html

That's because the tactic was quickly abandoned. For example, in 2005, the police employed lethal force, resulting in riots. However, they replied to the crisis using less-than-lethal force, thus protracting the unrest. If they had consistently applied the doctrine of lethal force to maintain the peace, there would have been no disturbances.

How many more riots do you want me to quote where police tried subduing protestors with lethal force? L.A.? The riots in India and Pakistan? History abounds with examples of police trying to shoot rioters into submission, not a single one of them ever being successful.

Suggesting that all those who objurgate left-wing criminals and hoodlums are “elitist” is a tactic employed by the left-wing establishment in order to consolidate its power.
Would the left-wing establishment be affiliated with the Global Jewish Conspiracy, or the insidious Gay Agenda?

At least you put some effort into your drivel.

The US is the main contributor to the financial resources of the World Bank and the IMF, and with that come a greater say when it comes to appointing officials. And that’s as far as it goes.

Both the World Bank and the IMF are independent bodies. The World Bank finances development projects and the IMF hands out emergency loans. No one has to deal with the institutions if they don’t want to.
Nonsense. The WTO, World Bank and WTO are, in effect, ways of dominating world politics in the age of globalisation, and ensuring the status quo of powerful states.

During the post-war period, the United States manoeuvred itself into a dominant role in the reconstruction of Europe and management of the world’s economy. The dollar-standard became the new fixed exchange rate, aid to Europe and other parts of the world was accompanied by strict conditions and policy considerations for the states involved, and by the 1950s, the IMF, World Bank and GATT were all led and managed by the United States; a condition that continues to this day. Indeed, the modern IMF and WTO are, if anything, even more dominated by the United States, using the controversial practice of ‘conditionality’; granting loans and other financial aid to poor countries only if they agree to policy advice widely regarded as inappropriate for developing economies, plus the deregulation of their markets.

The international economic institutions, backed by the most powerful states, have promoted a myth of equal opportunity; a myth that secures and consolidates power, especially that of the United States. Undoubtedly, those states with greater economic, military and political might easily dominate and influence the workings of international institutions.

The WTO is effectively managed by what is know as the ‘Quad’, a group made up of the United States, Canada, Japan and the European Union who control a combined two-thirds of world trade. Furthermore, the United States, through the WTO, aggressively controls access to its markets, handing the United States a unique and favoured position. Similarly, the World Bank has always, by convention, been headed by an American, and the United States has by far the largest block of voting power. Finally, but in no way less importantly, any major decision within the IMF must be ratified by an 85 percent vote of it’s members; with the United States’ share of the vote set at 17.11 percent, it has, in effect, an unparalleled veto power.

When the remit of international institutions, especially economic institutions, has helped the United States’ cause, American administrations are more than happy to wield their power through such organisations as the IMF and World Bank. They have always been well versed in pushing protectionist economic measures designed to ‘safeguard’ American businesses, while at the same time promoting ‘free trade’ and deregulated foreign markets; demanding the enforcement of United States’ accounting procedures designed to maintain transparency in global financial transactions, while limiting transparency in its own dealings.

However, successive American governments have been quick to shun international institutions when it has suited their agenda. The Bush administration effectively brought to a halt the 2001 Kyoto environmental accord, accused the Durban Conference of racism due to its critical stance on Israel, has repeatedly avoided multilateral agreements on human rights, and continues to ignore the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the world stage due to the ICC not accepting an exemption for all United States citizens from prosecution.

Although the rhetoric of many states and international institutions pushes an agenda of cooperation, equal globalisation and world harmony, it is quite clear that that this is not the case.

In fact, all this bitching about the IMF is usually misplaced, because if governments hadn’t screwed up in the first place, they wouldn’t have needed IMF money and thus they wouldn’t have had to listen to IMF policy requirements
Screwed up?

How many more riots do you want me to quote where police tried subduing protestors with lethal force? L.A.? The riots in India and Pakistan? History abounds with examples of police trying to shoot rioters into submission, not a single one of them ever being successful.
Silly.

The Police would win if they shot everybody.

Silly.

The Police would win if they shot everybody.

But then there'd be nobody left to pay their wages, now, would there?

But then there’d be nobody left to pay their wages, now, would there?
*shoots Cabra*

*steals wallet"

See?

Someone please tell me why Russia is in the G8 and why is it even trying to make anything better if all they do is abuse human rights of their own citizens.

Expansion of the G7 to include Russia was a blatant bribe to get it to become a respectable player in the world economy rather than trying to recapture past glories of being a superpower by reverting to an authoritarian state waving nukes around to bully the world. Worked for a little while I guess...


Now you're just reaching. Economic, political, social equality are not hard concepts to grasp.
How exactly do you describe those concepts? I will bet you I can find a lot of people who have completely different ideas of what those concepts mean than you have. Equality to me means everyone is given the same opportunities but in no way extends to forcibly taking from those who have more than average and giving it to those who have less than average regardless of any other considerations than current levels of wealth. That conflicts with the views of other people who advocate exactly that.

The anti-globalization movement is composed of wildly different people - everyone from communists (advocating forcible redistribution of wealth) to union workers (advocating protectionism to artificially keep their wages higher than market value at the expense of others).

I liken these protesters to pagans; a pagan friend of mine once said "No two pagans believe exactly the same thing" (a little exaggeration sure, but close enough to illustrate the point). I doubt that if you asked the 'protesters' they could give you a concrete plan of action to accomplish a unified goal.

*shoots Cabra*

*steals wallet"

See?

Ingenious... and nobody could even send them to prison, cause they'd have shot all the judges by then.

I doubt that if you asked the ‘protesters’ they could give you a concrete plan of action to accomplish a unified goal.
Not a unified goal (but heck, show me a political alliance that does have a unified goal) but, to quote myself from earlier in the thread, there’s a wealth of common ground the various members of the Global Justice Movement hold; whatever political plane or geographical area they inhabit.

To name a few: democratisation/replacement of the economic international institutions, especially the WTO, World Bank and IMF, democratisation of the UN/UNSC, a lessening of US hegemony in said institutions/generally, and a fair market, as opposed to a ‘free’ market.

Ingenious... and nobody could even send them to prison, cause they’d have shot all the judges by then.
It’s foolproof.

*runs out of bullets*

Not a unified goal (but heck, show me a political alliance that does have a unified goal) but, to quote myself from earlier in the thread, there’s a wealth of common ground the various members of the Global Justice Movement hold; whatever political plane or geographical area they inhabit.

To name a few: democratisation/replacement of the economic international institutions, especially the WTO, World Bank and IMF, democratisation of the UN/UNSC, a lessening of US hegemony in said institutions/generally, and a fair market, as opposed to a ‘free’ market.

Ah, now we get to something a little more interesting... how exactly do you envision 'democratising' economic international institutions? The most powerful economies in the world have control of the powerful economic institutions in the world - that is not an absurd nor undesirable situation.

If I am going to invest my money in something, I do not think it wise to give an equal say in how my money is invested with the homeless guy who thinks the best 'investment' would be buying lottery tickets or just spending it on booze. That may seem like hyperbole, but who do you think is a better judge of how finances could be used to spur development: an economist appointed by a democratically elected representative of a free and well developed society or some guy who claims a herbal concoction he came up with in a dream cures HIV?

I staunchly defend the right of my elected government to decline letting 'world opinion' determine how my tax dollars are spent. When you come down to it, that is all 'democratisation' of the WB and IMF comes down to - allowing third world nations deciding how to give out first world money. It all comes down to a buzzword meme problem - hand facts are almost always lacking from 'protest movements' like this.


How do you define a 'fair' market in opposition to a free market? Certainly a common phrase tossed around, completely devoid of meaning. Fair in what way? What is fair? I doubt many people agree on exactly what 'fair' actually means. "Not exploiting people" doesnt count as a definition.

I could go on, but I'm barely awake as it is.

How do you define a 'fair' market in opposition to a free market? Certainly a common phrase tossed around, completely devoid of meaning. Fair in what way? What is fair? I doubt many people agree on exactly what 'fair' actually means. "Not exploiting people" doesnt count as a definition.

I could go on, but I'm barely awake as it is.

I personally would define "fair" as not opposing import taxes small countries put on goods to protect their small and fragile economy and using all the weight of the big guys to force them to drop those taxes, while at the same time imposing horrendous import taxes in my own country to protect its industry...
But that's just silly little me thinking that it's not fair to bully others.

If I am going to invest my money in something, I do not think it wise to give an equal say in how my money is invested with the homeless guy who thinks the best ‘investment’ would be buying lottery tickets or just spending it on booze. That may seem like hyperbole, but who do you think is a better judge of how finances could be used to spur development: an economist appointed by a democratically elected representative of a free and well developed society or some guy who claims a herbal concoction he came up with in a dream cures HIV?
How exactly are undeveloped or developing nations even comparable with drunk tramps or get-rich-quick quacks? Your analogies need a lot of work.

I staunchly defend the right of my elected government to decline letting ‘world opinion’ determine how my tax dollars are spent. When you come down to it, that is all ‘democratisation’ of the WB and IMF comes down to–allowing third world nations deciding how to give out first world money. It all comes down to a buzzword meme problem–hand facts are almost always lacking from ‘protest movements’ like this.
Apart from the hard facts in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12731986&postcount=131) previous post of mine, many other posts in this thread, the innumerable books, journal articles, speeches, etc., written by members of the Global Justice Movement.

In particular, I’d recommend The Age of Consent by George Monbiot, or Globalization and its Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Democratisation, or complete replacement of the Bretton Woods international economic institutions (perhaps with an International Clearing Union and/or a Fair Trade Organisation) is a complete departure from handing the developed world’s economic hegemony over to the undeveloped/developing world. It is the advancement of the idea that there should be no hegemony or unfair burden in the economic dealings of nation-states.

How do you define a ‘fair’ market in opposition to a free market? Certainly a common phrase tossed around, completely devoid of meaning. Fair in what way? What is fair? I doubt many people agree on exactly what ‘fair’ actually means. “Not exploiting people” doesnt count as a definition.
A ‘fair’ market is one in which protectionist measures are not wielded by those developed nations who demand all trade barriers be removed from developing nations. One in which ‘conditionality’ is not a requisite for receiving a loan from the World Bank. One in which the IMF doesn’t force governments to put debt repayment ahead of social programs and economic growth. One in which exchange rates aren’t destabilised, debt interest doesn’t skyrocket, citizens and governments aren’t barred from the discussions of their own country’s economic agreements, or currencies wrecked by financial speculators.

If I am going to invest my money in something, I do not think it wise to give an equal say in how my money is invested with the homeless guy who thinks the best 'investment' would be buying lottery tickets or just spending it on booze.

I could go on, but I'm barely awake as it is.

Entropic Creation.... Your analogy is not so much hyperbole, as pompous, and grossly misinformed.

The fact that you compare the third world to a hapless drunk speaks volumes about your regard for humanity.

A better analogy for your consideration is giving a worker in the Third World, working for a Western Corporation, or producing a crop for export to the West, the right to ask for a wage that will actually feed his children, put them through schooling and be able to afford basic healthcare (which the government has of course been forced to privitise by the IMF and World Bank).

I could make another analogy, equally contentious, but much more realistic than your one which would involve the phrase "modern day slavery", but I'll save that for another time.

Collateral damage? Fuck collateral damage. I thought you were more mature than that Soheran.

I'd like to see some of these criminals explain their great cause to to the families of "collateral damage." Look some kid right in the eyes and tell them their daddy had to die so that they could draw attention to their cause.

Yes, yes, I've heard all the moralistic wrangling already.

Strangely enough the opposite question is never asked.

"So why didn't you act while your governments were implementing a global economic system that systematically failed to deliver, perpetuating our devastatingly lethal impoverishment and exploitation?"

"Um... well, because we didn't want to, you know, actually do anything, lest it harm somebody."

Question the efficacy if you must... you will probably find that our views are far closer there. But this insistence on the unjustifiability of violence strikes me as absurd and probably inconsistent.

The only differance between an anarchist lobbing Molotovs and a pilot dropping bombs on Iraq is the amount of damage done.

It is not surprising that most denials that the ends can ever justify the means just abstract away from the ends and pretend they don't exist.

But if you want to actually convince somebody, it helps to try harder.

Would the left-wing establishment be affiliated with the Global Jewish Conspiracy, or the insidious Gay Agenda?

At least you put some effort into your drivel.


Nonsense. The WTO, World Bank and WTO are, in effect, ways of dominating world politics in the age of globalisation, and ensuring the status quo of powerful states.

During the post-war period, the United States manoeuvred itself into a dominant role in the reconstruction of Europe and management of the world’s economy. The dollar-standard became the new fixed exchange rate, aid to Europe and other parts of the world was accompanied by strict conditions and policy considerations for the states involved, and by the 1950s, the IMF, World Bank and GATT were all led and managed by the United States; a condition that continues to this day. Indeed, the modern IMF and WTO are, if anything, even more dominated by the United States, using the controversial practice of ‘conditionality’; granting loans and other financial aid to poor countries only if they agree to policy advice widely regarded as inappropriate for developing economies, plus the deregulation of their markets.

The international economic institutions, backed by the most powerful states, have promoted a myth of equal opportunity; a myth that secures and consolidates power, especially that of the United States. Undoubtedly, those states with greater economic, military and political might easily dominate and influence the workings of international institutions.

The WTO is effectively managed by what is know as the ‘Quad’, a group made up of the United States, Canada, Japan and the European Union who control a combined two-thirds of world trade. Furthermore, the United States, through the WTO, aggressively controls access to its markets, handing the United States a unique and favoured position. Similarly, the World Bank has always, by convention, been headed by an American, and the United States has by far the largest block of voting power. Finally, but in no way less importantly, any major decision within the IMF must be ratified by an 85 percent vote of it’s members; with the United States’ share of the vote set at 17.11 percent, it has, in effect, an unparalleled veto power.

When the remit of international institutions, especially economic institutions, has helped the United States’ cause, American administrations are more than happy to wield their power through such organisations as the IMF and World Bank. They have always been well versed in pushing protectionist economic measures designed to ‘safeguard’ American businesses, while at the same time promoting ‘free trade’ and deregulated foreign markets; demanding the enforcement of United States’ accounting procedures designed to maintain transparency in global financial transactions, while limiting transparency in its own dealings.

However, successive American governments have been quick to shun international institutions when it has suited their agenda. The Bush administration effectively brought to a halt the 2001 Kyoto environmental accord, accused the Durban Conference of racism due to its critical stance on Israel, has repeatedly avoided multilateral agreements on human rights, and continues to ignore the International Criminal Court (ICC) on the world stage due to the ICC not accepting an exemption for all United States citizens from prosecution.

Although the rhetoric of many states and international institutions pushes an agenda of cooperation, equal globalisation and world harmony, it is quite clear that that this is not the case.


Screwed up?


Silly.

The Police would win if they shot everybody.

Oh well said! :)

Wealth is never at the expense of anyone,

Wealth is always at the expense of everyone else.

That's almost the definition of "private property."

and even if it was, the end doesn't justify the means.

Well, sometimes it doesn't.

But always? Really?

I mean actual implementation. An actual, properly laid out picture of what an "equal" society would look like and an actual, properly laid out plan of how to get there.

There are plenty of both.

Or how am I meant to interpret this?

You said that if the ideas were really rational, people would listen to them. I pointed out that rational or not, people are not always inclined to listen to radical ideas.

"People don't like change, so if we force it upon them by means of a violent revolution, that would be great!"

That's not what I said.

I don't think I'm trying to speak to anyone right now.

Who's listening to anything anyone of your political persuasion says?

It's hard enough to bring about even moderate free-market reforms in modern democracies.

Except that this isn't war, there's no such thing as a combatant.

No... but it's a violent confrontation, and I see no reason to apply different rules.

When people are attacking you, the fact that you're not in a state of war with them is kind of irrelevant.

Though not because of rock throwing, but because academics and politicians have been talking about it.

Yes, that's generally the way things work... the rock-throwers help bring things to prominence and the academics and politicians use the space to insert more moderate criticisms, and then take all the credit.

It's a very old story.

But their ideas have to stand on their own merit. We can't consider them because otherwise someone will hurt me.

The point of direct action is not to replace rational argument with coercion.

The point of direct action is to get things done in circumstances where rational argument doesn't work.

So we're all gonna pretend we don't know what it's like to be an angry teenager with an interest in politics?

I don't even think your characterization of angry politically-inclined teenagers is accurate.

Certainly it wasn't true of me.

It was bound to be a mess. The German Police have arrested dozens of Far Left/Anarchists during the last couple of months. Combined with extra border controls (hell, we even had traffic jams along the Dutch-German border because of these stupid measures) It isn't surprising that these things infuriate people and makes them even naughtier than before :)

Walden Bello, of Focus on the Global South: "The G8 must go into history now. We do not need the G8. What we really need are truly international people's organizations to be able to meet the challenges of these times."

How exactly are undeveloped or developing nations even comparable with drunk tramps or get-rich-quick quacks? Your analogies need a lot of work.

I would like to bring your attention to the president of Gambia, who claims that he had a dream in which his ancestors told him of an herbal concoction that cures HIV/AIDS. This was not some analogy pulled out of thin air, but rather a direct reference to an actual leader of a country in need of aid.

There are reasons why third world nations are as poor as they are; the excuse of past colonization has not been valid for decades. They are poor because of failed policies (notice how I did not just blame ‘corruption’) which tend to just waste money. Putting the aid recipients in charge of determining how that aid is spent and eliminating all conditions on the receipt of those monies will simply lead to more money being forcibly appropriated from developed nations to pay for the pet projects and ludicrous expenditures by the leaders of third world nations thus allowing the perpetuation of failed systems at an ever growing cost.

I strongly object to the view that it is only ‘fair’ that I have my personal income taken from me (taxation to pay for aid) and freely given to the likes of Robert Mugabe (to point out yet anther person you seem to think would be a better custodian of aid money that those evil selfish leaders of developed nations) to spend however he sees fit.

Walden Bello, of Focus on the Global South: "The G8 must go into history now. We do not need the G8. What we really need are truly international people's organizations to be able to meet the challenges of these times."

The G8 really makes no sense for today's politics. I mean, Canada's* on there but China and India aren't? It needs updating at the very least if it is to be a true international summit.

*I mean, when you think 'world power', Canada does not spring into mind

I wonder if protestors ever learn that they don't change a thing. World leaders do what they want, anyhow, despite what a few angry kids have to say.

I wonder if protestors ever learn that they don't change a thing. World leaders do what they want, anyhow, despite what a few angry kids have to say.

Would you rather they all stay at home, and allow the political oligarchs to feel they are completely and utterly unopposed and invulnerable?

How exactly are undeveloped or developing nations even comparable with drunk tramps or get-rich-quick quacks? Your analogies need a lot of work.

Your appreciation of the facts, more like. The "get-rich-quick quack" he was speaking of is the PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICA.


A ‘fair’ market is one in which protectionist measures are not wielded by those developed nations who demand all trade barriers be removed from developing nations.[\QUOTE]

So, the developing world gets to set up their protectionist enclaves while the developed world drops theirs.

Do you honestly believe that system could last any amount of time at all? National governments have only one responsibility: to their own citizens. In no time at all we'd be back to the point of the developed world freezing out the thrid world manufacturers and companies entirely in favour of their own - and the third worlders would be far more screwed then they are now.

[QUOTE]One in which ‘conditionality’ is not a requisite for receiving a loan from the World Bank.

Oh, right. "Well, you blew all your money and got into horrendous debt. Oh well, here's a lot more to for you to waste."

One in which the IMF doesn’t force governments to put debt repayment ahead of social programs and economic growth.

They don't have to accept IMF help. It's voluntary. And who got them into such crushing debt in the first place?

Why are you trying to shield people from the results of their own choices?

One in which exchange rates aren’t destabilised, debt interest doesn’t skyrocket, citizens and governments aren’t barred from the discussions of their own country’s economic agreements, or currencies wrecked by financial speculators.

Which doesn't happen. It's a wonderful catchcry, and a great excuse for national mismanagement of a currency, but no such event has ever been proven to have occurred.

Nonsense. The WTO, World Bank and WTO are, in effect, ways of dominating world politics in the age of globalisation, and ensuring the status quo of powerful states.
I actually agree with you that the WTO is seriously broken as an organisation and needs massive reform (maybe scrapping it entirely and starting afresh is an even better way).

But then, the WTO is a different type of organisation to the WB or IMF.

Indeed, the modern IMF and WTO are, if anything, even more dominated by the United States, using the controversial practice of ‘conditionality’; granting loans and other financial aid to poor countries only if they agree to policy advice widely regarded as inappropriate for developing economies, plus the deregulation of their markets.
The WTO doesn't lend money. And the conditions imposed by the WB and IMF are not widely regarded as inappropriate. They're designed to make their economies more flexible, efficient and less prone to collapse. Part of that is to make sure that the organisations will actually get their money back. But the other part is that the WB at least exists to help economic development.

What you mean might be the failure of the IMF in parts of Latin America, particularly Argentina. That's what a lack of flexibility will do to you, I suppose. The IMF has learned a lot from that, and it doesn't look as though any major currency crises are likely any time soon.

The international economic institutions, backed by the most powerful states, have promoted a myth of equal opportunity; a myth that secures and consolidates power, especially that of the United States. Undoubtedly, those states with greater economic, military and political might easily dominate and influence the workings of international institutions.
And there you go, off on a tangent. Which website did you copy and paste this from, by the way?

I wonder if protestors ever learn that they don't change a thing. World leaders do what they want, anyhow, despite what a few angry kids have to say.

You're talking about Germany here. Germany learned in the past 100 years that inaction is inexcusable, and protests and demonstrations can be enough to topple a country.

That's almost the definition of "private property."
But private property isn't the same as wealth. Wealth is an abstract measure, and you're using it as "some are wealthy and others aren't", so you're using it as a relative measure.

Actual wealth as in economic goods available isn't a zero-sum type of thing. Improving the way natural resources and labour are combined can yield more and more wealth without actually increasing the quanitity of inputs, and so far it doesn't look as though that process is a fluke. Even the very poor today are likely to be wealthier (in terms of physical posessions) than a rich person from 3000BC.

But always? Really?
I had the same discussion with someone over Lebanon or something a few days ago.

The end cannot justify the means as a rule, so much is clear. It might sometimes.

What I haven't seen is any concrete evidence that hurting policemen and carving up pavements is in fact leading to a superior end.

In fact, since everything proposed by the anarchist and radical lefty types is so utterly out there and entirely untested, the end they're proposing is basically to make the world's most vulnerable people their guinea pigs so they can prove a point. Again, not superior.

The thing is that we know of methods to lessen suffering and improve the situation in the Third World. We can send aid, we can invest in infrastructure and education there, we can try and fight diseases (like Bill Gates). These are all things that actually, directly and visibly help people.

Of course you can say that you think your idea is an even better way, but that doesn't make it any less risky and experimental. Why policemen and pavements have to be destroyed so that you get to implement this idea, if apparently democracy won't do it, is just not clear to me.

There are plenty of both.
So then why aren't they starting a political party and running for government, if they have a clear policy laid out in front of them?

You said that if the ideas were really rational, people would listen to them. I pointed out that rational or not, people are not always inclined to listen to radical ideas.
Not the entire concept, perhaps. But even the most radical idea would have to have bits and pieces that could be called less radical or even moderate. And that offers opportunities for gradual implementation, if the public agrees.

That's not what I said.
But it seems to be the motto of the revolutionaries and rioters.

It's hard enough to bring about even moderate free-market reforms in modern democracies.
It certainly is. But there's the Libertarians in the US, the FDP in Germany and plenty of others out there. There's even crazy things like that project in New Hampshire or artificial islands out at sea.

The thing is that these people don't seem to resort to violence to get attention or make a point. That may or may not have something to do with their view of the world and the rights of the individual, that's not important. What is important is that they get attention roughly proportionate to the public support they have. And sometimes, if the stars and planets align just right, you get a Thatcher or Reagan who get busy implementing and even get reelected for it (in Reagan's case on a monumental scale).

When people are attacking you, the fact that you're not in a state of war with them is kind of irrelevant.
The Black Bloc started this fight, by all accounts. And it seems likely too, given their mindset and motives as compared to those of the police present at that point.

The view of the police as a combatant was what started the whole mess in the first place. These were normal men and women who usually direct traffic and stuff. They didn't go there to fight, they went there to make sure the summit could happen and that the protests occured without anybody getting hurt or anything destroyed.

I don't see them as legitimate targets, but as victims.

Yes, that's generally the way things work... the rock-throwers help bring things to prominence and the academics and politicians use the space to insert more moderate criticisms, and then take all the credit.
So can you actually back that up with anything?

The point of direct action is not to replace rational argument with coercion.

The point of direct action is to get things done in circumstances where rational argument doesn't work.
Read what I said: "we can't consider them because otherwise someone will hurt me"

Direct Action is the tactic of destroying stuff until someone listens to you. It's like an angry two year old. It would be wrong to actually listen.

I don't even think your characterization of angry politically-inclined teenagers is accurate.
So aren't they angry? Politically-inclined?

I suppose you're correct, some of them are probably in their early twenties, not their late teens.

Other than that, I don't see how I'm being inaccurate.

Certainly it wasn't true of me.
But you weren't part of the Black Bloc either. :p

In fact, since everything proposed by the anarchist and radical lefty types is so utterly out there and entirely untested

Actually... you're wrong.

Spain, 1936-37.
Ukraine, 1919-1921.

Those are the most famous anarchist societies. In Barcelona, collectivisation (for example) improved the safety record of the trams, added an extra 100 trams to the system (up to 700 from a pre-war total of 600) and became so efficient that they were able to lower the prices and increase profits (which were then pumped back into the Barcelona works systems - rail, water, etc).

Then there's the anarchist and libertarian schools, the communes, the squats... etc. It's not at all untested. It's just that every time people try to test it on a large scale they get crushed by military force (in both the above examples the communists are to blame...!).

Actually... you're wrong.
Yeah, but these were (as anarchist projects necessarily are) relatively small systems created with pretty much everyone involved being in favour and "in it" with their heart.

As much as I like the idea of people getting together and doing stuff as a group because that's how they want to live their lives, it's not a particularly concrete method of eradicating third world poverty, or even inequality. You can turn all the world into communes, and then you'll have rich communes in former developed countries and poor ones in Africa.

So that's when I say that anarchism as a method of solving the problems these guys are protesting against is largely unproven and experimental. Not to mention that you can't make anyone an anarchist. It's an individual choice, and not one I think most people will make.

I think some need to examine the process by which society moved from feudalism towards (eventually) some form of democracy.

Here's a clue...it was not peaceful.

Yeah, but these were (as anarchist projects necessarily are) relatively small systems created with pretty much everyone involved being in favour and "in it" with their heart.

Well, no, not really - you can't say that the running of a city is 'relatively small', particularly given that the entire Aragon Front was held for a year and a half by militia groups. The Makhnovists ran a country - again, not small. And besides, those are examples - concrete, documented, examples - of people running an anarchist society. Anarchism can, and does, work.

...it's not a particularly concrete method of eradicating third world poverty, or even inequality. You can turn all the world into communes, and then you'll have rich communes in former developed countries and poor ones in Africa.

Urm... I think you're misunderstanding the concept of global solidarity here. The idea is that people are quite capable of creating an equal society where the wealth of the planet's resources is shared amongst us; that the poorer nations - freed from the burden of capitalist exploitation - can begin the process of creating systems that their people wish to live in with actual help rather than bags of broken toys and a dependency on foreign rice.

So that's when I say that anarchism as a method of solving the problems these guys are protesting against is largely unproven and experimental. Not to mention that you can't make anyone an anarchist. It's an individual choice, and not one I think most people will make.

Not really. Poverty in Spain and the Ukraine was rife, anarchist and revolutionary ideals in most places eradicated it and increased productivity and the like. In others it failed; but overall it worked and was shown to work - a major reason for its rapid destruction by other parties.

I quite agree - no-one should be made an anarchist, it is an individual choice, and one that many people have made and will continue to make.

Well, no, not really - you can't say that the running of a city is 'relatively small', particularly given that the entire Aragon Front was held for a year and a half by militia groups. The Makhnovists ran a country - again, not small.
The gag with anarchism is that they didn't run a country at all. The various villages in the countryside ran themselves more or less individually, and were therefore incapable of organising a defense against an organised enemy.

But even supposing that the Ukraine was actually anarchist during that time, this tells us precisely nothing about the feasibility of left-anarchism as an economic system. Even in Spain they didn't last long enough to tell us about economic development and technological progress in such societies.

I am quite ready to believe that if the people actually working on the trams got more of a say, the tram system was improved. But the thing about capitalism is that it encourages progress and innovation by promising people to keep the stuff they work for and invent. As far as I can see, an entrepreneur in a left-anarchist world would do it just for the sake of inventing something or for the rest of the community.

Whether that's enough of a motivator for sustained progress remains an unanswered question.

And besides, those are examples - concrete, documented, examples - of people running an anarchist society. Anarchism can, and does, work.
Except if someone isn't up for anarchism. That's what's going on in most cases,and then warlords end up fighting each other.

Try going to Sub-Saharan Africa and telling everyone: "Okay, there are no more government troops now. You will all live in free communes and share everything you have."

First thing that happens is a bunch of militias taking over and chopping people's hands off.

Urm... I think you're misunderstanding the concept of global solidarity here.

The idea is that people are quite capable of creating an equal society where the wealth of the planet's resources is shared amongst us...
Well, let me put it this way: If you had to choose between your neighbour dying, and someone in Sierra Leone dying, most people would choose the latter.

We're not telepathic beings. Our emotional part of the brain (which would surely have to be the main motivator for things like economic solidarity) is quite primitive. If we see suffering with our own eyes, we care quite a lot.

But simply hearing about it doesn't motivate all that much, it seems. Most people don't seem to rank the genocide in Darfur high enough to actually do anything about it (other than the occasional comment when the news are on).

That's obviously not a good thing. But whatever it is, it is a significant barrier when it comes to "global solidarity", ie when one might actually be asked to give something up for the sake of people in the Third World. Hell, even paying a bit of extra taxes in West Germany so that East Germany can be brought up to scratch isn't exactly greeted with enthusiasm.

...that the poorer nations - freed from the burden of capitalist exploitation - can begin the process of creating systems that their people wish to live in with actual help rather than bags of broken toys and a dependency on foreign rice.
Well, what about Taiwan or South Korea? These were incredibly poor countries (and incredibly unequal countries, governed by an almost feudal system of land ownership).

Today there may not be 100% equality there, but I think most people would agree that people have it better in South Korea today than in 1960.

The difference between these countries and most of Africa is that Africa's had crap governments. Even good leaders have shown themselves incapable of putting public interest before theirs, or even of respecting constitutions.

The reason for most of the Third World's problems is consistently poor governance. As far as rich countries were involved in that, they should share the blame. But to say that it was capitalism or globalisation that caused it is just false. Globalisation offers the chance for countries to get access to skills and technology that they would have had to develop themselves previously. That's why it took Britain pretty much a century of sweatshops to start turning into a "modern" economy and Taiwan just a decade or so.

But in a case where the basic infrastructure of an economy doesn't exist, it's up to government to establish it. If they really want a welfare state, they can have that too - they just need to make sure they first have the resources to actually make it happen.

In others it failed; but overall it worked and was shown to work - a major reason for its rapid destruction by other parties.
I would say the reason was that there was a power vaccuum and no one to stop them from filling it. That's why an anarchist experiment can only make sense if governments around it agree to let it be - a commune (especially a small one) is unlikely to match an organised army.

I quite agree - no-one should be made an anarchist, it is an individual choice, and one that many people have made and will continue to make.
But I wouldn't, and that's why I'm so concerned about people wanting to make it happen on a big scale. I don't mind them getting together, buying themselves a ranch in Argentina or somewhere and building a commune there (which might be successful enough to attract more and more people until it takes over). I actually quite like the Mondragon project.

The talk of revolution on the other hand isn't my thing. It threatens to destroy my way of life because other people aren't happy with theirs. I haven't done anything to you, so I would prefer it if you didn't do anything to me, if you know what I mean.

I think some need to examine the process by which society moved from feudalism towards (eventually) some form of democracy.

Here's a clue...it was not peaceful.
Might have something to do with the lack of democratic elections in feudalist systems.

What proof is there that the people attacking the police car were in fact protesters?

You mean like they can be zombies?