BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Is there any utility derived from anti-globalisation, anti-capitalist, anti-g8 rallies and demonstrations?

  
 
nihraguk
11:40 / 02.06.03
After reading about the latest spate of anarchist action in Switzerland related to the G8 summit at Evian, France -- see http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-2741543,00.html -- I was wondering: is there really any point to such demonstrations and rallies? Apart from the highlighting of concerns and issues with the rich-bitch countries of the world to the masses, that is. Is this the best way to go about doing this? And have there been any .. tangible successes (if such a thing can even be demanded of such activity in the first place) in the past (apart from causing the summit to be postponed)?

Speaking of violent anarchist action specifically, does this counterproductively alienate the common person from their cause, rather than promote it?
 
 
fluid_state
01:32 / 03.06.03
is there really any point to such demonstrations and rallies? yes : highlighting of concerns and issues, registering a strong disapproval of a percieved inevitable direction.
Is this the best way to go about doing this? wish I knew. It seems that protesters and organizers are profoundly divided on the same question, fragmenting their efforts.
have there been any .. tangible successes another good question. I'd find it hard to qualify "success" without having an alternative/a better direction/viable suggestions in relation to the subject of the protest. Successes in America? versus globalization, government abuses of power, corporate favoritism?

Speaking of violent anarchist action specifically, does this counterproductively alienate the common person from their cause oh yeah. If I'm going to get my head kicked in, I'd rather it's not at the urging of some brain-dead idiot beside me screaming epithets and hurling bricks at trained riot police looking to, say, kick in the head of someone screaming... well, you get the picture. Say you're a parent/homeowner/taxpayer/"respectable member of society", and you see the typical coverage of a protest on the nightly news (a whole other issue, the coverage), well, what idea are you going to get? You don't want your kids down there, and you don't want the portesters showing up in your neighborhood (seemingly caught in the throes of an unreasoning mass psychotic episode). Using violence in the first case is pretty stupid (versus the aforementioned trained riot cops and/or superArmy), doing it on television is a self-nomination for the Darwin Awards.
 
 
at the scarwash
03:05 / 03.06.03
I wonder if maybe violence against a protest marcher might be one of the only effective ways to highlight the agenda of the protest concerned. Rachel Corrie is not a good example, as noble as a human being as she apparently was. But maybe Kent State or Chicago '68. Brutality and murder against innocent protesters at least made the general populace stop and think that there might be something to what these longhairs were going on about.
 
 
bjacques
09:03 / 03.06.03
Only if it's obvious the cops are beating up protesters unprovoked, though that takes nonviolent discipline verging on the suicidal.

Morale boost for the local activists? Showing the black flag even in the Permanent War Against Terrorism?

4 to 5 years along new strategy and tactics are needed, but what?
 
 
nihraguk
10:56 / 03.06.03
In a sense, it almost seems that the protests have become a permanant, status-quo fixture in the scenery of summits; and with that, their significance and the attention given to them seems to have dwindled. There is little 'shock' effect left to be sensationalised by the media or otherwise brought to the attention of the masses, let alone acknowledgement of their opinions and stands by the participants in the summits (e.g. USA, etc.).

Morale boost? Yes, I suppose. To what end, though? Does it become a self-sustaining, even masturbatory exercise?

Brutality and physical violence would of course up the ante, and grab the attention of the public for a moment; but if the intent is to achieve lasting change and a revolution of the capitalist systems that nation-states function within, then I don't see the viability of utilising this mode of action to attain that end.
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
12:03 / 03.06.03
Quite possibly the only thing less useful than protesting is not protesting.

I'm interested in this, though: registering a strong disapproval of a percieved inevitable direction.

Violence in Anarchy, Nihilism and Marxism used to be about transformation. The RAF and the BM Gang apparently believed that blowing things up would demonstrate the transience and worthlessness of material objects. Violence was about ushering in a new era. When did it become a gesture of resignation?
 
 
zarathustra_k
12:24 / 03.06.03
Seems to me that the protests energy should be parlayed into an actual political movement with viable political candidates. Viable and clear alternatives to current globalization must be raised or these groups are just seen as protesting to protest. I specifically like Kalle Lassen's book Culture Jam and his take on this issue.
 
 
Baz Auckland
01:42 / 04.06.03
But it's hard to put this energy into existing party politics, as this would only appeal to some of those involved in the protests. Many protest because there's a feeling that the government system as it is doesn't work.

I think the protests have been a good thing to raise awareness that there are thousands out there that may share your beliefs, and help networks and co-ops of similar-minded people form.
 
 
zarathustra_k
15:04 / 04.06.03
Good point, I guess I mean a new political party, sort of how the US Greens are doing their thing at the very local level and at the federal level (Nader). Although their measage needs to be simplified like the Republicans: anti-big government, no new taxes, cut taxes, . Simple and easy to understand. bumper sticker slogans
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
16:33 / 04.06.03
Surely one of the most important things about protests (of whatever size and for whatever cause) is that they remind everyone, including politicians, that politics doesn't only consist of the structure of government and political parties, but also movements outside that structure; and that those movements are as legitimate forms of political expression as elections? Or, to quote Skunk Anansie, 'everything's political'...
 
 
nihraguk
03:44 / 05.06.03
I'm wondering if I'm drawing a false distinction here; but I was referring not to protests taking place specific to a nation-state, like say, the anti-iraqwar protests in the USA, because, like Kit Cat said, such protests are legitimate forms of registering opinion and operating within the mechanisms of democracy and popular mandate.

What concerns me are the protests that take place on a .... 'meta-state' level, like those against capitalism, G8, globalisation etc. These seem to not be afforded the democratic recourse that nation-level protests are. They also seem to be becoming increasingly part of the landscape, therefore (in some kinda diminishing returns to scale sense) increasingly nullifying their usefulness as movements to bring about awareness and build up critical mass. They almost seem to becoming cliches and stereotypes, as opposed to the forces that critique and challenge these things.
 
 
illmatic
10:28 / 05.06.03
IIRC, I remember reading Naomi klein talking about this recently, might be in the Intro to "Fences & Windows" (any ideas, KCC?).

She refered to the big showdowns in Seattle, Genoa etc as "largely symbolic" and stated that we or "the movement" (barf) have got to move beyond this somehow, and statt articulating something positve, rather than focusing on potest. I think that's why she's out in Argentina at the mo, she's making a film on some of the positive changes that have occured in the wake of the economic collapse out there.
 
 
illmatic
11:03 / 05.06.03
Naomi Klein on the current run up to elections in Argentina
 
 
zarathustra_k
11:31 / 06.06.03
See this is what I am talking about, if these protests become commonplace then one must build upon them. Many see these groups as just protesting to protest. Many that align themselves with these groups are from urban areas, so it would make sense to become concerned with both local and world politics and work to win elections on the very local level and then work the way up. It is slow, but if the protester do have a problem about the current political system then they should work outside it (protests) and within it through elections. Just pressing for change is not enough, unless the movement explodes, politicians will most likely not listen, it is not in their interest. So why not create ones own multi-faceted politicians? Just some thoughts.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
11:34 / 06.06.03
It probably was in Fences and Windows, though I've just had a quick skim through and can't find the exact part I think you're thinking of... what she does seem to be saying is not so much 'think globally, act locally' (though obviously that's a key part of it) as the following (crappy exp. in my own words): we should think of protests and other forms of anti-'global capitalism' demonstrations as windows of opportunity for alternatives - not so much trying to break down the existing order as bypassing it, in some cases.

Me, I think that the protests do serve a valuable function in the more linear sense of opposition to the G8 &c., but I do take the point that they can be represented in the media as same-old and essentially redundant - that, I think, is one of the problems that we should eb trying to counteract. Opposition should take place right across the spectrum of possibilities, otherwise it's relatively easy for it to be fenced in (as Klein would say).
 
 
Jackie Susann
22:30 / 11.06.03
such protests are legitimate forms of registering opinion and operating within the mechanisms of democracy and popular mandate.

What concerns me are the protests that take place on a .... 'meta-state' level, like those against capitalism, G8, globalisation etc.

so, if institutions you're against are transnational, isn't it logical that protests are too? the wto, world bank etc. are not democratic institutions.

i think there are a bunch of mistaken assumptions running through this thread, starting with the word 'utility' in the topic. most activists are not utilitarians, would not accept utilitarian values, and are specifically against a utilitarian neoliberal economic order. similarly, the activists who engage in 'violent' protest (ie who don't sit around waiting for the cops to smack their skulls open) generally don't see themselves as 'promoting' certain 'causes'. they are taking direct action. the most common rationale for such protests is to make it too expensive (in terms of police overtime, security, international image) for any nation to host major summits or at least to raise their costs as much as possible.

also could people have some idea what they're talking about before they post? and/or provide some justification for describing summit-mobilisations as 'violent anarchist actions'?
 
 
grim reader
01:22 / 12.06.03
I've never been to any of these actions, but have been to plenty of others, mainly on foreign policy issues. My feeling these days is that demonstrating is largely irrelevant, especially if it only involves walking where the police tell you to, as has happened with Anti War stuff, here if not elsewhere. I think contributing to 'the spectacle' of these things trivialises it, and just aids the media who make money out of selling the images to people. I feel there needs to be more discussion and consciousness raising in activism, along the lines of feminist discourse, before anything will change. During the anti-war stuff, pro-war citizens were being dragged off the street for heckling the anti war lot. Nobody but myself and a handful of friends even stopped to register this fact; people are being silenced and incarcerated because their opinions conflict with ours; thats an immensely important point to notice, that the supposed dissenters are now being aided by the state.

I'm not sure if that adds anything relevant to the discussion on G8 stuff, but the trendy hippie anarchist types (who can afford to get to Seattle) around here seem to be more concerned about living the lifestyle than making a life comitment to their principles. They're very well meaning, but they don't want to take the huge step of self-analysis.

Hope this was worthwile, sorry if not.
 
 
nihraguk
11:00 / 12.06.03
so, if institutions you're against are transnational, isn't it logical that protests are too? the wto, world bank etc. are not democratic institutions.

But it is precisely the fact that these are not democratic institutions that leads me to question whether there is any utility derived from 'registering' one's 'opinion' with them; since, unlike a democratic government, there is no direct incentive to take note of popular opinion and act upon it, because their mandate does not rest on popular support.

most activists are not utilitarians, would not accept utilitarian values, and are specifically against a utilitarian neoliberal economic order.

I think you are the one mixing up 'utilitarianism' and the question of 'utility'. With a bit of help from dictionary.com, utilitarianism, according to Bentham and Mill, concerns the doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people should be the end aim of all social and political institutions. In other words, it legitimates the denial of happiness to the 'minority' for the sake of the 'majority' happiness. The discussion of the utility of demonstrations, on the other hand, concerns the aims of the demonstrations, and whether or not those who take part in such action achieve these aims or not.

the most common rationale for such protests is to make it too expensive (in terms of police overtime, security, international image) for any nation to host major summits or at least to raise their costs as much as possible.

That is a possible aim of such demonstrators, I suppose; though again the question is whether or not they have succeeded in doing so, or whether they are even moving towards the achievement of such a goal. From Seattle to Evian what has been apparant is only that the countries involved (G8, etc) have only taken greater precautions to prevent the disruption of their summitry by these activists, as opposed to being deterred from conducting summits at all. When one weighs the amount of trade dollars at stake in these summits and talks against the cost incurred, both monetary (damages, security) and non-monetary (to their 'international image'), it does seem that the demonstrations are not any where close to costly enough to warrant seriously considering not hosting/having summits at all.

provide some justification for describing summit-mobilisations as 'violent anarchist actions'?

Apologies if I offended your sensibilities by describing these 'summit-mobilisations' as 'violent anarchist actions'. I was merely making a reference to the destruction of civilian property, the looting of shops, etc, that takes place during such 'mobilisations', as seen in the most recent summit in Evian, France (w.r.t. link at the start of this thread). Perhaps I should have chosen my words with more prudence and sensitivity.
 
 
Sonny Winters
15:15 / 12.06.03
Not wanting to go over old ground in this thread, but this is something that's been preoccupying me since I became involved in activism so I got one or two things to contribute.

First up, here's something I wrote on a related topic:
http://www.babylonproject.org/shortcircuit.html


Then, this point:

"There is little 'shock' effect left to be sensationalised by the media or otherwise brought to the attention of the masses..."

I totally sympathise with this point, after all, noone wants to be involved in an activity that is in some way superfluous, right? But as I had pointed out to me when I was in one of my periodic troughs of zero enthusiasm, the amount of media attention is not the sole reason we are there to protest. We are also there to come together and learn and celebrate our unity in spite of all the political/beuracratic madness not just because of it. Something like the Mayday carnival (I won’t use the word ‘protest’ or, god forbid, ‘riot’) is not merely a chance to have an influence on the knowledge/opinions of your fellow citizens, but it’s also a chance to expand your own knowledge base, talk with like-minded punters, organise further events, etcetera etc.

These are all good reasons to turn up with your mates. But for me, the most important reason is the sheer balls-to-the-wall hell of it. Anyone who’s been out to any sort of protest will remember the amazing amount of atmosphere you notice the first time round. I remember my first protest (a student demo in ’98) being an ocassion where I literally entered an altered state of consciousness – it was so hopeful, powerful, and I was buzzing. It’s certainly where I had my first experiences of, dare I say ‘group mind’. Of course, the dark side of ‘group mind’ is ‘mob mentality’ which is best avoided at all times, but I digress.

So go to these things because it’s just plain fun, dammit! And because this world is far too staid and dreary already without worrying about how much you’re annoying the average punter on the street.

Another point I’d like to make is that it is impossible to quantify how much or how little effect your protesting is having on the ‘unenlightened’ - you’ll never know exactly what effects your actions are having. Who knows who read the flier you printed, or what effect it’s having on them, or what you said or did that day made an impression on those around you? But then, life’s like that, you know? No one can tell you what the best course of action is in any given set of circumstances – you can only make calculated estimates based on what you feel is right.

Protest certainly isn’t an infallible way of getting your point across, and you shouldn’t stop with protest alone. But I find the alternative much more worrying.

Sunny Jim
 
 
Jackie Susann
23:12 / 12.06.03
I am totally with Sonny here - thinking about things in terms of 'utility' puts everything on a linear model where you do x to get y with result z. But resistance spreads in every direction and the summits have become key nodal points (as have, say, border camps which generally get less publicity but attract comparable crowds, or anti-SAP protests in the South which nobody but the far left cares about).

Second, my 'sensibilities' weren't offended, you were just wrong: most of the people at summit mobilisations aren't anarchists. Thinking they are suggests, to me, that you're getting your information from mainstream media and nowhere else, which is not a productive way to go about such things.
 
 
grim reader
01:46 / 18.06.03
...the amount of media attention is not the sole reason we are there to protest. We are also there to come together and learn and celebrate our unity in spite of all the political/beuracratic madness not just because of it.

Except some of us keep away from these things because of people who come out with this kind of stuff. There is a horrendously cheerful neo-hippie faction who don't seem to want to celebrate anything more than the latest brand of fairtrade coffee. The Mayday 'carnival' doesn't get any message across other than letting us know that 'radicals' have dreadlocks and dress like the people from Zion in the Matrix.

Demonstrating isn't an extreme sport done for 'the sheer balls-to-the-wall hell of it'; its great that you got an altered state of consciousness, it is always interesting to experience onself as part of a collective consciousness, which is not necessarily as intelligent as your individual one. Lots of people tend to have their analytical and critical functions shut down as soon as they experience the thrill of being part of something bigger than themselves, and these people are turning any movement of protests into a form of entertainment for them and their mates. Celebrations have their place, but they shouldn't be what 'activism' is about. My activism has always been about stopping torture, killing, exploitation; there's not a lot of celebration in that.
 
 
Jackie Susann
01:53 / 18.06.03
So how about telling us the specific forms of your protest so we can all stop farting around with our fair trade dreadlocks and actual stop murder and torture?
 
 
Sonny Winters
15:00 / 18.06.03
Except some of us keep away from these things because of people who come out with this kind of stuff

Oh well, excuse the fuck out of me. I didn’t realise it was my fault you didn’t turn up. And to think, feeble-minded utopians like myself have denigrated what should be a time of dour reflection. Seriously though, don’t give me that. If you don’t turn up, it’s because you can’t be bothered and you’re using your ‘neo-hippies’ as a scapegoat.

I don’t mean to be rude, but, as Dread Pirate Crunchy says, if you can do better then let’s hear it. It’s seems ironic to me that you’re NOT getting involved because you find the average protester to be going about protesting in the ‘wrong’ way. That’s even more reason to get involved isn’t it?

The Mayday 'carnival' doesn't get any message across other than letting us know that 'radicals' have dreadlocks and dress like the people from Zion in the Matrix.

Again, this sounds pretty weak to me. My experience of Mayday is completely different. Even in the past few years (where the event has admittedly been a bit of a damp squib) I meet a variety of articulate and active people who’s opinions / clothing / tactics / affiliations / motives differ so wildly that to clump them together into one big homogenous hippy mass is demeaning and, frankly, indefensibly shallow. It is also what the mainstream media consistently do to groups of protesters.

Lots of people tend to have their analytical and critical functions shut down as soon as they experience the thrill of being part of something bigger than themselves

Yes, I couldn’t agree more and I said as much in my last post: “...the dark side of ‘group mind’ is ‘mob mentality’ which is best avoided at all times”. I wasn’t suggesting that you should turn up and ‘go with the flow’ of what everyone else is doing. But I do say that massive events like this are inspiring and beautiful. And yes, i’m talking poetically here. I won’t apologise for using phrases like ‘coming together’ or ‘celebrating unity’ because that is actually how I see it. My main point was that, beyond concerns about the measurable efficacy/utility of such events, protests are also an opportunity to enjoy yourself, learn something, collect some interesting leaflets, discuss alternatives etc.

Celebrations have their place, but they shouldn't be what 'activism' is about.

I couldn’t disagree more. I’m sensing a gaping ‘operational divide’ between us here Calvin. I see celebration as being an indispensible part of something like Mayday because it reflects the positive aspects of the umbrella group that makes up the global protest movement. For example, anti-pollution protests don’t make as much sense if they are not accompanied by workable suggestions/demonstrations of alternative energy sources.

In the same way, when you are protesting against something as huge as ‘neo-liberal capitalism’ or the like, it doesn’t make any sense to focus solely on single-issues alone (for example, torture, killing, exploitation). Part of what makes Mayday (and other similar istitutions) different is that it transcends single-issue politics and goes for the jugular – i.e, the implicit , intellectual foundations of our entire way of life. Therefore, the style of protest has to reflect that and be not only political, but also artisitic, poetic, visionary.

My activism has always been about stopping torture, killing, exploitation; there's not a lot of celebration in that.

No, torture isn’t anything to be celebrated, obviously. But there’s a big difference between concern and crippling yourself with pessimism and/or guilt. The obvious flipside to that statement is this: there’s an equally big difference between celebrating the good things YOU have and not caring about the plight of others. The fact is, the suffering of other people should be even MORE reason to celebrate while we can, not less.

I don’t feel the need to segregate my actions into ‘those that I do for fun’ and ‘those that I do for the benefit of others’ As far as I’m concerned, the healthiest mentality is one where you can do BOTH at the same time. In fact, I think they’re perfectly suited and mutually conducive: when you are truly appreciative of what you have (not just mindlessly indulging in gratification) then you will naturally tend to caring about other’s happiness.

As my old compadres at The Babylon Project say, ‘If we can’t laugh, it’s not our revolution’
 
 
grim reader
23:28 / 20.06.03
I'm sure you've very cleverly knocked my comments to pieces, however, the reason i brought it up was because i thought it was relevant input. I'm not your enemy.

Maybe i didn't explain myself very clearly.

'Activism' has become chic, fashionable, commodified. There are lots of problems with that, but the specific problem i raised was that it puts people off. When people are going to demos for the thrill or for the aesthetic, then they're not the people i want surrounding me when the truncheons come down and i'm being dragged off to a cell.

Rather than taking this personally and getting defensive, discuss the issues of commodification of dissent and dissent-as-entertainment.

As for me telling you guys how to do it right; well, i wouldn't dream of it, as I'm ducking out of activism, possibly for good. All i can do is explain my reasons and indicate that maybe these issues need to be discussed. And thats my biggest gripe with the political groups i've been in, from Amnesty and antiwar to anarchist stuff; there's very little real discussion and analysis, people are shut down in meetings before they can develop a point, and things move along according to charisma and force of personality. Lots of people end up just dropping out when they see their input makes no difference. I'm still looking for other ways to resist, and if i come up with any corkers, I'll be sure to let you know. Personally, i think communication and discussion is the key to it all.
 
 
grim reader
19:41 / 22.06.03
Personally, i think communication and discussion is the key to it all.

...and lo, a deathly silence falls. oh well.
 
 
Jackie Susann
00:18 / 23.06.03
I think you're being a bit disingenuous when you say protestors are all dreadlocked hippies who alienate regular people and act too happy about torture, then that we shouldn't disagree cause we're all on the same side. How else are we supposed to respond than by pointing out where we disagree?

'Activism' has become chic, fashionable, commodified. There are lots of problems with that, but the specific problem i raised was that it puts people off.

Well, maybe... but doesn't it's fashionable status attract people, too? There were huge, huge antiwar rallies here recently, at least partly because antiwar was totally cool: every boutique on King St had antiwar clothes in the window, etc. I don't know what the alternative is: dour, dull rallies where three burnt out stress cases turn up to show their stout moral opposition to the evils of the world? I am completely in favour of making politics - at every level, from rallies and riots down to basic grassroots community organising - more exciting and glamourous.

When people are going to demos for the thrill or for the aesthetic, then they're not the people i want surrounding me when the truncheons come down and i'm being dragged off to a cell.

I could not disagree more: they are exactly the sort of people I want around if there's trouble. If I'm fighting the cops the last thing I need is someone with a great grasp of the theoretical problems of globalisation, you know? I want my mates who can think tactically and go with the situation.

On the other hand, I tend to agree about political organisations shutting down discussion - not that I've been involved in many. I am more interested in organising with friends... which may explain our differences over whether protesting should be "fun".
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:28 / 23.06.03
Crunchy has, as usual, hit the nail on the head...

doing the right thing doesn't HAVE to be dour. Of course, it can be hard work... but hard work can also be fun. And the more fun it is, the harder you work. And if it becomes fashionable to do so... then surely that's a GOOD thing? For every bunch of people who join a direct action, or a May Day/antiwar/what-have-you protest because they think it's "cool", yeah, many may well not give a shit next time. But some will. And celebratory actions seem a much better way of "recruiting" than selling fucking papers at Tube stations to people who may give a fuck, but can really do without someone being all sincere at them when they have their own shit to deal with?
Come on, we have things to do! Why shouldn't we make them as enjoyable as possible?
 
  
Add Your Reply