The IMF is having a meeting at IMF headquarters in Washington, DC, this weekend. Various amorphous groups of protesters have been threatening to bring the regular wave of protests, vandalism and small-scale rioting to this IMF meeting, like they have done in past years.
Currently, about 600 people have been arrested for various misdemeanors (blocking traffic, demonstrating without a permit, disobeying police), and a small number of people have been arrested for various acts of vandalism (throwing rocks through a Citibank window, burning tires during morning rush hour, and so forth).
Overall, not much happened today.
It was a drizzly fall day with not much traffic downtown -- lots of people took the threat of protests to take the day off, work from home or just not drive into the city. The local news did their best to follow a band of 20-30 protesters for a couple of blocks before cutting away to another reporter, where the story was the absolute lack of protest.
It turns out that there were more police around the protesters than protesters. And nothing like the disruption that was reported in Seattle two years ago.
No one really knows who's protesting what this week. Lots of people around here seem to think these protesters are a bunch of clueless anarchist 20-somethings who are protesting for the sake of protesting, not to bring forth some important social change. The exception was the small protest across the street from the Gap, where, protesters were stripping to their undies to protest unfashionable clothes or something. (Actually, it looked like five people stripping to their undies, and 150 of their closest friends blocking the sidewalks while trying to see some skin.)
Re:Not that amorphous
james on 2002-09-28T09:26:34
Surely the point behind protesting anything is to raise awareness of your issue, without me having to go and make an effort to find out why people are there.
One of my friends went along to a 'anti-globalization' protest a couple of years ago, and when I asked him what he was against, exactly, he mumbled something about 'think global, act local'. I wasn't satisfied with that answer so I did put effort into finding out more about why the protests against the IMF and the WTO have taken place, and guess what, I still find what they are saying to be pretty amorphous.
No-one seems to have suggest having a clear idea about what the alternatives to free-trade are. I did see a ten point manifesto of some group or another, in which it basically said be nice to everyone, dammit!. Not a bad goal I suppose but not always easy to achieve when everyone isn't nice to you in return.
'Make love, not war' was a pretty amorphous goal during peace marches in the 60's, and 'think global, act local" is pretty much the same now.
Disclaimer: I disagree with the anti-globalization movement. I'm believe in capitalism.
Re:Not that amorphous
autarch on 2002-09-28T15:13:32
Here's a good article on why people are opposed to "globalization" (again, I put this word in quotes because it is not very well defined).
And yes, protests are at least in part about raising awareness, but as I said before, I hardly expect mainstream media to cooperate. Despite their cooperation, I think the protests _have_ been effective in their efforts of raising awareness, _despite_ the treatment by mainstream media. But you can't expect the protestors or media to spoon feed you. And the protests aren't just about raising awareness. They are also about increasing the costs (economic and otherwise) associated with doing business as usual, in order to force change.
As to your "disclaimer", it's pretty silly. You don't really say what particular strain of capitalism you believe in. Despite considering myself pretty left-wing, I am not entirely opposed to all aspects of capitalism. I am, however, opposed to modern corporate capitalism as exemplified by the US.Re:Not that amorphous
ziggy on 2002-09-28T17:33:52
Blaming mainstream media for not accurately conveying the grievances of a minority fringe is a cop-out.And yes, protests are at least in part about raising awareness, but as I said before, I hardly expect mainstream media to cooperate.Look back to the Civil Rights era. Back then, the grievances were with de facto slavery and segregation. Civil Rights advocates did a very good job in getting their message across: segregation is wrong, inhumane and unjust; the remedy is federally-enforced equality, because state governments and individuals have proven themselves incapable of doing away with the inequalities of segregation.
What are the anti-IMF protests about? With all of the news coverage, I've heard that it's not one groups, but a band of similarly minded groups protesting a variety of issues related to "globalism". Oh, and a handful of hooligans are joining in to use the opportunity to vandalize public and private property, and aren't necessarily espousing any of the various missions of these protesters.
These protests are a form of debate. That these protestors cannot start a productive dialog only hurts their position. These groups need to successfully convey three distinct messages: what is wrong with the status quo, why must we change the status quo, and how must we change the status quo? (Any moderately successful high school debater knows this as the job of the Affirmative team.)
Making wild claims that the goal of a day's protest is to "bring capitalism to a halt in Washington, DC" does not forward their cause.
Blaming the media for acting complicitly does not forward their cause.
Acting in a manner that merely annoys government workers yet has no impact on business leaders or policy makers does not forward their cause.
Really? Then they're a pretty ineffectual form of action. About the only positive effect of the week's protest was to highlight the benefit and viability of using public transit instead of driving to work. And, AFAICT, that was not one of the desired outcomes of the protests...And the protests aren't just about raising awareness. They are also about increasing the costs (economic and otherwise) associated with doing business as usual, in order to force change.Re:Not that amorphous
autarch on 2002-09-29T19:57:40
I really don't think blaming the mainstream media is a cop-out. If your primary (or only) sources of info are mainstream newspapers, or even worse, TV, then you simply cannot complain about not getting certain information.
As to whether or not civil rights activists were successful in getting their message out, I think that you are A) viewing this with hindsight and B) ignoring the fact that civil rights took a long time to get anywhere.
Maybe 30 years from now we'll be in a position to compare today's anti-global-corporate-captilism movement (which is what it _really_ is) to civil rights. Right now, that's impossible.
I haven't really followed these most recent protests. I did a lot more research and reading about previous ones in Seattle, Quebec, Italy, and DC, and I can say that those were indeed effective. They have very much raised the costs of operating the World Bank and IMF, both in terms of the money that needs to spent and the amount of oppression that is needed to fight protestors. This latter is actually quite important, as can be seen from the days of civil rights. Eventually, the tactics used by those in power against civil rights protestors became a real rallying point for raising awareness and sympathy.Re:Not that amorphous
ziggy on 2002-09-29T20:38:18
That's a simple statement of opinion, not a justification for blaming mainstream media.I really don't think blaming the mainstream media is a cop-out.Then your complaint isn't with mainstream media, but rather people who rely on mainstream media for their news and information.If your primary (or only) sources of info are mainstream newspapers, or even worse, TV, then you simply cannot complain about not getting certain information.Again, laying all of the blame on mainstream media is a cop-out, since you (now) sound like you're blaming the vast majority of the American public (or any public that doesn't benefit from multiple independant media outlets).
Perhaps. I don't see how that is relevant though. I never stated that a protest movement needed to achieve the desired results within a day, week, month or year of a singluar event. Nor did I imply that taking ten or twenty years to see positive change phased in is a failure to achieve common goals.As to whether or not civil rights activists were successful in getting their message out, I think that you are A) viewing this with hindsight and B) ignoring the fact that civil rights took a long time to get anywhere.What I did say is that the Civil Rights Movement (1) clearly stated its message, and (2) achieved their long term goals. The "globalization" movement isn't doing the first, and consequently is unlikely to achieve the second.
Claiming a victory with the increased operating costs of the IMF and World Bank is assuming a short term battle victory necessarily leads to winning the war in short order. In fact, that little victory is also unlikely to stop globalization, capitalism, imperialism or any of the vague goals that the anti-globalism crusade is attempting to bring about.
Re:Not that amorphous
pudge on 2002-10-02T04:33:13
I have listened to many protestors, in their own words. Few, if any, have expressed anything of interest. They seem more interested in making big puppets (like the ones lampooned on The Daily Show) than in telling us in plain language why we should be in the least bit sympathetic to their cause, whatever it is.Re:Not that amorphous
james on 2002-09-29T10:39:05
And the protests aren't just about raising awareness.
To be completely honest, you are the first person ever to express to me that a protest (as opposed to a strike, or work to rule for example) is about anything other than raising awareness.
As to your "disclaimer", it's pretty silly.
It was supposed to be. It was a flippant, throwaway comment to be honest, and probably not helpful. Sorry.
I think the protests _have_ been effective in their efforts of raising awareness, _despite_ the treatment by mainstream media.
I don't. I feel that to someone like me, who thinks that globalization and free trade is a good thing the protestors are having a negative, rather than a positive impact Living in London gives me exposure to a lot of protests. Some are tackling issues I agree with, some I that I disagree with. However, with the majority of protests in general I feel that the protestors have not attempted to explore other means of expressing their displeasure with the issue at hand before taking to the streets with a grudge and a slogan.Re:Not that amorphous
autarch on 2002-09-29T20:15:20
To be completely honest, you are the first person ever to express to me that a protest (as opposed to a strike, or work to rule for example) is about anything other than raising awareness.
As I alluded to in my response to ziggy (above), this was in fact a key part of the success of civil rights activists. Increasingly violent and brutal (and costly) oppression of legitimate protest helped the movement a lot.
Similarly, just raising the economic costs of something can be very effective. If it used to cost a host city $5M to hold an IMF meeting but now it costs $50M, then that may make it harder to find a host for such a meeting. Which in turn may reduce support for the IMF, and so on.
There are of course, plenty of other tactics related to "raising costs", such as property destruction, violence, etc. Just because I'm endorsing one (peaceful nonviolent protest) does not mean I'm endorsing all of them, just in case anyone might think otherwise.
I don't. I feel that to someone like me, who thinks that globalization and free trade is a good thing the protestors are having a negative, rather than a positive impact
Well, before Seattle I had no idea what the IMF and World Bank were. Now I do. It was because of Seattle that I bothered to find out. Now, the Seattle protests, and coverage thereof, were not particularly helpful, but it did make me interested enough to do some more reading elsewhere to find out why so many people opposed these institutions.
Also, I'm not against "globalization" and "free trade", whatever the heck those words are supposed to mean anyway. I am against wealthy nations dictating environmental laws and social policy in poor countries, while supporting brutal military regimes. I am against sweatshops and child labor. I am against the exploitation of a country's natural resources when it is done exclusively for the enrichment of that country's dictatorial government and foreign corporations. I am against the destruction of indigenous peoples' ways of life because they happen to live near some oil, or a mountain full of precious metal and gems, or the path of a proposed oil pipeline.
I don't know what those really have to with free trade, except that a lot of people in favor of those things mentioned above keep using the phrase "free trade" as a description of those things, as if there were any relation.
If by "free trade" you mean a unilateral dropping of trade protections, I'm definitely not in favor of that. Rich countries became rich (and stay rich) through the use of protectionism. There is nothing wrong with this per se. A poor country may need to protect it's native industries and agriculture, and that is a very important part of the development of a country.
However, with the majority of protests in general I feel that the protestors have not attempted to explore other means of expressing their displeasure with the issue at hand before taking to the streets with a grudge and a slogan.
What other means? A letter writing campaign? Calling in to radio talk shows? Interpretive dance?
Seriously, peaceful nonviolent protest is an entirely legitimate first (and sometimes last) step in a campaign. I do stress peaceful and nonviolent. And despite the fact that the media loves to focus on the very few black clad supposed "anarchists" who break a few shop windows, the vast majority of people who go to these things are not supportive of this sort of tactic.
