Time to pack the cop repellant!

[monkspider]

I think, if nothing else, these protests made it clear that it is at least possible in theory to oppose globalization. Which is certainly a step (however baby-sized) in the right direction.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think, if nothing else, these protests made it clear that it is at least possible in theory to oppose globalization. Which is certainly a step (however baby-sized) in the right direction.

Ideally they would have.
In reality it looked like wanton destruction by hooligans, nothing more.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


As a life long Chicagoian... I second that

You NEVER want to piss off a Chicago Cop.

I hear bribery is better way to go in Chicago.

[monkspider]

I think you're overstating the effects of the negative press coverage Ashie. While certainly the ammount of awareness that these events may foster is small. It is there. We leftys are all about awareness, if I were to tell the average Kansanite that I was a commie, he would probably respond with something like "A Commie? Doesn't that mean you are some KKK Hitler lover?" If we could spread the true message of what Communism is really all about without the demonization it has received (particularly here in the states), that same person who thought I was a Hitler-lover, could be a possible supporter in the future.

Err... sorry if I rambled a bit there.

[Asher]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think you're overstating the effects of the negative press coverage Ashie.

No, you're understating the effects of the protests. It wasn't big news that people were protesting.

What the media focused on, and indeed what the stories were about, was about the wanton destruction on Seattle streets by protestors.

I know you'd like to think it accomplished something, but it probably set the movement back if anything. Very few people wanted to come out and say they agreed ideologically with those morons.

[monkspider]

I would like to think that a good-sized chunk of the people who would agree ideologically, or at least have potential to agree, would have the sense to see past the blatantly one-sided news. But perhaps that is overly optimistic of me.
I think, if nothing else, it made it clear that there is an undercurrent of disenchantment with globalization, and some people who may have been silent about their feelings on the matter, may actually be a bit more vocal in their opposition in the future.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
I think, if nothing else, these protests made it clear that it is at least possible in theory to oppose globalization. Which is certainly a step (however baby-sized) in the right direction.

Why is it the right direction?

People go to war because of differences. Globalizition decreases those differences. They won't go away completely, at least for a long time but I can't see what is supposed to be so awful about globalization.

[Shi Huangdi]

most people don't care about globalization. people care more about fighting terrorism/Saddam/whoever the hell it is we are fighting at the time.

[monkspider]

Well Ethy, I see it as Globalization as the new force of Imperialism in the world. Traditional colonization (in the vein of the British Empire) won't work any longer, because the world community simply won't have it. Imperialism now lies in the hands of several powerful multi-national corporations to exert near-paralyzing influence on the rest of the world. (For a good read on this subject see Hardt and Negri's "Empire", if you feel so bold). So there probably will be less wars as you said, simply because the new imperial powers will get what they want without a fight. But there will be much more subjugation and economic injustice.
As for me, I would prefer a world with few wars, and subjugation and economic injustice kept to a minimum. So that's why I oppose globalization.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Why is it the right direction?

People go to war because of differences. Globalizition decreases those differences. They won't go away completely, at least for a long time but I can't see what is supposed to be so awful about globalization.

Because economic globalisation is happening, but political globalisation isn't. The result is that votes count less, dollars count more. **** deal.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by monkspider
Well Ethy, I see it as Globalization as the new force of Imperialism in the world. Traditional colonization (in the vein of the British Empire) won't work any longer, because the world community simply won't have it.

Globalization is entirely voluntary. No one has to go to McDonalds for lunch. Its not imperialism its just business.

As for me, I would prefer a world with few wars, and subjugation and economic injustice kept to a minimum. So that's why I oppose globalization.

You just contradicted yourself. If you want to minimize war than globalization is the way to go. War is bad for business. Dead people just don't buy much and produce only fertilizer.

I can understand complaining about monopolies but those are not inherent in globalization. It does mean we need more international laws to control things.

Its odd to me just how much of the anti-globalization propaganda comes from Americans. We are doing the lions share cultural exportation and we have ALWAYS been importing culture in the first place. Its not US companies have a lock on it either. Phillips is or at least was, last time I looked, the biggest multinational.

Now the IMF is something else. Considering that Bob McNamara had his hands on that thing I figure it must have some real problems because he helped mess up the US with his stupidity in the Viet Nam War.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Globalization is entirely voluntary. No one has to go to McDonalds for lunch. Its not imperialism its just business.

It's about signing agreements that limit a country's sovereignty. It's not about me railing against American cultural hegemony (which is overrated, IMO); it's about me railing against the fact that we've given up our right to have a different economic system in general or in detail.

The corporations now have mechanisms to take governments to court to force them to adhere to standards used in other countries that are party to the agreements. It's now "lowest common denominator" as far as protections for the average citizen is concerned.

[Asher]

The problem with globalization is it helps me too much, and is therefore evil.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ethelred

You just contradicted yourself. If you want to minimize war than globalization is the way to go.

I

Ah, but it's not an inherent contradiction Ethy. I do want less wars, but at the same time I don't want economic subjugation. So in other words, I want to have my cake and eat it too. I don't want to be forced to settle for one or the other. I want to work to make both problems go away, rather than accept that one is always going to be there.

[Ethelred]

If people choose to go to McDonalds or do something stupid like borrow WAY too much money that isn't subjugation. Its voluntary.

The United Fruit Co. is no longer controlling foreign governments. Things have gotten better not worse regarding what you are complaining about.