One by one...those of a short attention span, or who really have got better
things to do than listen to two people engage in a pissing contest are
welcome to go and get a life...


At 04:23 PM 5/3/01 +0100, you wrote:
'Well, forgive me, but what IS the best way to go about it then Graham?'

There are multiple ways to 'go about it', one of which under certain
certain circumstances may be direct action of the type carried out in
London and Seattle. However, I hardly see McDonalds et al trembling in
their boots - not when they've got the might of the govts of the free world
well and truly on their side. One way might be to change the system from
the inside - although obviously the risks of co-option to the 'other side'
are great.

'You think that multinationals like the infamous Macdonalds or Coca Cola
are going to do it by providing every one with BSE, rotten teeth, and 3.60p
per hour? I think not.'

McDonalds and Coca Cola don't 'give' anyone BSE and rotten teeth; that
occurs through people CHOOSING to eat their crap. I don't notice anyone
FORCING anyone to eat at the damn places. For the record, I have never
eaten at McDonalds; I will confess that twice I have succumbed to Burger
King... Of course there are issues here such as health education and the
'indoctrination' of advertising, but ultimately a 'truly democratic' system
would allow people to have a choice.

'at the end of the day a LOT of people share a common belief in both that
they are unhappy with the world as it stands, and that the people that they
elected to do something about it are not doing anything about. So they are
doing something themselves'

I can't disagree with this one. But it doesn't change my point about such
action not doing a lot. I think the difference here is less 'political' or
'ideological' than in degrees of cynicism...

'As for being 'fully human', I would count emancipation from exploitation a
prerequisite for that one...

Just what do you count as exploitation? Who is to lay down the law on what
it is or isn't 'exploitation'. You might think it was common sense, but
there are some who would argue that any form of social relationship is a
form of exploitation...  At the same time here, there's a sense that
somehow there's a fundamental 'humanness' waiting to break free should
these chains be lost...well, I wish I was so sure that whatever that nature
is it would necessarily be nice. I'm well aware through working in some of
the crappiest work envrionments in this country that labour conditions for
many are appalling. On the other hand, the only way to totally do away with
exploitation in the Marxist sense would be to entirely dismantle the system
we have now. You can't do it. You can't re-shape people that quickly.
Everyone has too much at stake. The only real way you can do it fast and
'cleanly' is by fear and violence, and at the present time a lot of people
are experiencing a lot of the former...okay, it's entirely to the benefit
of 'the system' that this should be so, and the police and politicians and
mainstream media play their part...but fear breeds a very conservative
politics.

'Being a pacifist entitles me not to hurt other people. It doesn't mean I
can't
remonstrate with them. However, being an anarcho-syndicalist with certain
Marxist-Leninist traits, I doubt you'd believe that.'

WHAAAT??!! Whenever have I ever in all my contributions ever given any
suggestion that I have such traits? If this shows one thing, it's the
disadvantages of communicating at a distance...

Now I'm getting incoherent, and I really can't be bothered to go on. I just
wish I had the holier than thou certainty of some of the people out there
on the streets. Such people are infinitely valuable, but when they appear
to be the only form of 'resistance' to our current hegemony, I get
incredibly depressed. The truth is, there is no coherent and organised
oppositional voice in mainstream politics, which if you believe in
representative democracy (as I do) is the best way to get things done. The
resort to direct action shows the failure of politics - that we have a
politics of means rather than ends.

A final thought: what makes you any different and ultimately better than
last year's fuel protestors, who also presented themselves as 'the people'?
Direct action is not just the perogative of the 'socially progressive'...if
you think that you have the right to demand change in this way, you would
have to accept the right of fascists to do likewise (just as I would if
everyone voted fascist)...what's good for the goose...

Regards,
Graham


>
>Viva la proletariat,
>
>PB.
>
>
>>Forgive me, but the comments of a great number of protestors - not
>>specifically this May Day, but generally - seem more than a little
>>patronising to those of us who may well be in broad sympathy with the plea
>>for a fairer world, but are both cynical enough to think that this is not
>>necessarily the best way to do it and suspicious of the motives of SOME of
>>those that get involved. I have known quite a few self-proclaimed
>>anarchists and quasi-Leninist Marxists, and while many of the former were
>>compassionate people rebelling against what they identified as a crap
>>political-economic system and the marginalisation, not to say brutal
>>suppression, of any lifestyle that wasn't counted as 'normal' by the powers
>>that be, some of the former, and all of the latter, were violently
>>contemptous of the 'common people of the world' they were supposedly
>>speaking for. I get the impression that for many of those in favour of
>>'total revolution' people aren't fully human until they are shown the error
>>of their ways. I also feel totally patronised by commentators such as Naomi
>>Klein, who takes a book to tell me what it took my parents five minutes to
>>tell me when I was practically still in nappies. And hasn't she ever read
>>David Harvey. It pisses me off that people are ignorant of history and of
>>other people and then take it upon themselves to tell many people what they
>>already know already but aren't in the position to take their beleifs
>>further than the pub, or don't have the self-righteous to assume that they
>>know all the story(s). GRANT US CAPITALIST APOLOGIES A LITTLE CREDIT, WHY
>>CAN'T YOU?
>>
>>
>>At 01:33 PM 5/3/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>>Forgive me, but the comments of GrahamG may seem a little patronising
>>>and dismissive of people who are seeking to develop forms of
>>>'alternative politics' - however inadequately some may see this as
>>>being. The media has been full of people winging on about how
>>>protestors have no coherent politics - capped of course by Tony Blair's
>>>accusation of these protesters as having 'spurious' politics. But of
>>>course many of these people do have fairly coherent politics, at least
>>>in as much as any of us have such a thing. What such comments seem to
>>>imply is that "we have not heard the media report anything from you
>>>that we feel is coherent therefore you are misguided at best, dangerous
>>>at worst".
>>>As for violence, the comments of Peter Shirlow ARE very relevant here,
>>>there has been much debate within many so called 'anti-capitalist'
>>>groups about the ways the movements are being represented, how stories
>>>are being planted in the media to portray protesters as 'terrorists'
>>>(indeed what a long and sordid history there is of this) and what to do
>>>about this.
>>>Events prior to may day suffered incredible intimidation from the
>>>police, including harassment and surveillance at that symbolic bastion
>>>of democracy - Hyde Park Corner - in the case of the
>>>self-styled 'Wombles'. Since then, some may remember, there have been
>>>many, many stories in the papers of specialist firearms teams being
>>>drafted in to deal with rioters armed with machetes, etc. etc. Aiming
>>>partly to 'deter legitimate protesters' as the Deputy Commissioner of
>>>the Metropole Police admitted on monday (see Indymedia.com on this and
>>>other aspects of the build up).
>>>Do not forget about those people also imprisoned within the police
>>>cordon for six odd hours, as another section 60 order (of the Public
>>>Order Act) was imposed (third time in a row for such protests) and the
>>>effect this had on the people in there and around the meeting.
>>>
>>>To then just start accusing protestors for engaging in violence is too
>>>easy, it forgets context both before and on the day, and does what the
>>>media does which is focus all the blame on the protesters for being
>>>violent .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, 1 May 2001 16:56:07 +0100 Graham Gardner <[log in to unmask]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Criminalisation by state and media are clearly an important issue, but I
>>>>  feel I have to say that those protestors who engage in violent acts are
>>>>  also very centrally to blame; the idea that they are passive bodies upon
>>>>  which the brand 'criminal' is inscripted is hard to swallow. I think if
>>>>  they were more constructive in terms of alternatives to our present
>>>>  hegemonic politics, and didn't just keep stating the equivalent of
"smash
>>>>  evil capitalism and grow all your own veg.", they might get more
widespread
>>>>  sympathy.
>>>>
>>>>  GG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  At 03:10 PM 5/1/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>>>  >There are several issues around what the May Day violence
>>>>  >represents. A good deal of which is well known to those of us who
>>>>  >live in Northeren Ireland. Although I am against violence I find the
>>>>  >interpretations of and response to violence, by the State, quiet
>>>>  >alarming.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Without doubt the state and media organisation have done more
>>>>  >than enough to enusre  that members of the demonstration are
>>>>  >criminilalised. There is a whole history of this from Northern Ireland
>>>>  >through to the Miners Strike and the Poll Tax demonstrations. The
>>>>  >central aim of felon setting is to dilute the rationale of
opposition to
>>>>  >the 'crimes' committed by the State and global capitalism. A good
>>>>  >tactic in ideological confrontration is to let violence occur in
order to
>>>>  >permit felon setting and of course deny the right tolegitimate
>>>>  >protest.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >A more alarming issue is that the police have been armed with
>>>>  >rubber bullets. Given that their use in Northern Ireland led to tens of
>>>>  >deaths, especially among children, over the past 30 odd years is in
>>>>  >itself testimony to their misuse. But the fact that they are now
>>>>  >being issued as a means of crowd control seems to suggest a
>>>>  >futher decline in democratic accountability within the UK.
>>>>  >
>>>>  >At the end of the day more people will remember attacks upon
>>>>  >McDonalds before they even think about the impact of global
>>>>  >economics upon fellow societies. I wonder why that is? Any
>>>>  >answers Tony Blair?
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Dr Pete Shirlow
>>>>  >Senior Lecturer
>>>>  >School of Environmental Studies
>>>>  >University of Ulster, Coleraine
>>>>  >BT52 1SA
>>>>  >Northern Ireland
>>>>  >
>>>>  >Tel: +44 028 7032 4687
>>>>  >Fax: +44 028 7032 4911
>>>>  >
>>>>  >
>>>>  Graham Gardner
>>>>  Institute of Geography & Earth Sciences
>>>>  University of Wales
>>>>  Aberystwyth
>>>>  Ceredigion
>>>>  SY23 3DB
>>>>  Wales
>>>>  UK
>>>>
>>>>  Tel: 0044 (0)1970 622606
>>>>  Fax: 0044 (0)1970 622659
>>>>  E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>----------------------
>>>Christopher Wilbert
>>>Anglia Polytechnic University
>>>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>Graham Gardner
>>Institute of Geography & Earth Sciences
>>University of Wales
>>Aberystwyth
>>Ceredigion
>>SY23 3DB
>>Wales
>>UK
>>
>>Tel: 0044 (0)1970 622606
>>Fax: 0044 (0)1970 622659
>>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>
>
Graham Gardner
Institute of Geography & Earth Sciences
University of Wales
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
SY23 3DB
Wales
UK

Tel: 0044 (0)1970 622606
Fax: 0044 (0)1970 622659
E-mail: [log in to unmask]