Dear Ole
I respond to this post partly because I have SOME sympathy with the general
sentiments expressed.
Partly because I do believe that "Seattle" was an important turning-point
However, I believe the views you express are seriously sub-optimal
At 06:07 PM 12/12/1999 +0100, Ole Fjord Larsen, wrote:
>The IDEAL prerequisites for the resistance movement's
>victory over corporate rule by means of demonstration
>are
It is IMPOSSIBLE to state "necessary and sufficient" pre-requisites
I further believe that "victory over corporate rule" is not a desirable
objective
I DO BELIEVE that the disparate groups that made up the protest lack
cohesive objectives, and that even if they literally "got what ALL of them
wanted" the world would not be any better off.
I DO BELIEVE that ONE of the goals which these groups should at least
DISCUSS and hopefully agree upon, is that the federal governments of the
participating nations (Canada and US are the ones I follow most closely)
should be called upon to CHANGE their GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES to become
ACCOUNTABLE to their citizen groups as a whole. This is the basic
definition of DEMOCRACY.
Of course I further believe that Direct Democracy -- the right of citizens
to have referenda on any issue see -- http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ -- is an
appropriate form for this accountability
The balance of my comments are merely responses to SOME of Ole's points
>
>- a completely peaceful, numerous demonstration with
>which all humanity outside the corporate headquarters
>can identify, and
>
there are human beings inside corporate headquarters too -- I used to be there
>- a fair worldwide media coverage of the event.
>
desirable, but FAIR has never happened in the history of the World, and I
see no prospect of it happening soon
>Basically, hooligans - whether paid by the corporations
>or subject to anarchist ideology - therefore are factual
>enemies of the people.
>
>However, since 99 % of the media are controlled by the
>capital, we normally do NOT get a fair coverage of our
>efforts, to say the least !! Silence normally is their
>very efficient weapon to protect their masters.
>
>To ensure that the event be covered at all, even in
>distorted version, some controlled degree of violence
>directed against precisely identified appropriate targets
>in some cases may be justified, in spite of the consequently
>reduced number of sympathizers.
>
>In Seattle the previous long preparations and focus
>on the event made any further attention unnecessary.
>The violence of the police furthermore ensured the big
>headlines in the media.
>
>The hooliganism in Seattle therefore must be strongly
>condemned, because it unnecessarily reduced the sympathy
>in the world population whom we represent, and
>considerably discouraged the vast majority of the
>demonstrators who up until then had been in great
>enthusiastic spirit.
>
>Additionally, the casual smashing of windows was directed
>against small as well as big stores and made it completely
>meaningless from our point of view.
>
this long rant against hooliganism and "masters" puts emphasis on the wrong
events
I was at two-two-hour meetings with 20 people present, of whom 3-6 of whom
had been present at Seattle -- they emphasised the spirit of hope and
co-operation amongst disparate protesters
>CONCLUSION
>
>FLEXIBILITY must be a key word in the planning of the
>coming demonstrations.
>
good
>The coordinating group of the participating organisations
>must to an even higher degree than this time prepare the
>demonstrators for knocking down and turning over to the
>police any anwanted hooligans.
>Even if a hooligan should be killed, it would be a very
>little loss as compared with the daily rate of 20.000
>dead children due to corporate rule.
irrelevant
>
>The coordinating group must beforehand have arranged for
>contacts worldwide to report continually on the local
>media coverage.
>
good
>Only in cases where the previous focus on the event or
>the police brutality is insufficient to make the media
>cover the story, is a minimum degree of violence
>justified, and only directed precisely at easily
>understandable targets.
>
I believe your "conclusion" misses the key point:
"what are the desired outcomes?
I believe they would include:
A seat at the WTO table for a wide range of inputs from NGOs, Unions etc.
Governments being made "democratic" along the lines of Direct Democracy
>Ole Fjord Larsen,
>member of United Peoples
Colin Stark
Vice-President
Canadians for Direct Democracy
Vancouver, B.C.
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
