There are several things about the current "anti-globalisation" movement that need debate. Roughly speaking, some of the main points continue to be: what to make of the movement in general? Is there a precedent for it? What of other anarchists? The Labour marches? Attempts to bring them together? What of the NGO's? What about the Black Bloc? Is there a place for social democracy? What attacks are appropriate now? Should levels of militancy be curtailed? What is the strategy, or is there one? These are all questions that are currently being asked. My feeling is that there are some general observations that need to be made- so as to reduce the levels of confusion- before anything gets said on any of these topics in a blanket way. 1. WHAT IS GOING ON? First off, the main dividing lines between this current upsurge in activity and previous ones are the motivating factors for it and the vastness of the area covered by the participants. While it is very much to the usual pattern of things that the demonstrators do not have a full understanding of the connection they have with Third World struggles or internationalism as a totality, this is an International movement. One can't breach that cross-border movement and focus on the narrow one-issue at a time politics of the NGO crew as some might like it- nor can modern Trade Union Bureaucrats be given the lead role in calling and organising demonstrations with their current agenda. This one-at-a-time political thinking has been surpassed, for better or worse, by some cross Oceanic consciousness on the part of the main contingent of the demonstrations and their organising committees. If that were to change now, it could only seriously harm the cohesion of the rising movement. That cross-border identification is the political thinking of all that are in the main actions that attempt to disrupt the meetings- whether it be through peacefully blockading streets as in Seattle, or in attacking and breaching the police barricades of our cities as in Prague, Quebec City and now Genoa. These participants have gone to great lengths to make it clear that nowhere is there a place that a meeting can be held where people will not meet these murderers and try to cancel, disrupt, delay, etc. their meeting. This is the nature of the movement and why it seems to be almost explosive in appearance. It was born of such a militancy, and will live with it and die with it. TINA was (and is) widely felt around the entire world after the USSR disappeared. This new movement, by it's simple defiance in the face of the policies of TINA, is allowing the realisation across the planet of what many always knew: That history does not end and there is indeed a point to struggle today. Beyond that, people have also come to a sense of urgency- and considering the state of our environment, the bubble economy and the facile pats on the head that come from the media, is their any purpose in telling them not to be anxious? We need to promote precisely this kind of anxiety. Doing so is not to neglect the ideas of better organising- it is to celebrate that we now have a new chapter before us- and it is not one that is basing itself on compromise. The leadership of these different countries, from the insulated walls of their meetings (which have been poisoned by the drifting, wafting air of their own tear gas), have now begun to "address" the issues on the minds of the demonstrators. In Quebec, they issued a declaration on "democracy" (Essentially codifying the expulsion/banning of socialist Cuba in puffy language). In Genoa, they seek to alleviate imperialism itself- promising to "work towards an end to global poverty". Their corporate media and masters point out that the more militant demonstrators are mostly poor or comfortable white youth from the West of Europe and North America- while conveniently forgetting to mention that their own leadership heads are mostly rich old white men who inherited their fortunes. TINA cracked in Seattle; TINA is almost a joke now. This is what the greatest gift has been from demonstrator to the rest of what calls itself left: The abolition of notions of relegating themselves to capitalism through begging procedures and the near eradication of the "End of History". I wonder who wants to invite Frances Fukuyama to speak at a conference these days. Not one-tenth as many, we can be self-assured. Third World revolutionaries could not, of course, ever have believed his lies about the End of History. However, too many from the North had believed precisely that for far too long, even unwittingly. THE RISING OF OFFICIAL LABOUR & THE MODERN ANARCHISTS (AND THE NGO'S) We are also watching a parallel rise of union militancy. This has been generated despite the natural opposition of most labour bureaucrats. The marchers in Seattle were set to come downtown and join the peaceful Anarchist blockades that shut down the meeting of the WTO. At the last moment- and with many hours to go before the Black Bloc emergence, let there be no mistake about this- Union leaders sent marshals to the intersections a pair of blocks away from the demonstration that was being ruthlessly attacked by the police. From the vantage point of being someone who had intended to go through both marches, I can attest that by 1:00pm the most constant refrain- over and over- was: "When are the unions going to get here?" We kept trying to tell the time, guess how long it would be. For myself and many others in that crowd, hopelessly na�ve about Trade Union Bureaucrats- we never stopped expecting their appearance at a later point. In retrospect, it is a simple class analysis that our na�vete was lacking. TUB's are not part of the working class in the same way as many of their fellow travellers deem. They have positions underneath them that are wholly rocky, should the workers take independent action. As even Max Weber - bourgeois sociologist- points out in his description of the bureaucrat- part of the value goes beyond money- the rewards of social esteem are had by all. They protect this in a day-to-day manner by maintaining their contacts with the officials in Social Democratic parties throughout Europe and Canada, and the Democratic Party of the Vietnam War in the United States. To allow their masses of working people to assemble and go to the "front" as it were- that would be to destroy their own careers. This is unrealistic for any of us to ever imagine. Yet, on many levels- particularly from our current weakness- it is absolutely essential to win the help of big labour. So what do we do? Ask the most militant to fold their tent and absorb into the Union movement? What has some seething among my circles as a Marxist- is the concepts of Anarchism. Or to put it more bluntly into the language of the frail human condition- many Marxists of today are fighting ghost battles of yesterday- and appear to be troubled that "Anarchism" has taken a leading role in modern day radicalism, while our indispensable tradition has nearly no sway. The point is not, however- to "expose" anarchism to socialists. Comrades of the Red tradition have long known many of the pitfalls of Anarchism, for many that's why they became Reds. What communists need to do is not at all a break from Marxist thinking. What approach is needed is to not be ruthlessly critical of the anarchists who have a lead role in producing an embryonic mass movement. What needs to be assessed is just how brutally our own practice has isolated us and our Marxism- in the new movements, the labour struggles of the last three decades, the world events and the lack of willingness to ever go through these processes on our part. Traditional economism is the course being steered, for the most part, by TUBs throughout the First World. They are also asking for reformist demands- far less than that of the marches to shut down the meetings. NGO's can continue to use the "movement" to help their individual causes, since they provide new blood- and new people who enter politics for one cause tend to see the links to all the causes. However, the typical demands- the one by one bunch of items of the NGO's- cannot become a major part of the overall movement in a leading way. For them to do this would require dumping all the other NGO's, essentially. Then never mind the fall of the revolutionary components that are already involved in organising opposition to the whole system as represented by these institutions. When the "turtles" are involved, it is because trade laws and regulations prohibit the passing of new laws to protect endangered giant tortoises and overrule the existing ones. How on earth would a campaign against Third World Debt capture it? It would be the end of much of the environmental input- both radical components and the mainstream corporate-acceptable such as the World Wildlife Fund. The position of NGO's as an appendage and educational forum within the movement is not necessarily as reactionary as many of them are in their politics when they stand alone. They will remain secondary and not decisive but useful on the education front. Paradoxically, the demands of certain NGO's and their supporters to "drop the debt" (like Farm Aid hero, singer Bob Geldof and Bono: admirer of all fights for liberty but the Irish- who were both seething at "anarchists" and "violence" even before the Carabinieri killed comrade Carlo Guiliani) is far more a "radical" and impossible demand than anything raised in attempts to abolish the WTO, FTAA, NAFTA, the G8, the EU. The debt cycle is how the Imperialist countries continue to keep the subservience of the Third World economically- it is the mainstay of Imperialist subjugation of the national struggle generally- it is the expression of what NATO wants to do to the recently re-conquered remnants of socialism in Yugoslavia. The cycle of debt IS Imperialism at it's essence. Ultimately this demand is a touching belief system held by the Bonos, the Geldofs, the TUB's and the social democrats- all of whom use a system of analysis which denies the very existence of Imperialism, leading to a fight for simpleminded peace without justice- in Northern Ireland, Israel and the streets of Genoa. A demand to abolish the WTO, etc. is actually more feasible- but this is not to say it is feasible. It is a series of well-coded "acronyms of death" which represent the attempts of a fragmenting coalition of capitalists that had united in the face of the USSR to remain united in the face of the new, raw competition of the era of US Imperialist globalisation. The "alphabet soup" of oppressions is the bourgeoisies' attempt to prove Karl Kautsky right and Lenin wrong: the development of some "ultra-imperialism". At the same time, the arguments by Kautsky against the original Bolshevik revolution are also very much at work among the so-called Marxists, who are pleading for the restrainment of the will on the part of the movement. It is fair to say that the organised working class in essential in North America, but the conclusion to be drawn from that does not extend to forcing restraint upon ourselves. TUB's fearing the merge of union struggle with militant actions- both in oppostion to capitalism and in favour of the right to protest and make grievances heard- will block such a collision at many levels. This is to be expected. It is not, however, permissible on the part of the revolutionarily minded to defend the right of the state to repress the movement -- on even the sideways level - by calling these actions, the galvanising force for the introduction of a new movement "inappropriate". Such was the language of the Communist Party of France in 1968- for those who want precedents. It was an out-an-out betrayal then, and it is fool hardy and a guarantee of the safe encirclement of irrelevancy that anyone would do so now. The problem is the location and colour of the Trade Union marches- not the solution to the Anarchists and their more wild-card appearance and participants. The solution is for the concerned activists inside unions to agitate their membership to participate in the movement directly- whether that is through resources, organising, or the ultimate short-term goal- that the demostrations of thousands of unorganised workers be swamped with the power of workers en masse. Perhaps this will take awhile, but there is nothing that follows from this that the current strategy is failing or should be curtailed- quite the opposite indeed. At the point of unity at the front, the marches will have a character and body to them that would absolutely terrify the powers that be. The working class standing up for it's own. The demonstrators are working class, too -after all. That organised labour is "doing something" is appropriate and exciting- but very predictable. Not just because the anarchists pull them left by being a topic of discussion, but also because of late capitalism itself. A TUB is nothing without some power under him (or her) in the form of a Trade Union, obviously. The current corporate globalisation agenda is one that threatens to destroy the unions that currently exist. So long as these realities compound- and imperialism is still here, so compound they will- the TUB's will continue to oppose the existence of "globalisation" and will hark to the New Deal politics of Ralph Nader. No one need fear that labour leaders will return to the barracks; if labour were to stop marching and attempting to gloss over the conditions of society along the lines of Sweeney (and even Hoffa and Buchanan!) they would also cease to be. There is no need to bite our tongues when they sell-out- their participation in also setting up counter demos several miles away from where the government attacks the people who oppose them from acting in peace- this will not change and will be here for a long time. It is in the parasitic nature of TUB's to do just this: Let others create a movement and set of demands while they walk into a square covered in blood and demand a negotiation. Solidarity wouldn't enter these people's heads except as a leverage tactic. So what of the people who are showing up in the thousands to attempt to force the shut down of these meetings? Their strategy has been one of resistance. They demonstrate, correctly, that it is right to rebel. In this rebellion, they also have seen the everyday people reflecting at them without condemnation. There are not a large number of people- anywhere in Canada- who opposed the tearing down of the Wall that represented precisely where our place is in the future as it is laid out by these folks who murder without thinking at all. Our shame is not that we are tearing down these Walls- but that those who do so didn't do so in true internationalist fashion to stop the continuing genocide of Iraq, the military conquest of our brothers and sisters Yugoslav, or the escalation of the war on Colombian peasants. We have the role now of introducing to these combatants that their strength has been in their internationalism, as expressed when Fidel Castro thanked one and all in Quebec and greeted the demonstrators by stating that "Cuba supports you, greets you and embraces you with fraternity". When Fidel spoke these words, he was also condemning the Canadian government for it's treatment of it's own people in the same address. This was therefore, in direct response to the repression of the anarchist organised marches, since the labour one was treated with the utmost respect by the police who were tied up downtown fighting against crowds who did not accept their military occupation to hold FTAA negotiations behind walls. At the Walls, in the cities we have seen them built, is where Black Bloc people and other anarchists- such as the White Overalls- as well as many communists and other independents are trying to stop these meetings by the proverbial "any means necessary". The "Black Bloc" tactics, as well as their very compositions, are such an extended variety that any overall analysis of "what is" will lead to immediate frustration and more importantly confusion. It is important to go over the composition of the demonstrations' anarchist components as a whole, and factor in the Black Bloc as a separate issue. I will start with Seattle. A year before the actual meeting that was scheduled to begin on Nov 30, 1999 happened, a group called the Direct Action Network was set-up. It was heavily Anarchist inspired, although its main mandate was a non-violent attempt to shut down the WTO. It was set up in conjunction with several activists receiving a grant from unions in the amount of $100 000.00. They rented a space and organised tirelessly- the methods that were inspirational were as much a factor as the actual success of the action for me, whatever that is worth, in seeing this as something new that did not fit the paradigm I had studied previously. The affinity groups show radical democracy in practice. The whole practice of groups such as the DAN (and later the CLAC in Quebec) are the things I hear the most fondness for in people's memories. The total decentralisation (and the major advantages it has for the success of a direct action) has become a visible reality. Almost all demonstrations are now organised around North America- and perhaps across Europe- with these as major premises. In the situation where your goal is to do something militant, yet realistic- such as shutting down a meeting for one day- decentralisation of this sort means something very different. It means that groups have total autonomy beyond agreeing with the statements of the organisers of the march as per tactics. In Seattle, that meant non-violence. In Quebec, that meant non-violence and acceptance of the law in the Green Zones; the acceptance of illegal but peaceful action in the Yellow Zones; the CLAC couldn't promise anything (it was the weak point in the fence, the shortest distance to the meeting and the symbolic target of the militant demonstrators) in the red Zones. Even though there were many blocks of distance and no Black or Red Blocks in the Green (or even the Yellow) Zones, all three were gassed and and attacked in vicious succession and repeatedly in Quebec City. Were there no Black Bloc and Red masked people attacking the illegal police line at the front- then the police would have not been distracted by "shock troops" and would have utterly smashed the back end of the demonstrations. In Seattle, they attempted similar marches. People started on the same route, and then were to follow the colour of these signposts being carried as one march would go one route, then another would head here- all explained one-by-one before the march. This was to allow people to follow different signposts to different places whenever they changed their level of physical commitment. The intersection blockades began quietly at approximately 5am in such a fashion as to be like the arms of an octopus. The people locked down and put metal around their arms to guarantee more time before the police successfully broke it up. These people also had decentralised support groups: people who would come around with water, with food- anything to provide physical or moral support. Decentralisation was helped immensely by the fact that so many of the organisers were able to make revolutionary use of those reactionary cell-phones. With the cell phones, support for weakened areas of different blockades could be provided at the drop of a hat, instead of trying to sort through the maze of downtown Seattle, occupied by thousands and clogged shoulder to shoulder. If there had been a system other than this- in this case- there would have been less success for the days action. It worked, in the face of massive volleys of tear gas- to keep the demo solid and strong and able to reinforce itself by hitting the speed dial. That- is new to North America and is creating a movement whose greatest weakness is also its greatest strength: that the demonstrators believe that how people get to the better society must be as democratic as the new society itself is promising to be. Right or wrong, this is now a mantra. This is the inspiration that people are taking back from the demonstrations and putting into practice in their organising. Let us all imagine what kind of world would be in birth if the Trade Unionists, the honest ones, got a wind of this and attempted to put such democratic mechanisms into their own locals and halls! Such is just another argument to get the TUB's out of the way- or at least to smash down their opposition to coming to the front lines. The Anarchists, from Quebec to Seattle, are not articulating a vision: they are DEMONSTRATING a vision. Their vision will inspire all but the most cynical and probably outdated among us, once seen up close and personally. BLACK BLOC THOUGHTS With response and reference to the Black Bloc. Let me start by pointing out the first action of anti-democratic practice in the anti-corporate globalisation movement - one whereby the previous decision laid out for a demonstration was over-ridden by elitist nonsense- this was not carried out by any "Black Bloc". True, the Black Bloc didn't ask DAN to set aside time or space for their actions in Seattle, but some 3-4 hours prior to the launch of anything with a crow bar came the SINGLE HANDED, NON-CONSULTED decision of the Sweeney bunch and the AFL-CIO hierarchy to change their own march route. They didn't see anything that was a violation of a prior political decision made, expressed and related to the DAN/volunteer blockade organisers. Some strata think they can do whatever they want, it seems- and no one on the left can call them to account for the results of their actions. The Labour tops unilaterally- and in complete abandonment of the principles of democratic practice that the opponents of the Black Bloc so cherish for the Masked folk- re-routed people away from "trouble". That route was intended to go through the downtown of Seattle, to us. The workers were quietly, without input sought or generated, steered off course and silently home except for the more noble and brave unions, such as the ILWU. The Black Bloc was to show up later, some time after 4:30pm. I make this point only to illustrate that the "anti-democratic" charge means nothing compared to the wholesale class sell-out of leaving our blockades alone to face the police. The police were rioting and had declared a full-emergency de facto- long before any Black Bloc, and were doing so when that proud union the AFL-CIO did their faithful service to the ruling class of US Imperialism, hoping for the "reward" of a "seat at the table". The workers officialdom committed the first great breach and divided us from our official labour brothers and sisters from the start. Since then, they have not returned. They have been begged to return at every action, by non-violent and "no position" anarchists alike, and other organisers of challenges to the anti-democratic meeting of butchers. These same people and their supporters, despite their location miles (and sometimes, days) away from the challenge to corporate rule, then speak of "democracy". They then lecture others on "how it is done". In the case of Seattle, the Black Bloc members were allowed to carry out their attacks on Starbucks and Nike, it seemed, for longer than necessary (in state repression terms). I believe this was done so as to do two things: create a climate of fear and repression in Seattle in order to "justify" their assaults of the next day- where they arrested hundreds- and "sweep" the city for one. The National Guard and the state of emergency were for theatrical effect as well, leading those who were not there to believe the Black Bloc was somehow the reason for the out and out fascistic nature of the police that day. However, as already stated- such an interpretation is to put the cart before the horse entirely. Armoured Personnel Carriers were used throughout the day as part of their attack-both physical and psychological- on the peaceful blockades that shut down the WTO. So was pepper spray, tear gas, and police on horseback charging into crowds with truncheons drawn. Tear gas isn't something that is used to scare a crowd- tear gas is painful and only doesn't kill because no one stays in a cloud of it. To use that on us is a military assault by them. The rubber bullets were fired all day. Some the size of small rocks and actually plastic, nothing at all like a bouncy rubber compound. All told, it is not true- in any way- that the demonstration experienced more repression as a result of Black Bloc antics. The majority of the demonstration had left by 4:30pm- when the Black Bloc started their window breaking. The reason people need to get this reality straight, - the actual order of events- is that this movement was never allowed to exist AT ALL within a peaceful manner. It has been militarised by big capital since the first hours. Thus, all the Geldofs and TUB's blather about "violence" is so much cover for them, their cowardice, betrayal and their system and system of beliefs. The movement started out as militant but peaceful, and the first violence was the response of the Seattle Police on the orders of capital. It has been the response of the police in Washington, at both party conventions for the last American election, the conference in Prague; the conference in Papua New Guinea; the demonstrations in Gotenberg; the demonstrations in Quebec City and now the murder of our soldier in Genoa. The Wall itself was the first act of violence in Quebec. In the case of each demonstration, the positive response has been that so many people prefer resisting this to watching reruns of M*A*S*H*. Why do people care, and why are more getting involved? Material conditions alone have existed for a long time. Thatcher and Reagan are no longer only yesterday. Those were the people who ran the world when today's adults were children. What I believe is making the slow snowball effect take place is the worsening material conditions for capital, which are being squeezed out of the working class day-by-day. Combine that with the fact that now people are seeing other people who are willing, for only convictions' sake, go out to these demonstrations and try to SHUT them DOWN. Then, the state teaches them some basics from Engels and even Weber about the nature of states. After that, what w orld are we living in if we think that that isn't inspiring people? There are many people who simply are taking to this with the mindset that they will be there because the governments are acting in such a dictatorial manner. These are facts. The brave ones who resist, like the White Overalls, are gaining massive influence through their willingness to tear down these walls. It is very true that they have strange poetry to them. So does Subcommandante Marcos. So did Mao Zedong. After all, the great rebellions all create their own culture. Let us continue with our own as well. The whole movement is new, so must be that which associates itself together with it. The Black Bloc, as I mentioned from the beginning of all this, can not be "labelled" and described as anything. They operate on a `whoever puts on the mask' basis. The actions in Seattle, ironically for me, are the ones that actually had me the most angry. It was also the symbolical start to something that isn't going away. They are to the demonstrations -as has been said- like the weather. The weather and the Black Bloc both protected innocent demonstrators from tear gas in Quebec City- and I imagine elsewhere, too. The Black Bloc actions seen in Seattle- repeated over and over again, of simply going out and looking for Starbucks and the like would become alienating in and of themselves. However, without the Black Bloc who also did that regrettable stuff- we would have had no chance at all to tear down the Wall in Quebec. They were a large sector of the people who tied the ropes around and tore down the Wall- they also spent their time ahead of the demo getting together the thick gloves and gas masks that were used BRILLIANTLY (all but once in my line of vision)- to clear out the tear gas canisters the moment they arrived in our square. It was our territory, and yes- we had a right to defend it. We had, in my mind- a duty to tell the ruling class and the rest of the planet that with our actions. Sure, they win physically- but we win morally. The days are over where the people lie down for all such actions on the part of the state and imperialism. Good riddance to such times! Do we resist everytime? That also, would be foolhardy, and is an alienating factor being developed as strategy by some militants. We cannot do that; we pick instead targets we can successfully crash. The Wall in Quebec was one and there was nothing anti-democratic about this radical action- even by the terms of the defenders of treachery. A decent and valuable critique to make of the anarchists (in general terms) is a tendency to lean towards direct action itself as a strategy. Defeats, even in almost purely symbolic battles, do nothing to galvanise the people. In the case of a demo of hundreds or small thousands- "direct action" means a counter attack and embarrassingly simple defeat that will end up far more ugly than anything done by the combatants will appear as light. The willingness to combat the system has been expressed by many people, thousands at a time in fact. What we need to do is learn how to weigh and balance our combativity for battles where we can win. Genoa appears to have been just such a place. FASCISTS IN GENOA The action in Genoa had a similar glorious tilt to it- the propaganda against the demonstrators, the violence that was being expected (even bomb threats), all of this- singularly didn't work in scaring people away and in places had precisely the opposite effect. Back to the Black Bloc specifically- let us not consider condemning them for throwing tear gas into the alleyways or onto rooftops- or best- back at the police line. I have maintained all along that I am not a fan of the trashing of store windows and the like. However we all cannot condemn them using their repertoire to defend the population and the crowd; clearing the air for the people I the area who were protesting with their bodies but not their combativity needs high praise in the instances it has happened, whether in Prague, Quebec or Genoa. What people all over the Marxist left are doing to disgrace themselves is associating the actions of the police and infiltrators from fascist organisations with the Black Bloc themselves. There is a clear line here. We know that the Black Bloc did not do the attacking of crowds in Genoa- this was done by police. With this as knowledge, anything else said about the Black Bloc in Genoa is simple slander and worse, out of place sectarianism. As much as this is smaller potatoes at work here- it would be comparable to saying that ambush actions by a "rival" guerrilla group from ours should be condemned because there is the risk of para-militaries donning the same outfit. Further, regardless of the reality- that it is righteous for a crowd to defend itself from tear gas, such an action can be recorded and get you charged later. To call for the removal of the Black masks is to call for prison terms to misguided comrades. A better solution, if one is needed, is for law abiding, peaceful citizens to wear the masks as well. Then targeting of one then is to say nothing of the likelihood of guilt for the other. Targeting the Anarchists- or even simply the Black Bloc- when police infiltration created the situation which led to the police riot in Genoa is to not only cross a line it is to confuse enemies badly. Window smashing is nowhere hear half as dangerous as not challenging the state for its wholesale torture, round up and assault on the school full of people. The Italian police did all of this- the single greatest days of repression in decades for Western European political history. There are, as I write this in August some ten days plus since the demonstration, still over 200 people missing and unaccounted for in Genoa. Where is the outrage and leadership worthy of Marxism on this issue? Who will stand up to fight this wholesale quashing of democratic dissent? Who will stop spreading bourgeois diversions about the Black Bloc being the source of all this? The state needed no excuse. SOCIAL DEMOCRATS & THEIR ROLE. Social Democrats are also currently among the people who will tell the tape. I consider a social-democrat to be someone looking for a labour led or left-rhetorically led party in America, or belong to the established S-D's now in Canada or Europe and are already somewhat alienated on the left in these parties. I am speaking of the value of these rank and file; those who would work for the DSA or the Greens in America, but are not party leaders. With that as my definition, allow me to state that they can currently be- in Canada at least- a major help to our movement. What is needed to guard against, however- are the new attempts to constitute a new party- the "New Politics Initiative". The times are such that we are starting to have a vaster pool of resource labour among activists as more people become involved. To make the NPI work, I believe it would cost the time and energy of too many of the best Social Democrats existing today. What we need from these people is to simply follow their own beliefs around a set of demands. Demand to include all trade deals- such as the FTAA or APEC- in a set of simple referenda. If this campaign were to generate any support, the system would have a crisis: Deal with the possibility of having the number one facet of the agenda of the global economy put on trial, or to tell the people no they don't get input? The ruling class would have to decide. And either way such a campaign turns out, the anti-corporate globalisation movement wins. Either they expose their hypocrisy or they risk their policies and all of the people begin to engage real debate on the core, real issues. Police provocation did not start in Genoa and will not end with black masks and anarchistic outfits. What began in Genoa- unless the imperialists are smart and back off a bit- was the massive repression of the state and capital of what's left of the rights of the populations. The right to demonstrate in favour of a healthy environment, food we trust, working conditions that resemble humanity, equal rights for immigrants and sovereignty for states and nations above and beyond that of capital. The right for that very expression is being challenged, yet it is those very rights that capitalisms whole fa�ade rests upon. When that comes off, what is left? Nothing. Absolutely nothing but greed and self-justifications for it. Plunder and deception. Sexism and racism, born and bred in the First World and exported to the colonies. "Democracy"- that whole pile of shit that gave us Bush II through to Vinciente Fox and now Zoran Djindjic, all of it- this is their only pillar of strength. To demonstrate for the right to demonstrate is to call on them to prove it. They cannot prove it. And if they won't even extend those rights here, in the heartland of "Western values and democracy"- what does this say to the rest of the world? They can only attack and repress our cries for democracy. We are the ones who have the job of standing up to that repression, when they repress it by fiat through building chain link walls- and also when they repress it by attacking our comrades and others from behind and in front of the same Walls. If we are to mean anything to the new consciousness, it is that only we speak for democracy and that true democracy is determined by class power. The most democratic expression in the world is the mission we need to capture: revolution. Bottom up. "To Resist is to Win" - East Timorese resistance slogan during Indonesian rule. "Por todos nuestros muertos, ni un minuto de silencio. Toda una vida de lucha." [To honor our dead, not a minute of silence. A whole life of struggle.] Macdonald Stainsby ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby Rad-Green List: Radical anti-capitalist environmental discussion. http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green ---- Leninist-International: Building bridges in the tradition of V.I. Lenin. http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international ---- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht
