anti-capitalists

[redcannon]

i had heard that in the 1990s there was a movement in the US by anti-capitalists who weren't nessecarily communists but rather were trying to stop the capitalist system. then 9/11 happened and the wave of patriotism across the country ended all of that.

i think that what i heard, and if anyone could make sense of it and elaborate on it, i'd like to look further into it.

[rouchambeau]

You're probably thinking of the resistance to globalization and neo-liberalism.

[redcannon]

can you put that in a term that i can look up on Wikipedia or the internet?

[bcbm]

The Anti-Globalization Movement; the No Globals?

[DiggerII]

Look at the reactions to the WTO.

[RGacky3]

Still Active.

[manic expression]

The anti-globalization movement is pretty strong in terms of numbers. However, I don't see them as having too much of a direction beyond opposition to free trade.

I recently saw a documentary about the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle (kind of a culmination of that movement), and although the anti-globalization movement had a lot of support, they basically just sat on the ground until the cops sprayed them with chemicals, beat them back or threw them in jail. The vast majority of the demonstration didn't present any real resistance, it was only the black blocs (which, IMO, are of a different current than the anti-globalization movement) that set up barricades and tried to oppose the cops. The anti-globals are dedicated to non-violence and peaceful demonstrations, which got them exactly NOWHERE. Also, they cite "Constitutional rights" and "freedoms", meaning they buy into the bourgeois system and its laws (far from revolutionary). It's a bit sad because they have so much potential, but waste it all in their efforts to be wholesome and non-violent (IMO, if they wanted to storm the meeting in Seattle, they could've, but they didn't).

[Anton]

some of them apparently took almost every way possible to stop anarchists from smashing shit...

[Enragé]

The "anti"-globalists arent dead.

Perhaps in the US they have suffered because of 9/11 etc, but in the rest of the world they're still active. They vary from hippies to the more radical side of the reformist left ("fair trade") to the revolutionary left.

IMO, they are the prelude to a more radical, greater movement, as long as the demands get more and more focused on class struggle.

edit: i feel really old now, even though im just 18. The whole "anti"-globalist ("anti" because they arent really against globalisation just against the globalisation of capitalism) is what brought my attention to the radical left.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:17 pm
some of them apparently took almost every way possible to stop anarchists from smashing shit...
with all due "respect" towards those "anarchists"
often enough their smashing of certain shits led to absolutely nothing but their alienation from the rest of the movement.

Yes, there is a time for violence, yes sometimes that time is now but it isnt all the fucking time every fucking place

more on this;
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012163223/...s-parrish.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20041012163223/http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9949/features-parrish.shtml)



Also, people, realise that we will not win the revolution by disciplined cadres of black clad young men "smashing shit"

[Anton]

Originally posted by NKOS+February 07, 2007 03:28 pm--> (NKOS @ February 07, 2007 03:28 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 08:17 pm
some of them apparently took almost every way possible to stop anarchists from smashing shit...
with all due "respect" towards those "anarchists"
often enough their smashing of certain shits led to absolutely nothing but their alienation from the rest of the movement.

Yes, there is a time for violence, yes sometimes that time is now but it isnt all the fucking time every fucking place

more on this;
http://web.archive.org/web/20041012163223/...s-parrish.shtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20041012163223/http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9949/features-parrish.shtml)



Also, people, realise that we will not win the revolution by disciplined cadres of black clad young men "smashing shit" [/b]
i didn't say i advocated them smashing shit, and i see your point, although it's hard for me feel sorry for a broken window of Niketown.
I was just trying to show their positions on certain things, is all...

[bcbm]

disciplined cadres of black clad young men "smashing shit"

You're fucking clueless and you sound like some liberal hack. :rolleyes:

[The Grey Blur]

I think you're talking about the large anti-capitalist/globalization movement that developed not only in America but the rest of the World as well during the late 90's and had reached it's pick with the Seattle Riots (1999 I think?). It was a hopeful development but without a clear alternative, namely Socialism, it will be utterly impotent.

Marx said that the class struggle would be, although "now hidden, now open" constant - just because there is no "Bolshevik Party Of The United States" doesn't mean class struggle isn't real and doesn't exist, every day, in the USA.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 07, 2007 10:08 pm

disciplined cadres of black clad young men "smashing shit"

You're fucking clueless and you sound like some liberal hack. :rolleyes:
So the revolution will be won through "fucking shit up"?

[rouchambeau]

with all due "respect" towards those "anarchists"
often enough their smashing of certain shits led to absolutely nothing but their alienation from the rest of the movement.

"The rest of the movement" (liberals, hippies, pacifists/peace police etc.) are alienating to those seeking real change and direct action.

Yes, there is a time for violence, yes sometimes that time is now but it isnt all the fucking time every fucking place

Shows how much you know about the activities of active anarchists. Most of the time anarchists are participating in non-violent events like Food Not Bombs and the Anarchist Black Cross.

Also, people, realise that we will not win the revolution by disciplined cadres of black clad young men "smashing shit"
You're right. Damn, you fucking torched that strawman!


So the revolution will be won through "fucking shit up"?
Holy shit, Permanent Revolution imolated another strawman! I'm going to get out of here before the smoke burns my lungs.

[manic expression]

If you ask me, when you have thousands upon thousands of people in the streets, with a meeting dedicated to the exploitation of countless workers around the world in the vicinity, THAT is very much a time to use force. Can anyone tell me how, exactly, those sorts of actions weren't warranted at that point?

The real problem here is that the bulk of the demonstration was too worried about emulating Ghandi and letting the cops shut them down (while they cried about their "Constitutional rights" :rolleyes: ). The other activists were trying to make something happen, at the very least, while everyone else was doing their best to be completely ineffective and facilitate their own failure (through non-violence).

Even more disappointing than the anti-globalization's failure to go beyond sitting on the ground is the fact that the AFL/CIO demonstration wanted NOTHING to do with the anti-globalization demonstration. They had a worthless march far from the WTO meeting, and had no interest in supporting the other protestors. When martial law was declared and a "no-protest zone" established, the labor largely complied. Pathetic.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. In the world of today we can either physically break the buildings and things we oppose, and face a corporate media that will smear us into oblivion, or we use non-violence and don't even get mentioned in the paper.

I think that using non-violence is excellent, because it proves that we can and do act in an enlightened way. The problem is that it has to be big enough to actually be noticed.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+February 07, 2007 04:50 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ February 07, 2007 04:50 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 07, 2007 10:08 pm

disciplined cadres of black clad young men "smashing shit"

You're fucking clueless and you sound like some liberal hack. :rolleyes:
So the revolution will be won through "fucking shit up"? [/b]
I left out the part about "the revolution being won" that way for a fucking reason- I was saying that that description was typical sensationalist crap.

[RGacky3]

Better to do something that may not achieve a lot, than do nothing at all. Better to be seen and heard, than not seen or heard at all.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

My thoughts on protest are that we should break their rules of "no protest zones," refuse to listen to the cops, and disobey all their orders. At the same time we need to consider what will provide us with more of a just cause against the establishment: getting beaten up when we simply refused to comply or getting beaten up because we were smashing in the windows.

[The Grey Blur]

I left out the part about "the revolution being won" that way for a fucking reason- I was saying that that description was typical sensationalist crap.
Right cool, I just didn't understand why you jumped on NKOS for basically stating the obvious. What description is acceptable to you for "militant" Anarchists who believe smashing a McDonald's window is revolutionary?


Holy shit, Permanent Revolution imolated another strawman! I'm going to get out of here before the smoke burns my lungs.
Um, what? You seem to have misunderstood me...

[Enragé]

"The rest of the movement" (liberals, hippies, pacifists/peace police etc.) are alienating to those seeking real change and direct action.

yah
and how many people would that be at the moment? :rolleyes:
We have to expand the number of people wanting real change and direct action, and that wont happen if we scare them all off by being "radical".

Not to mention, real change does not come from wrecking your local mcdonalds.


Shows how much you know about the activities of active anarchists. Most of the time anarchists are participating in non-violent events like Food Not Bombs and the Anarchist Black Cross.

wtf are you talking about?
I was specifically referring to all the violence which serves no purpose, has no propaganda value, and only alienates most of the working class.

I wasnt talking about anarchists in general, i was talking about those "anarchists" in Seattle who basically went on a rampage which didnt have any fuckin good results
or did it?
is Seattle now part of the great north american anarchist commune?

[An archist]

true, you won't change a lot by smashing windows, unless get the cops all pissed-off.
Now instead of whining about that, let's make sure that we don't waste anymore time on those things, if we smash a window, let it be because we need to get on the other side of it. Before a protest, set your goals and do anything to acomplish them.
If your goal is to get Mcdonalds out of wherever you are, well, what better tactic then to destroy their buildings, time and time again? True, if you only do it once, it's not much use, but when they have to pay repair expenses over and over again, they'll make the rational decision to move.

[Enragé]

agreed my belgian comrade ^^

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 09, 2007 02:26 pm
true, you won't change a lot by smashing windows, unless get the cops all pissed-off.
Now instead of whining about that, let's make sure that we don't waste anymore time on those things, if we smash a window, let it be because we need to get on the other side of it. Before a protest, set your goals and do anything to acomplish them.
If your goal is to get Mcdonalds out of wherever you are, well, what better tactic then to destroy their buildings, time and time again? True, if you only do it once, it's not much use, but when they have to pay repair expenses over and over again, they'll make the rational decision to move.
Or maybe they'll cut their worker's wages to pay for all the repairs...

You actually think you can "get McDonald's out"? You are incredibly deluded - no multinational corporation can be "got out" as they control the cops, the laws and the law-makers. Their chips are also incredibly tasty.

[Enragé]

if you make it impossible for mcdonalds to actually do the things that get them profit, i.e selling shit, they will leave because they will no longer have the incentive to stay; no profit, no business.

You would however need an enormous amount of support to be able to actually get them to fuck off.

[Knight of Cydonia]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 10, 2007 12:23 am
no multinational corporation can be "got out" as they control the cops, the laws and the law-makers. Their chips are also incredibly tasty.
Do all the multinational corporation control the cops,the laws and the law makers? if it does which multinational corporation? and if you said it was mcdonald, i don't think that they control the laws,at least not in my homeland.

[An archist]

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+February 09, 2007 05:23 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ February 09, 2007 05:23 pm)

[/b]

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected]
Or maybe they'll cut their worker's wages to pay for all the repairs...
I don't think the workers would just let that happen, do you? They'd probably go on a strike or something.


Permanent Revolution
You actually think you can "get McDonald's out"? You are incredibly deluded - no multinational corporation can be "got out" as they control the cops, the laws and the law-makers. Their chips are also incredibly tasty.
If a group of people is dedicated enough, they could close down a McDonalds place, or any other commercial place. It wouldn't come close to a revolution, but if you really want a Mcdonalds to move, you can do it.

[Enragé]

I don't think the workers would just let that happen, do you? They'd probably go on a strike or something

Well yes, if all goes according to plan.
If not, the dudes wrecking the mcdonalds will be hated by the people they are trying to help.

So, the whole campaign of wrecking the mcdonalds should be linked to an actual workers' movement, a strong one.
Going out on your own, right now, with a few mates to destroy a mcdonalds will get you nowhere.

[Enragé]

but if you really want a Mcdonalds to move, you can do it

and then what?

burger king moves in :lol:

[rouchambeau]

Holy shit, Permanent Revolution imolated another strawman! I'm going to get out of here before the smoke burns my lungs.
Um, what? You seem to have misunderstood me...
I underestood you. You made a strawman argument. It was sound, but had nothing to do with anyone else's arguments.


I wasnt talking about anarchists in general, i was talking about those "anarchists" in Seattle
I understand that. However, you're pretty much slandering them by saying that all they do is be violent. You're not in a position to make such a call.

[The Grey Blur]

Holy shit, Permanent Revolution imolated another strawman! I'm going to get out of here before the smoke burns my lungs.
Um, what? You seem to have misunderstood me...
I underestood you. You made a strawman argument. It was sound, but had nothing to do with anyone else's arguments.
Look back at the last page. NKOS dismissed "fucking shit up" (in a non-revolutionary situation) as pointless. BMBC then called him a "liberal hack". I then asked BMBC is he though the revolution would come about through "fucking shit up".

You see how it's all connected? Join the dots...


You're not in a position to make such a call.
Who is?

[bcbm]

Right cool, I just didn't understand why you jumped on NKOS for basically stating the obvious. What description is acceptable to you for "militant" Anarchists who believe smashing a McDonald's window is revolutionary?

Not the same one as the sensationalist ****s are using, surely? And who ever said smashing a McD's window was revolutionary? No anarchist I've ever met- looks like you're spreading your own brand of sensationalist crap (or strawmen, as previously noted). In the words of the "disciplined cadres of black clad young men:"

"We contend that property destruction is not a violent activity unless it destroys lives or causes pain in the process. By this definition, private property--especially corporate private property--is itself infinitely more violent than any action taken against it. . . .

When we smash a window, we aim to destroy the thin veneer of legitimacy that surrounds private property rights. At the same time, we exorcize that set of violent and destructive social relationships which has been imbued in almost everything around us. By "destroying" private property, we convert its limited exchange value into an expanded use value. A storefront window becomes a vent to let some fresh air into the oppressive atmosphere of a retail outlet (at least until the police decide to tear-gas a nearby road blockade). A newspaper box becomes a tool for creating such vents or a small blockade for the reclamation of public space or an object to improve one's vantage point by standing on it. A dumpster becomes an obstruction to a phalanx of rioting cops and a source of heat and light. A building facade becomes a message board to record brainstorm ideas for a better world."

Oh, and from the same collective re: "young men:"

"Aside from the fact that it belies a disturbing ageism and sexism, it is false. Property destruction is not merely macho rabble-rousing or testosterone-laden angst release. Nor is it displaced and reactionary anger. It is strategically and specifically targeted direct action against corporate interests."

http://www.infoshop.org/octo/wto_blackbloc.html


BMBC then called him a "liberal hack".

No I didn't.


I then asked BMBC is he though the revolution would come about through "fucking shit up".

Incorrectly interpreting my statement and creating a false argument. That said, I am firmly in support of fucking shit up.

[Enragé]

Look im not against destroying property, im just against doing that sort of thing when obviously the only effect it will have is alienation from the people we should be working with if we're ever going to have some chance of revolution, a true fundamental change.

I'll repeat what i said earlier; there is a time for violence, yes sometimes that is now, but its not all the fuckin time every fuckin place.

[WP_Joel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 05:06 pm
Look im not against destroying property, im just against doing that sort of thing when obviously the only effect it will have is alienation from the people we should be working with if we're ever going to have some chance of revolution, a true fundamental change.

I'll repeat what i said earlier; there is a time for violence, yes sometimes that is now, but its not all the fuckin time every fuckin place.
What is needed in that case is during any struggle for a marxist perspective to be put across to the working class to build their class consciousness. When the working class is sufficiently enlightened the revolution will ensue and the desire for private property etc will diminish..