The Battle in Pittsburgh

[nogodsnomasters85]

As some of you may know, the G20 sumnmit is being held in Pittsburgh. As soon as this was announced it was obvious that there would be a protest. Unfortunately, the local government decided against offering a permit for the protest, which seems to be about as effective as it was in Chicago in 1968. The word is the city fathers are beefing up security and the police are in full stormtrooper mode. The pictures and video that have made it out don't look good. If I were up to it, I'd be there, myself. It looks pretty nasty and sounds like it's getting worse. Heres' some pictures, video, and links, from Huffpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/g20-protest-photos-vote-o_n_298692.html
Thoughts. Questions. Comments. Discuss.

 

[Worm]

As some of you may know, the G20 sumnmit is being held in Pittsburgh. As soon as this was announced it was obvious that there would be a protest. Unfortunately, the local government decided against offering a permit for the protest, which seems to be about as effective as it was in Chicago in 1968. The word is the city fathers are beefing up security and the police are in full stormtrooper mode. The pictures and video that have made it out don't look good. If I were up to it, I'd be there, myself. It looks pretty nasty and sounds like it's getting worse. Heres' some pictures, video, and links, from Huffpost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/g20-protest-photos-vote-o_n_298692.html
Thoughts. Questions. Comments. Discuss.

The actions of the police, where excessive, are certainly abhorrent. The footage is disturbing.

To me this says public protests ought to be held on a massive scale or not held at all. These protesters are doing the equivalent of throwing water balloons at tanks. Other forms of resistance are better.

I'm speaking pragmatically, not philosophically. I'm sure many of these people were motivated by sound ideas.

 

[mcrickson]

Indeed, many of high school acquaintances who are now attending the University of Pittsburgh main campus in Oakland have been posting pictures and video nonstop.

Meanwhile, I'm safely with my software, miles from the frontlines.

 

[shawnxvx]

protesting has become useless. well, it kinda has always been useless.

the black and red needs to look at the early on red army faction and go from there. the pigs blood needs pour into the streets as well.

 

[dunya]

I think we've got to the situation where government and media have together convinced many people that "protester" and "violent criminal" mean the same thing. (A bit like how the term "asylum seeker" became a derogatory term instead of a description of a victim of persecution).

It is right that citizens should be able to protest, but damage caused by attention seekers, agent provocateurs and police/security services is, by accident or design, increasingly going to intimidate those who would like to exercise their legal right to protest peacefully. The more this continues, the harder it will be to make any meaningful public protest against Government action or policy without risking injury or to be taken seriously by the rest of society.

I was reading a report (I think about the Climate Camp, but I need to check) which urged police to regard protestors as citizens exercising their rights, not as criminals waiting to to cause harm. The more restrained approach by police at the last Camp led to better outcome than previous occasions.
It is possible to have legitimate peaceful protest, but I do not think it in the interests of many Governments or those who favour violence over cpersuasion.

You don't convince anyone you are right by force. It is possible to frighten into obedience, but not to win the respect of the voters.

It is not "Battles on the streets" that most threatens Democracy. It is the silencing of legitimate dissent, and the distance between the policies/agendas of Political Parties and the wishes/needs of the People they are supposed to represent.

 

[MunchyBrain]

The most worrying piece of footage I've seen from this is a protestor being bundled into an unmarked car by the military. Seriously messed up.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

protesting has become useless. well, it kinda has always been useless.

the black and red needs to look at the early on red army faction and go from there. the pigs blood needs pour into the streets as well.

Now when I say things like this everybody jumps on me like I'm a bad person.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

I think we've got to the situation where government and media have together convinced many people that "protester" and "violent criminal" mean the same thing. (A bit like how the term "asylum seeker" became a derogatory term instead of a description of a victim of persecution).

Tragically, this is true. It's a product of a type of brainwashing. It's like Mark Rudd said, and I'm sort of paraphrasing, but "that in America, we're taught rfrom a very young age that (political) violence is either criminal or insane, we (The Weather Underground) were seen as both."
It's a suprme irony that in a country founded on revolution where we cherish direct action like the Boston Tea Party, that this sort of activity is impermissible. Today, Jefferson and Paine would be picked up by the Volkish-sounding Dept. of Homeland Security. It's shameful, but predictable. How often the liberators of yesterday become the oppressors of tomorrow, Bakunin's warning still holds true.

It is right that citizens should be able to protest, but damage caused by attention seekers, agent provocateurs and police/security services is, by accident or design, increasingly going to intimidate those who would like to exercise their legal right to protest peacefully. The more this continues, the harder it will be to make any meaningful public protest against Government action or policy without risking injury or to be taken seriously by the rest of society.

This is a complex issue. The problem is it is often misconstrued. The question of morality is really pretty basic. One cannot compare smashing windows or spraypaint to what Nike and Bechtel, etc. are doing in the third world, which is essentially murder. So, I don't have too many moral reservations. The issue is are these tactics effective? Thats' debateable, and I think, the more relevant issue.

I was reading a report (I think about the Climate Camp, but I need to check) which urged police to regard protestors as citizens exercising their rights, not as criminals waiting to to cause harm. The more restrained approach by police at the last Camp led to better outcome than previous occasions.
It is possible to have legitimate peaceful protest, but I do not think it in the interests of many Governments or those who favour violence over cpersuasion.

You don't convince anyone you are right by force. It is possible to frighten into obedience, but not to win the respect of the voters.

This goes into what I was saying about effectiveness. I think you are too quickly judging these tactics. Take the example of Kitty Genovese, that is us, standing by, forced into complicity by our inaction. As Howard Zinn said "you can't be neutral on a moving train." That has been a core principle of the radical left since the 60's and probably long before. Take the Bhopal disaster caused by union Carbide, 25,000 people or more, or Bechtel taking over all the water in Cochabamba and charging people as much as a quarter of their income just to live, or Chevron which is working with the Nigerian police state. It is no different than the Genovese case, if anything it's far worse. If you stumble upon a woman being brutalized, do you subject her attacker to a referendum? I find it very difficult to condemn the actions of the "Black Bloc" and such.

It is not "Battles on the streets" that most threatens Democracy. It is the silencing of legitimate dissent, and the distance between the policies/agendas of Political Parties and the wishes/needs of the People they are supposed to represent.

True, but the battles in the streets give us a sobering glimpse at the state of our democracy.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Now when I say things like this everybody jumps on me like I'm a bad person.

You must know why that is.

It's a suprme irony that in a country founded on revolution where we cherish direct action like the Boston Tea Party, that this sort of activity is impermissible. Today, Jefferson and Paine would be picked up by the Volkish-sounding Dept. of Homeland Security. It's shameful, but predictable. How often the liberators of yesterday become the oppressors of tomorrow, Bakunin's warning still holds true.

Yes, because liberators represent the powerless/underdog/victim in a situation. Then the liberators gain power, and victimize others in turn. This is human nature, these are the wages of power, and this will never change.

Unless we evolve just a little bit more, all this is a rather pointless (though at times noble) exercise in self expression.

This is a complex issue. The problem is it is often misconstrued. The question of morality is really pretty basic. One cannot compare smashing windows or spraypaint to what Nike and Bechtel, etc. are doing in the third world, which is essentially murder. So, I don't have too many moral reservations. The issue is are these tactics effective? Thats' debateable, and I think, the more relevant issue.

I agree, property damage is nothing compared to murderous business practices. The ONLY issue is effectiveness; everything else is a meaningless tantrum that hurts your cause. This is why "blood running in the streets" as a statement of protest is not only immoral, it's counter-productive, to put it mildly.

This goes into what I was saying about effectiveness. I think you are too quickly judging these tactics. Take the example of Kitty Genovese, that is us, standing by, forced into complicity by our inaction. As Howard Zinn said "you can't be neutral on a moving train." That has been a core principle of the radical left since the 60's and probably long before. Take the Bhopal disaster caused by union Carbide, 25,000 people or more, or Bechtel taking over all the water in Cochabamba and charging people as much as a quarter of their income just to live, or Chevron which is working with the Nigerian police state. It is no different than the Genovese case, if anything it's far worse. If you stumble upon a woman being brutalized, do you subject her attacker to a referendum? I find it very difficult to condemn the actions of the "Black Bloc" and such.

Yes, we are all bystanders to genocide, every single day. There are more murderous corporate entities on this planet, committing terrible crimes, than can effectively be fought by well-intended protestors or conscientious government entities. As for poor Kitty Genovese (may she rest in peace): if you stumble upon a woman being brutalized, you intercede. If you come upon ten women being brutalized, you must immediately get help. If you come upon one hundred women being brutalized, you try to organize immediately. If you come upon one thousand women being brutalized, you are unable to do anything but look on in shock and horror, because the damage is so vast, and the deed so heinous that almost no amount of action by any one individual will do any good in the short term.

What we are dealing with right now is the brutalization of millions. How does a person of conscience deal with this? That is the question for the individual, and for democracy.

 

[shawnxvx]

Now when I say things like this everybody jumps on me like I'm a bad person.

well, i've got your back.

 

[MunchyBrain]

I'm feeling quite disillusioned with protest at the moment, and well, not all protest. It's quite a specific thing.

Basically, I'm disillusioned with protests where the aim is to get publicity and change the publics opinion. I've been gradually coming to the (fairly horrible) realisation that most people are never going to agree with us. Most people at face value think that war is a bad thing. But they're never going to call for the abolition of the global arms trade, not least because that would make our entire economic system collapse. So obviously there's stuff that I can be involved with with these people, but in general, they're never going to want to take it as far as I feel is neccessary, and are probably always going to see me as an evil eco-extremist anarcho.

The recent UK model I like, and I'm not sure how widespread this is in other countries, is the 'target map' model. Here's the most recent one made for Disarm DSEi earlier this month:http://www.dsei.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dsei_city_map_webbig.jpg

It gives everyone a focus, causes a lot of hassle for the cops having to watch over all the targets, and means that if stuff does kick off people don't just start smashing stuff indiscriminately. After 'visiting' BT on the aforementioned Disarm DSEi protest, the group got emails from employees who were concerned about why we were there, because they're told that BT are an ethical company. We were able to inform them that BT hold £59 million worth of shares in the arms trade, probably as part of their pension. Stuff like this has a real impact, because if enough staff object to this, BT will almost definitely be forced to drop their shares.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

You must know why that is.

Must I? (Incidentally, I have an RAF t-shirt.)

Yes, because liberators represent the powerless/underdog/victim in a situation. Then the liberators gain power, and victimize others in turn. This is human nature, these are the wages of power, and this will never change.

Unless we evolve just a little bit more, all this is a rather pointless (though at times noble) exercise in self expression.

I will never accept the "human nature" argument. I think this is a bogus premise. I believe sympathy and empathy are essential componants of the human condition. Morality is part of our evolved behavior patterns, and it's simply logical, Dawkins, and John Nash make pursuasive cases for this. The problem is not people, but people in institutions. It's like that psychology experiment that "The Wave' was based on, I don't think the problem is human nature, but the dehumanizing effects of concentrations of power. Monolithic organizations have their own goals which can be completely contrary to the people inside them. The Cold War is a perfect example. Virtually nobody, or nobody sane, would want to bring the human race to the brink of annihilation, thats' against all our interests, but for the power structure it makes sense. During the Cuban Missle crisis we nearly became extinct, new historical revelations have discovered we came even closer than previously thought, if not for a Russian captain named Vasily Arkhipov who had the sense not to return fire, we wouldn't be here. It's like Rand's "ethical egoism", the inherent logical fallacy is that people have seperate interests, that we are devided into these categories. If I go 10 kilometers past the Canadian border, are human beings so different? Of course not. Nation states and other divisions are just arbitrary lines created by tyrants and bureaucrats.
As Maz Weber said, again, paraphrasing, the most fundamental definition of the state is the body which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory.

I agree, property damage is nothing compared to murderous business practices. The ONLY issue is effectiveness; everything else is a meaningless tantrum that hurts your cause. This is why "blood running in the streets" as a statement of protest is not only immoral, it's counter-productive, to put it mildly.

Counterproductive, maybe. I cannot condemn it morally.

Yes, we are all bystanders to genocide, every single day. There are more murderous corporate entities on this planet, committing terrible crimes, than can effectively be fought by well-intended protestors or conscientious government entities. As for poor Kitty Genovese (may she rest in peace): if you stumble upon a woman being brutalized, you intercede. If you come upon ten women being brutalized, you must immediately get help. If you come upon one hundred women being brutalized, you try to organize immediately. If you come upon one thousand women being brutalized, you are unable to do anything but look on in shock and horror, because the damage is so vast, and the deed so heinous that almost no amount of action by any one individual will do any good in the short term.

I have to disagree with that last part, I have to believe the individual matters, that our choices matter.

What we are dealing with right now is the brutalization of millions. How does a person of conscience deal with this? That is the question for the individual, and for democracy.

The sooner we come up with the answers the better.

 

[troubleluvsme]

protesting has become useless. well, it kinda has always been useless.

Let's hope you're right about protesting being useless, I happen to love juice.

 

[Anaesthesine]

Must I? (Incidentally, I have an RAF t-shirt.)

Don't be coy.

I will never accept the "human nature" argument. I think this is a bogus premise. I believe sympathy and empathy are essential componants of the human condition. Morality is part of our evolved behavior patterns, and it's simply logical, Dawkins, and John Nash make pursuasive cases for this. The problem is not people, but people in institutions. It's like that psychology experiment that "The Wave' was based on, I don't think the problem is human nature, but the dehumanizing effects of concentrations of power. Monolithic organizations have their own goals which can be completely contrary to the people inside them. The Cold War is a perfect example. Virtually nobody, or nobody sane, would want to bring the human race to the brink of annihilation, thats' against all our interests, but for the power structure it makes sense. During the Cuban Missle crisis we nearly became extinct, new historical revelations have discovered we came even closer than previously thought, if not for a Russian captain named Vasily Arkhipov who had the sense not to return fire, we wouldn't be here. It's like Rand's "ethical egoism", the inherent logical fallacy is that people have seperate interests, that we are devided into these categories. If I go 10 kilometers past the Canadian border, are human beings so different? Of course not. Nation states and other divisions are just arbitrary lines created by tyrants and bureaucrats.
As Maz Weber said, again, paraphrasing, the most fundamental definition of the state is the body which holds a monopoly on violence in a given territory.

Interestingly, I just heard a scientist expounding on this very subject; the biological emperative of human empathy and a morality based on empathy. He persuaded, but he did not convince. Empathy is part of our essential makeup, but it can be and usually is overridden by greed and fear. The oppressed become the oppressor - it's part of the inevitable cycle of corruption and power that has fueled human events ever since we first conglomerated. This point can be argued endlessly, of course. Good for you for championing the bright side of our nature.

Counterproductive, maybe. I cannot condemn it morally.

Really? You cannot condemn the spilling of blood on moral grounds? That seems a little counterintuitive when you say your political goal is peace and justice.

I have to disagree with that last part, I have to believe the individual matters, that our choices matter.

Of course our choices matter, but one person cannot change the course of overwhelming death and destruction. We must each behave ethically and morally, but we must be aware that our individual choices cannot change the course of a terrible injustice. This is why collective action is necessary, even when it seems unnecessarily slow and cumbersome. No amount of individual actions will have as much effect as focused, collective action, which unfortunately takes time.

The sooner we come up with the answers the better.

Amen.

 

[HIM]

If I were up to it, I'd be there, myself.

Now when I say things like this everybody jumps on me like I'm a bad person.

don't be confused. it's because you're at home, wearing your 501s and enjoying your xbox while encouraging other people to read naomi klein and destroy the military-industrial complex by way of 'cogent argument' on the internet.

 

[nogodsnomasters85]

Don't be coy.

No promises.

Interestingly, I just heard a scientist expounding on this very subject; the biological emperative of human empathy and a morality based on empathy. He persuaded, but he did not convince. Empathy is part of our essential makeup, but it can be and usually is overridden by greed and fear. The oppressed become the oppressor - it's part of the inevitable cycle of corruption and power that has fueled human events ever since we first conglomerated. This point can be argued endlessly, of course. Good for you for championing the bright side of our nature.

But what is the source? That is the disagreement. I really have difficulty believing this "Lord of the Flies" human nature nonsense. For example, I personally am poor working class, but I'm a minority in an affluent suburban town. While there are a lot of rich snobs and assholes, there is virtually no violent crime. It's a perfect example. Just like how 75% of the New York prison inmates were found to have originated from the same slums. It's the environment that makles the difference. It's the factionalism and exploitation, deprivation, etc., resulting from artificial constructs which devide us and pit us against eachother. It all ultimately goes back to the three primary sources, private economic institutions, religion, and the state.

Really? You cannot condemn the spilling of blood on moral grounds? That seems a little counterintuitive when you say your political goal is peace and justice.

It may be counterintuitive to peace but it may be justice. Who weeps for Ted Bundy? Not that I don't have objections to the death penalty, but just as an example. Now, if we apply the same standard, and the principles established at Nuremberg, etc... Henry Kissinger is a mass murderer on a scale that puts Bundy to shame. Or, for another example, uprisings against dictators, attempts to kill Hitler, etc., are judged as permissible, even noble.
Just postulating.

Of course our choices matter, but one person cannot change the course of overwhelming death and destruction. We must each behave ethically and morally, but we must be aware that our individual choices cannot change the course of a terrible injustice. This is why collective action is necessary, even when it seems unnecessarily slow and cumbersome. No amount of individual actions will have as much effect as focused, collective action, which unfortunately takes time.

But that collective action cannot be limited to the ballot. Nine tenths of it must be in the streets. Look at women's rights, civil rights, etc., with few exceptions, like for instance when the British got rid of slavery, these big social justice movements are driven by external pressure. Monarchs, bureaucrats, politicians, etc., rarely say "Oh, we've been too selfish, we need to be nicer to the little people." or whatever. That doesn't happen. People have to push back, and then the established authority aligns itself. The force, the energy comes from without. Democracy is more than checking little boxes in a cubicle, it is a dynamic, social process.

 

[shawnxvx]

Let's hope you're right about protesting being useless, I happen to love juice.

what is that from?

i love juice! apple, cranberry and orange are tops.

 

[troubleluvsme]

what is that from?

i love juice! apple, cranberry and orange are tops.

I don't know where it's from, but I'm thinkin' that it's Jews (and not juice) they don't like.

 

[shawnxvx]

I don't know where it's from, but I'm thinkin' that it's Jews (and not juice) they don't like.

well i like jews and juice, but not gin and juice.

 

[troubleluvsme]

well i like jews and juice, but not gin and juice.

I like Jews and juice
and
gin and tonic.