February 2, 2002

10:08 AM

So what happened?News from New York. A banner was unfurled (somewhere - nobody really saw it). A Starbucks had an incomprehensible something spray painted on a window. A few people protested cheap kakhi's at the Gap (I passed this one on the way to a meeting and, ironically, some appeared to be wearing Gap clothes). The Falun Gong exercised outside, but on the whole this week has turned into a non-protest ... with the 10,000 that organizers expected turning into about 500. Has the anti-globalization movement had the life drained from it by Sept. 11? Is this just a temporary lull?
posted by MidasMulligan (47 comments total)

Most of the people who protest at these THINGS tend to have a really briefly passionate and ultimately paper-thin commitment. The real drive behind spray-painting a McDonald's is very rarely anger at global consumerism, more often the desire to protest for the experience of doing it.
Most people I think, who want real change, realize the futility of complaining about the Gap. It looks silly for a reason. I'm not surprised few had the stones to whine in the current culture of New York.
posted by dong_resin at 10:22 AM on February 2, 2002

nother reason, perhaps. The meetings were purposely held in NY because it was felt there would be less of a chance for outrageous behavior because of what had taken place Sept 11. and protesters by and large are such nice idealists that they would be too guilt-ridden to further make NY a "target." It worked.
posted by Postroad at 10:39 AM on February 2, 2002

I think the Seattle WTO protests, along with the subsequent IMF/World Bank protests in DC and Prague and Genoa demonstrations, did a lot to raise awareness (apologies for that vastly overused phrase) of the downside of corporate led globalization. The corporate media has done quite well at labeling the movement "anti-globalization", which it is not; it is anti corporate-led globalization, a very important distinction.

I think the move to NYC for the meetings was a brilliant stroke by the WEF. They hoped, and were right, that demonstrators would be smart enough to know that to go up against New York's finest post 9-11 would be media suicide.

What I can't stomach, though, are the references to "violent protesters". In every single case since and including the Seattle protests, it was the police who escalated the situation, out of confusion, panic, or belligerence, and a handful (yes, handful) of fuckwit demonstrators who started smashing stuff up in response.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:48 AM on February 2, 2002

you should see the american flags spray painted on the sidewalks near where the wtcs stood. some are coated with glitter, others were just regular flags. kind of sad that it took something like this for people to recognize their heritage and be true americans.
posted by Kafei at 10:59 AM on February 2, 2002

What on earth would spray-painting a flag have to do with being a "true american?"
posted by argybarg at 11:14 AM on February 2, 2002

um, you have to spray-paint a flag to be an american! you didn't read the manual!
posted by rhyax at 11:44 AM on February 2, 2002

" ... The meetings were purposely held in NY because it was felt there would be less of a chance for outrageous behavior because of what had taken place Sept 11 ..."

" ... I think the move to NYC for the meetings was a brilliant stroke by the WEF. They hoped, and were right, that demonstrators would be smart enough to know that to go up against New York's finest post 9-11 would be media suicide..."

Well, I can tell you personally that this is simply incorrect. I know some of the organizers ... this was moved to New York with the quite genuine intention of demonstrating solidarity. In fact, it was a massive pain to move it - it had been held in Davos for a quarter century, and the logistics of moving the huge operation it takes to put it on halfway around the world was no easy feat. Many of the people at the WEF lost friends in the WTC. The assumption is also incorrect ... the organizers aren't going to arrange location based on minimizing protest - it is moving back to Davos next year. Protests are taken into account, but aren't soimportant that all of their planning revolves around avoiding them.

" ... The corporate media has done quite well at labeling the movement "anti-globalization", which it is not; it is anti corporate-led globalization, a very important distinction..."

Not certain about either of these points (either that it is a "movement", or that there is a big distinction between "anti-globalization" and "anti-corporate globalization").

The "movement" is really a big pile of seperate groups that really have no relation to each other. The protests are, in fact, a place where it is simply mutually convenient for a variety of groups to combine to appear much bigger than they are. But simply because they show up together doesn't mean they have similar goals ... witness the labor unions that are lobbying to open up drilling in the wilderness protesting next to the Sierra Club.

So far as globalization, well, there is no globalization without "corporate" globalization. People putting on puppet shows and street theatre don't build global telecommunications networks, transportation systems, and media infrastructures. In fact, all of the means the protesters use to protest ... from travelling to locations, organizing the protests, and getting their word out to the world ... were all built, and are run, by big corporations. It is kind of funny to hear a complaint about the "corporate media" ... these people spend a good deal of time figuring out how to use the "corporate media" for their own ends. And then complain when it doesn't portray them exactly as they wish.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:46 AM on February 2, 2002

the organizers aren't going to arrange location based on minimizing protest -

like the WTO meeting in Qatar? I'm sure that had nothing to do with protest. I'm not saying that minimizing protests is the only reason the WEF moved to NYC, but to deny it was a consideration is simply silly.

The "movement" is really a big pile of seperate groups that really have no relation to each other.

As with any movement, disparate groups make common cause over larger issues.

The protests are, in fact, a place where it is simply mutually convenient for a variety of groups to combine to appear much bigger than they are.

No, in fact, 50,000 people is 50,000 people.

So far as globalization, well, there is no globalization without "corporate" globalization.

This is opinion stated as fact. Corporate led globalization involves putting markets and investment protections before political modernization, something that is increasingly being recognized as inherently unstable and unrealistic, not to mention unjust.

People putting on puppet shows and street theatre don't build global telecommunications networks, transportation systems, and media infrastructures.

Many people involved in organizing the protests work for technology groups and NGOs involved in political modernization in the developing world. But this was probably just your attempt at cheap humor.

In fact, all of the means the protesters use to protest ... from travelling to locations, organizing the protests, and getting their word out to the world ... were all built, and are run, by big corporations.

Aside from the fact that this is just a repeat of what passed for analysis in the wake of the protests ("and, isn't it ironic, the protesters used CELL PHONES! Ha ha ha.") much of the technology you reference (airline travel, internet, cell technology) was seeded by the government (re: the public) and then handed over to corporations who, admittedly, made some pretty fantastic innovations. But it's still silly to imply that using something manufactured by a corporation somehow discredits protests against the way corporations do business.

these people spend a good deal of time figuring out how to use the "corporate media" for their own ends. And then complain when it doesn't portray them exactly as they wish.

Agreed. But who doesn't complain about how the media portray them?
posted by Ty Webb at 12:18 PM on February 2, 2002

MidasMulligan: I thought the plane was invented by the Wright Bros., not a major corporation. Also, you're forgetting Uncle Sam and the Internet, technology developed during the space program, etc.
posted by raysmj at 12:19 PM on February 2, 2002

MidasMulligan, some of the movers and shakers in the "globalization" movement accepted another invitation this weekend instead. Read the MetaFilter description of the World Social Forum 2000 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and then tell us if you think the "movement" has disappeared. (Want an an insider's perspective on what makes the "movement" tick, like that CFR meeting? Y'all have my e-mail. You might be surprised, Midas.)

It's also worth checking out a bit of what John Arquilla has to say, on Fathom and the Rand site. Maybe the terceristas oughta nominate him for an honorary degree.
posted by sheauga at 1:37 PM on February 2, 2002

Fizzle. Pop. Looks like the disaffected kids have moved on to the newest fad...
posted by owillis at 1:42 PM on February 2, 2002

Well first you got to seperate real protestors from people who just want to fight and break stuff. Seattle was loaded with the latter I feel, it seems like they didn't want to show up this time though.
posted by thirdball at 1:49 PM on February 2, 2002

Owillis, dong_resin, you've got it wrong. The globalisation debate is not a fad, it's part of all our lives, has been for years and will be for years. People move in and out of any number of philosophies- Christianity, vegetarianism, conservatism - but that doesn't make them any less valid. And September 11th doesn't mean that suddenly globalised capitalism is a-okay.

What, people are complaining now that protests in New York have been peaceful? You're *upset* that protesters have had decency and respect, that many have stayed away with reverence to those that lost their lives? Shameful. We should congratulate the anti-globalisation lobby for having some decorum, not sneer at them.

Meanwhile, as other posters have mentioned, we should question the motives of the WEF not just for having the meeting but for moving it to New York.
posted by skylar at 2:19 PM on February 2, 2002

skylar: actually, I'm saying the people who showed up are actually the ones who care, who can probably do the most on the issue versus the ones mindlessly chanting slogans and smashing windows - a good thing
posted by owillis at 2:53 PM on February 2, 2002

I mingled with some of the 1999 WTO protestors, and they were just a bunch of disaffected kids from the `burbs. It's certainly possible that there is a wider group than the ones I met, but I didn't see any personally. I was really underwhelmed. The little "revolution for the hell of it" rant on my profile is actually a gibe at them.
posted by dong_resin at 3:11 PM on February 2, 2002

“this week has turned into a non-protest”

Well hey, that’s bullshit. Unless you define protest as a police riot.

The fact is this protest was a massive success. In fact, it’s gone from last year’s massive moblization in Davos to New York and returned to Porto Alegre—it’s bigger and more global than ever. The facts seems to belie your incredibly narrow vision of globalization. What a sad world it would be if only corporations could benefit from globalization. Perhaps your view seems to speak more to what corporate globalists want, more than to what is beneficial.

The World Social Forum was by all accounts the biggest yet (didn’t see much of that in the news), the Students for Global Justice up at Columbia attracted over a thousand participants (didn’t see that get covered either) and 20,000 protestors in the streets shed light on the WEF. When a forum of politicians and CEOs become a household name—instead of meeting in near-secrecy at a ski resort in Switzerland—that is a success.

That they didn’t break any windows seems to mean to you they aren’t getting their message across—which probably has more to do with your limited definition of protest and solidifies the continuing success of the fair trade movement.
posted by raaka at 3:36 PM on February 2, 2002

"The protests are, in fact, a place where it is simply mutually convenient for a variety of groups to combine to appear much bigger than they are.

No, in fact, 50,000 people is 50,000 people. "

Yes. And 500 is 500. If huge numbers mean great interest, don't small numbers mean lack of interest?

"Read the MetaFilter description of the World Social Forum 2000 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and then tell us if you think the "movement" has disappeared. "

Did read it. Have followed the shadow meetings as closely as the meetings themselves. Doesn't seem to be having the slightest effect on the world however.

"I'm not saying that minimizing protests is the only reason the WEF moved to NYC, but to deny it was a consideration is simply silly.

Meanwhile, as other posters have mentioned, we should question the motives of the WEF not just for having the meeting but for moving it to New York."

Question away, disparage motives, and call it silly, but at least in this instance you're just wrong. In fact one of the arguments against holding it in New York was the thought that NY is much more accessible to large numbers of people, and the opportunities for mischief are much greater (much easier to get lost in crowds after actions, many more icons of "capitalism" to protest, etc., etc.). The expectation was that greater numbers would appear in NY than in Davos.

"What, people are complaining now that protests in New York have been peaceful? You're *upset* that protesters have had decency and respect, that many have stayed away with reverence to those that lost their lives? Shameful. We should congratulate the anti-globalisation lobby for having some decorum, not sneer at them."

Er, no. The big news of the week - and the topic of this thread - seemed (to me) to be the remarkable lack of turnout. I suspect the WEF, the NY Police, and the protest organizers themselves were all expecting something much bigger. And further, if large turnouts at previous conferences are taken to be big news (and used as a justification for the strength of the "movement"), then certainly the stunning lack of turnout is also news ... yes?

What I was wondering about is why it was so small ... whether this was a temporary anomoly, or signalled a permananent shift. The couple of people sympathetic to protests that bothered to actually address this automatically conclude (though with what evidence I don't know) that of course it was entirely because of pure intentions and respect for the citizens of New York. If this is true, it's certainly a good thing ... as they certainly haven't shown much respect for the citizens of Seattle, Davos, or Genoa. But I'm just not sure if this explains things.
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:53 PM on February 2, 2002

You know why it was so small. These people have hearts. They understand that respect must be shown to the people of New York.

The only way you'd be surprised at the lack of violence in New York is if you had only seen past protests through the eyes of the media, the same media which so joyfully and perversely gorge themselves on even the smallest incident of disquiet at any such event. As anyone who has attended an anti-globalisation or anti-war demonstration will know, the majority of all these protesters is peaceful (though it is the pathetic violent minority which grabs the headlines).

As for "respect for the citizens of ...Genoa", MidasMulligan, it was arguably the Italian government authorities that lacked respect for the people of Genoa, building walls across the city which acted as exclusion zones, closing businesses down on a fairly ad-hoc basis and storming in, ransacking buildings and beating people with truncheons. So established was the fact of the Italian mishandling of affairs that members of the British cabinet made protestations to their Italian counterparts.

I think it's also entirely plausible that September 11th has knocked the wind out of protesters, both for fear of being labelled terrorists and for fear of being perceived as disrespectful to other human beings at an extremely sensitive time. But I don't think by any means we've heard the last of the cause. In fact, as recession bites and the arms / war industry is cranked up as an economy-booster, I think you'll find more people getting sceptical about capitalist politics.
posted by skylar at 4:40 PM on February 2, 2002

IMHO, a lot of the loss of momentum in the anti-globalisation movent or anti-corporate movement or whatever you want to call it has to do with a number of factors.
First, lay observers of all the this hoo-hah are quite frankly confused as to what the protester's exact greivances are, other than a general antipathy to large corporations. Not to metion what they'd concievably posit as an alternative.
Also, speaking as someone who has been following closely and who has something of a novel perspective* on the whole situation, I'm quite frankly ragingly ambivalent about both sides in this particular battle. On one side you've got a bunch of folks who want to firebomb the Gap, on the other a bunch of people who want to build a Gap in Somalia. Pardon me if neither side sounds too appealing.
I remeber a couple years ago, overhearing this guy saying that eventually there would be clash between those who want the world run by governments and those who want the world run by corporations. I turned around and asked him, what about those of us who don't trust either? He nodded a few times and shrugged but had no answer.
And, my man Dong Resin is correct that there is a large "disaffected 'burb kid" contingent in these protests, who only dimly understand the issues involved. If the y were smart dissafected kids theyd be hanging out on MeFi where they could learn something.

* I've been a low level service grunt for several very large corporations(one of which I treid to unionize, but thats another story)as well as a few independent companies. So depending how charitable you're feeling, I'm either a victim of Corporate America or one of it's lackeys. Dealers Choice, I guess.
posted by jonmc at 4:42 PM on February 2, 2002

Violent protests are newsworthy, but not for the reason the protestors would like. Nonviolent protests are not newsworthy. They're boring. Nonviolent protests where fewer people show than are expected might be slightly newsworthy, but again not for the reason the protestors would like.

If the media's official and/or unofficial editorial processes disagree with the messages of the protests, they will simply not be heard. I don't see how protesting, violently or otherwise, is useful to anyone concerned.

Protesting against corporate interests is impossible, since the media is in itself a corporate megaconglomerate.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:30 PM on February 2, 2002

there is a large "disaffected 'burb kid" contingent in these protests, who only dimly understand the issues involved. If the y were smart dissafected kids theyd be hanging out on MeFi where they could learn something.

and accomplish, what by that, exactly, jonmc? eventually don't you have to hit the streets and actually do something?
posted by palegirl at 5:36 PM on February 2, 2002

palegirl - that part of the comment was basically a joke. But, since you asked, yeah obviously you do. But you should avoid making political stances based on what looks cool from the outside, or what seems to offer the easiest answer, or before giving the oppsitions viewpoint a serious going over, if only for the purpose of knowing what to refute.
I'm personally of the opinion that much of the turmoil in the world is caused by human nature, not politics. In other words, human beings, given the power to oppress generally become oppressors. Which is perhaps what alienates me from most "activists" whatever their political persuasion. As the great Mr. Townshend put it "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss"
As someone who's been involved in a couple of movements or protests or whatever you wanna call 'em, I've basically seen my hopes dashed by human nature and my disappointment in so-called leaders to put much stock in anyones brave new world. Maybe that's cynicism, maybe it's just creeping maturity(perish the thought), I dunno.

BTW, how's the captain's bruise?
posted by jonmc at 5:51 PM on February 2, 2002

The only way you'd be surprised at the lack of violence in New York...

Um, could someone point out where anyone in this thread is surprised by the lack of violence? I believe the surprise MidasMulligan expresses is w/r/t the number of protesters, not their demeanor.

And what's up with that, anyway? Where'd everyone go?
posted by dchase at 5:58 PM on February 2, 2002

The only things you can get crowds of people in New York to gather for, in nasty weather, is the Thanksgiving Day Parade and the Times Square New Year's Eve shindig. The weather has been particularly nasty since Wednesday.

If the protesters had been hoping for the masses of NYU and Columbia to rise up and join them, I guess they didn't realize most of us have been keeping ourselves warm and dry, as most smart people do in February in NYC.
posted by meep at 6:24 PM on February 2, 2002

I'd argue that hitting the streets only to be regarded as targets by cops, very mild irritants by what you're protesting, and as overprivlaged loonies by most everyone else isn't accomplishing much. Not buying all of those expensive name brands I saw on parade maybe would have accomplished a bit more.
posted by dong_resin at 6:32 PM on February 2, 2002

dongresin - off course staying home and getting drunk would accomplish even more.

I hereby found (DAG)Drunks Against Globalisation. you can be vice-president. UncleFes will be treasurer.
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on February 2, 2002

addendum - before anyone acusses me of championing apathy, I offer this quote:

"Apathy and withdrawal in disgust are not the same"
- Richard Linklater
posted by jonmc at 6:42 PM on February 2, 2002

As long as there's porn.
posted by dong_resin at 6:57 PM on February 2, 2002

Ha- an even more offensive analysis.

"If huge numbers mean great interest, don't small numbers mean lack of interest?"

Not necessarily. "Party at Ground Zero!" isn't exactly a big draw.

First, the out-of-towners. Out here in "flyover land," we have plenty of rank-and-file workers without personal friends in NY who simply can't afford to spend the night near Manhattan. MidasMulligan, since you're a Manhattan dweller, take a deep breath and ask yourself whether the demographics of Red and Blue America might indeed make us "One Nation, Slightly Divisible." Many disaffected individuals are out of work right now, and aren't going anyplace these days. (It's starting to look like that extension of unemployment benefits we keep hearing about won't take place until after the initial wave of 9-11 layoffs has dropped off the eligibility list. This does not bode well.)

Second, I'd like to believe that mass globalization demonstrations were an "anomaly," and that kinder, gentler corporations have suddenly come up with a way to make good on the Earth Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

However ... We're preparing for bioterrorist attack, and people like Kitzhaber still can't get consensus for universal health coverage within the general US population, much less within the insurance industry. Skip sweatshops, forget all the people washing dishes in NY who couldn't get back home after 9-11 because their "out-of-status" ID papers didn't permit bus / plane travel between cities, and ignore the fact that the "School of the Americas" isn't something its victims tend to forget.

If you consult the Magic-8-Ball!, it's going to affirm that governing from below remains the uncivil strategy for a civil society. Fizzled out in NYC for now, a blessed moment of lull. But Argentina shows that there does come a point where globalization doesn't mean idealistic college kid protesters any more. We can implement necessary reforms, or wait till things get real bad.

For all we know, the UN and Santa Fe people are right- informal networks and strange attractors can take up some of the slack for big organizations in an increasingly chaotic world. (Robert Kaplan reached similar conclusions in "The Coming Anarchy." Isolated local solutions may be the best we can hope for.)

MidasMulligan, Please don't tell the protesters in Porto Alegre that they're not accomplishing anything! We want the Americas to remain a culture where protest and open political activities are a viable alternative to organizing terrorist cells.
posted by sheauga at 7:15 PM on February 2, 2002

I'm personally of the opinion that much of the turmoil in the world is caused by human nature, not politics. In other words, human beings, given the power to oppress generally become oppressors.

well exactly - that's the whole point. We, the citizens, have to check the power of those in control, both in the government and in large corporations. I went up to the rally this morning for a couple hours; speakers in general weren't that good and there were a lot random groups (pro-palestine, mumia, women's issues, etc) who took the mic, not addressing the central issue of concern at all.

However, I still wanted my presence logged as one who would like to keep the eye of the people on the practices of global corporations. I'm not saying they don't do anything worthwhile, or that they should be completely shut down, or anything like that - but just that they not be run by greed alone, that the long term effects of their actions be roundly considered, and that the efforts of NGOs & gov't think tanks be allowed to blossom without a company effectively taking over a region.

Of course it's all pretty complicated, and of course there are lots of people who just kinda get swept up in the "we'll make the world better" feeling without really figuring out what they want to work toward, but I don't think that makes their involvement meaningless. It's still hope for a better world, which may be naive, but it's no worse than sitting around bitching but convinced there's nothing you can do.
posted by mdn at 8:10 PM on February 2, 2002

"Please don't tell the protesters in Porto Alegre that they're not accomplishing anything!"

Er, what are they accomplishing? They are meeting. But (as corporations well know) a meeting is not a product or service, and statements and proclaimations don't put bread on anyone's table nor a roof over their heads.

Not being snippy here ... I really have a hard time understanding what the output is. There are people starving all over the world (for instance). Say what you will about corporations ... they do produce output, and a lot of that output (like, for instance, food) enriches people's lives. The only solutions to the problems of the world I've heard from protesters generally amounts to trying to get corporations to change how they act ... but I really don't see them producing anything themselves.

Ralph Nader may get automakers to think about gas milage a bit, but he doesn't build cars. Barry Commoner can publish all the idiocy he wants (in respected, peer-reviewed science journals like, er, Harpers), but I don't see him actually growing food. Noam Chomsky may do - well, whatever the hell it is he does - but critisizing productive people is not what feeds, clothes, houses, and educates the world.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:11 PM on February 2, 2002

Was anybody involved in this discussion there? Was anybody reading actually there? I'm not about to swallow that "500" -- what did it look like to you?
posted by sudama at 8:38 PM on February 2, 2002

mdn - I've visited a rally or two in my day and I always felt like the various speakers were pushing a contract under my nose and saying, "sign here. don't bother reading it, just sign. who's side are you on anyway. By the same token, at a number of the low-level corporate jobs I mentioned earlier, by the time my orientation was done, I felt like I had just joined the moonies.
Now obviously, it's good to hope for a better world and I don't mean to sound like I'm shitting on everyones parade. But, I spent a good portion of my youth convinced that either the government or the corporations were fucking things up irreparably and that they should be held in check some how.
However. everytime I met with or read the work of somebody who claimed to offer an alternative(anti-globalism protesters, culture jammers, marxists, freeper-types, techno-libertarian capitalists, whatever); they all seemed like they'd be just as tyrannical and paranoid if they were given the rains.
Do I like the status quo? of course not. But I don't like the other dishes at the political buffet either.
In the words of Michael Stipe:

"Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline..."

OK no more quotes, I promise.
posted by jonmc at 8:45 PM on February 2, 2002

adam, for what it's worth, the only large massing of people I've seen all week all over town has been the cops on every street corner. it's been a non-event, for the most part.
posted by anildash at 9:05 PM on February 2, 2002

" ... Was anybody involved in this discussion there? Was anybody reading actually there? I'm not about to swallow that "500" -- what did it look like to you? ..."

Saturday may have had a couple of thousand (to be really liberal with numbers). But most of the week has only seen a few hundred here, a few hundred there. The articles I've read so far (including the ones quoted to start this thread) haven't mentioned more than a few hundred.

I've walked past a few of the rallies, and haven't personally seen more than a couple of hundred.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:28 PM on February 2, 2002

MidasMulligan: But (as corporations well know) a meeting is not a product or service, and statements and proclaimations don't put bread on anyone's table nor a roof over their heads.

Then why are the corporations (or their heads) meeting? After all, the WEF must serve some purpose, right? If meeting achieves nothing, then the corporations and heads of government in attendance should all get back to work - and the protestors would not have anything to worry about. A win-win situation.

Not really - because meeting is valuable. It's valuable to the WEF as a means by which to plan strategy. It's valuable to the protestors as a means by which to demonstrate their opposition to the above strategy.

MidasMulligan: Say what you will about corporations ... they do produce output, and a lot of that output (like, for instance, food) enriches people's lives.

Actually, it's the workers who produce the output. It's the corporations who take the profits. And it's the consumers who get screwed by high prices. Believe it or not, we had food before we had corporations...

MidasMulligan: The only solutions to the problems of the world I've heard from protesters generally amounts to trying to get corporations to change how they act ... but I really don't see them producing anything themselves.

You're right - the way corporations act is the fundamental problem here. But how do you make them change? You certainly can't rely on government, because they're all hung up on the free-trade kick at the moment and are quite keen to hand over the reins to corporate interests. (The Cheney-Enron meetings are a case in point.)

You make them change by telling them you think they suck. And you do that by withdrawing your support for their products (where possible - monopolies or near-monopolies make it difficult) and by protesting. If enough people gather in one place and say "fuck you and fuck what you stand for", then corporations, government and the general public will stop and think "hmm, something's going on here..."

And that's what the protestors are producing - dissent. It's not as tangible as, say, a car, but it's vital to the proper functioning of a democracy.
posted by robcorr at 12:29 AM on February 3, 2002

I was there today, and judging from past protests, there must have been a couple thousand people there. It was cold, damned cold. The media campaigns constantly reported the police presence and the threat of violence, and a lot of people were intimidated and scared to be there. And the police was complicit in this intimidation campaign by inviting the press to the police anti-demonstration training exercises up at Shea Stadium so there would be pictures in the papers of big, surly 6'3" cops in full-on riot gear. The thing is the police around the perimiter of the rally were just the average-looking ones, and I'm sure closer to the Waldorf-Astoria was where you would find the big means ones with machine guns.

We exercised our right to assemble, but it was severely restricted - we were penned in behind gates that only allowed us to occupy a third to a half of the avenues and streets, which was a very narrow space to walk down and separated/extended the entire group. (The more surface area the easier to control us...) The police slowed down our marching speed, quite often to the point of not moving at all - it was planned, with the goal of exhausting us physically and psychologically - the snail's pace and stop/start/stop/start really took a toll on the energy level in the crowd, but everyone trudged on. At the conclusion of the rally, there was no main space for everyone to occupy, it was still the narrow fenced-in spaces that took over a couple of blocks for everyone to fit into, which sort of limited how the group could have assembled. I know that was the point - but I guess the problem is: how do you define the right to peacefully assemble?

as a side note: I've found it really odd (but completely logical) that there has been at least one cop stationed outside every Starbucks, McDonalds and Gap 24 hours a day since Wednesday. During the rally, we walked by two Starbucks, each with at least 3 officers in front. It baffled - baffled me that people could actually have the nerve to be sitting inside one while thousands of protestors walked by chanting and yelling. I know you can have faith in the police, that you can really love Starbucks so much that you're there as a sign of support, but to be sitting in a place that you know is the most likely to have a rock thrown through its window is just idiocy.
posted by panopticon at 1:21 AM on February 3, 2002

but to be sitting in a place that you know is the most likely to have a rock thrown through its window is just idiocy

I don't like to use the word lightly, but isn't standing up and doing the things you usually do in the face of an irrationally violent act just like standing up to a form of terrorism? Hmm?
posted by owillis at 1:53 AM on February 3, 2002

Shame on you, Oliver, for equating a brick through the window (in fact, a brick that was never thrown) with the attack on the WTC. That's exactly the sort of thing Panopticon was challenging by criticising sensationalist media.

By all accounts, this has been a peaceful protest. Maybe we can get off the topic of violence, because there has been no evidence (apart from paranoid police and hyperbolic newsmedia) that anything of the sort will occur.
posted by robcorr at 2:05 AM on February 3, 2002

I never said the WTC, that would be silly. But a brick through a window of an establishment is meant to intimidate or terrorize the workers/owners of said establishment, isn't it? Not all "terrorism" is of the grand scale of 9.11.

This definition would seem to fit the bill well. And if you read my earlier comment, you would see that I feel that the people who are protesting now are doing a whole hell of a lot more than earlier rabble-rousers.
posted by owillis at 2:22 AM on February 3, 2002

Dictionary definitions aside, owillis, the nice thing about terrorism is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean depending on where you're standing. This has been the long-running problem between Israel and Palestine, both of whom feel that the other side is terrorising them. If you worked in a sweatshop in an export processing zone, being paid only a tiny fraction of a living wage, being forced to work extraordinarily long shifts and being threatened with violence by your superiors, you may feel you're being terrorised. But when someone throws a brick through the window of Niketown or Gap, that's terrorism as well.
posted by skylar at 3:22 AM on February 3, 2002

And I don't disagree with you either. Both actions are bad, it's not an either/or for me.
posted by owillis at 3:32 AM on February 3, 2002

The degree of polarisation in these threads always interests me. It's as if none of us can have common cause. I would like to have a discussion about globalisation sometime in the spirit of co-operative investigation, rather than all trying to score our particular point whilst holding our hands tightly over our ears. Globalisation is something which will affect us all, for good or bad. Some of the possibilities are positive and some negative. But any changes we are able to make, as individuals, must start from understanding of each others position and the choices which are actually possible. Otherwise compromise can never be reached. I'm not saying this to be preachy: amongst all the propaganda, I find it hard to understand what the real issues are.
posted by walrus at 3:55 AM on February 3, 2002

"I never said the WTC, that would be silly."

Would it? I know that whenever I hear the word terrorist now, I have a mental image of Osama bin Laden and his organisation. The term "terrorism" obviously has a wider meaning, but in the current climate its implications make it unsuitable for widespread use.

Unfortunately.
posted by robcorr at 6:36 AM on February 3, 2002

"Please don't tell the protesters in Porto Alegre that they're not accomplishing anything!"
-- Er, what are they accomplishing? They are meeting. But (as corporations well know) a meeting is not a product or service, and statements and proclaimations don't put bread on anyone's table nor a roof over their heads. Not being snippy here ... I really have a hard time understanding what the output is.

The output I'd most prefer from the Porto Alegre meeting would be this: Move it back a few years, and watch a younger Mohammed Atta return with the professional contacts, inspiration, and determination to bring sustainable urban planning to Saudi Arabia- a cause worth his life's energy.

Perhaps similar outputs can happen thanks to the meeting and protests in NY. Time will tell.
posted by sheauga at 9:44 AM on February 3, 2002

isn't standing up and doing the things you usually do in the face of an irrationally violent act just like standing up to a form of terrorism?

We're talking about a cup of coffee. at Starbucks. When thousands of anti-globalization / anti-capitalist protestors are right outside the door. I doubt very much that people were in there to spite the protestors, to show them that they are going to enjoy their cup of coffee and that no one is going to stop them. If that were the case, then you would probably have found the Starbucks to be packed with the conservatives anti-demonstrators who were there with signs that said "get therapy." A cup of coffee is petty, and a love for something like Starbucks is sort of, um, irrational. If you don't enjoy your venti triple-caf skim mocachino, the terrorists have already won?

Perhaps this isn't a good analogy, but if a bomb threat was made to your workplace, wouldn't you want to get out of there until things were declared to be safe? Would you stay because you want to show the terrorists that you're not afraid? Why put yourself at risk? was all I was asking...
posted by panopticon at 10:14 PM on February 3, 2002

SatireWire's version of events.
posted by sheauga at 1:36 PM on February 6, 2002