EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY: Copyright Guardian Media Group plc

Police are getting ready for the possibility of rioting in London during a May Day protest against global capitalism that, according to activists, will be "quite different from anything that's gone before". A four-day gathering in London, part of a series of "Mayday2k" events, will include "mayhem and a mass action in London on Monday May 1 to celebrate our diverse struggles against capitalism, exploitation and the destruction of the planet", says a website.

Rioting during last year's June 18 event brought chaos to the City of London, and there were clashes between police and protesters at London's Euston station on November 30 during a day of action against the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle. Reclaim The Streets, the group behind those two protests in London, says on its website: "Yes, RTS people have agreed we'll [do] something, but we haven't had the idea yet. Whatever the press say, we intend it to be quite different from anything that's gone before."

Discussions, parties and publicity-seeking events will be held across the bank holiday weekend, from Friday April 28. Plans, necessarily still vague and sketchy, are being drawn up and posted through e-mail and on the internet. Up to 10,000 protesters, individuals and members of a loose mixture of environmentalist and anti-capitalist groups, could come to London for May 1, the traditional workers' holiday.

Police are making plans involving thousands of officers. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "We are aware that a number of events are being planned. We are working with City of London police, transport police and other agencies as appropriate to ensure the necessary policing arrangements are in place."

Action is expected in cities across the world including Sydney, Toronto, Chicago, New York, Washington DC, and smaller US cities.

"Let's use the energy and contacts from June 18 and November 30 to make this the strongest show of solidarity and resistance yet!" says one website. "This day will thus continue the process of building up a strong, bold, and creative grassroots movement for a society in which people do not exploit or oppress each other, communities or the environment, but one that is based on solidarity, co-operation, grassroots democracy, and ecological sustainability."

A further protest is being planned for September 27-28, linked to a meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Prague.

-- Risteard Mac Thomais (uachtaran@ireland.com), March 08, 2000

Answers

i'm confused. interesting use of the word "global capitalism" when i feel like what the global folks are doing borders more on the order of socialism or pre-totalitarianism. maybe you have to use "capitalism" to bring in this form of government they are seeking?

so are the people organizing the event, socialists who hate capitalism or capitalists who hate what these rich globalists are doing?

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), March 08, 2000.

This particular lot are marxists

the extreme left and right often have the same policies

some "right" wingers want individual nationalist states based on capitalism, others want international capitalism

"left" wingers want international socialism

some think that international socialism and capitalism are the same

there is no black and white in politics even at the extreme edges

-- sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

Some of us just want capitalists and all the other 'ists to simply treat people and the earth with the respect they deserve instead of polluting the water, land and air to maximize profits for corporations. The World Bank and IMF have aided and abetted this carnage since day one.

I feel most of these demonstrations are protesting the gut and run tactics of nations and corporations moving into third world countries, exploiting the natural resources and leaving a trail of degradation and pollution behind.

Some are tired of the global spread of genetically engineered seeds and the "Franken food" products of those seeds. Some are tired of certain countries insisting that other countries buy their chemical laden beef, pork and other products.

I once had a pen pal in Holland, and after I sent her a jar of instant tea, she wrote back and asked me what all the long list of ingredients were on the label that I couldn't even pronounce, much less explain. That was ages ago, but it was my road to enlightenment; at that point I began to investigate what all this stuff was, back when nobody much cared what it was.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 08, 2000.

Of course the greatest polluters were the communISTS,

not taking sides just stating a fact

ugh instant tea or coffee is repulsive why do people buy that stuff whats wrong with the real thing, just as easy to prepare

if you didn't buy it it wouldn't be sold

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

Oh....I get it!! We are all for a gentler kinder people/planet. So we are going to riot, burn, plunder and loot. Kewl!!

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie123@aol.com), March 08, 2000.

extremists do that they call it the end justifying the means

of course not everyone on this forum is an extremist

by "that" i mean burn plunder loot as you put it

-- Sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

Sir Richard, did you miss "That was ages ago, but it was my road to enlightenment; at that point I began to investigate what all this stuff was, back when nobody much cared what it was." Meaning, it was back in the 60's.

I did not *buy* instant tea, or coffee then, now or anytime in between.. My pen pal had mentioned they didn't have such a thing in Holland, so I sent her a jar. Don't be so quick to shoot. Once my mother made some instant coffee, and tried to fool me; I was not fooled. I do not drink slop.

BTW on my last trip to England, I bought enough tea in lovely little tins to last a long time. I now have a pen pal in Gloucestershire.

Concerning communist polluters, you are right, but just because they pollute doesn't mean we should.

Taz, I'm all for a kinder, gentler people/planet. But first, a lot of the rioting at Seattle was by rabble rousers who just wanted to make anybody and everybody look bad, including the protestors, the cops and the organizations.

Second, many times it takes a protest to get the attention of the TV Zombies. If there had never been marches and protests we women would never have had the vote, children would still be working in mills 12 hours a day, blacks would be dangling from trees and all sorts of unfair practices would be considered business as usual. Hell, even the Vietnam war protestors have been vindicated. I didn't March, but I wrote letters and I was there in spirit.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 08, 2000.

Sir Richard, did you miss.........

Yes I think

I did not *buy* instant tea, or coffee then, now or anytime I do not drink slop.

Thank god

BTW on my last trip to England, I bought enough tea in lovely little tins to last a long time. I now have a pen pal in Gloucestershire.

good

Concerning communist polluters, you are right, but just because they pollute doesn't mean we should.

didn't say that

Second, many times it takes a protest to get the attention of the TV Zombies. If there had never been marches and protests we women would never have had the vote.........

Wouldn't say that all the reforms in the world have been due to protest marches and that every protest march has been advocating a policy that is a reform

-- sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

I remember a previous occasion when there was a kind of demonstration variety show in London. One of the groups was campaigning for an end to third world debt. Good stuff! Another group was astronauts against the militarisation of space (or something like that). They didn't quite capture my imagination (or my moral support) in the same way...

I'm not convinced that protest marches are all that efficient, though, and that's a shame. I suppose the best they do is raise awareness somewhat. And as gilda said with regard to the Seattle "riots", they can be sabotaged by troublemakers.

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

Sir Richard, "Of course the greatest polluters were the communISTS, not taking sides...."

You said that.

I *didn't* say that all the reforms have been due to protest marches. But they have helped many times, especially with women's voting rights, civil rights, and when Mary Harris marched from Pennsylvania to President Teddy Roosevelt's home in Oyster Bay, N. Y., capturing his attention, and people's attention concerning the disgrace of child labor.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 08, 2000.

Richard, here's a phrase my old boss used quite often.

"When you're dealing with a Jackass, first you have to get their attention. Next, you get a 2 X 4."

Not meaning you of course!

But sometimes it is hard to catch the public's attention. As someone said on another board, "Thousands of babies and children are routinely abused and killed every year in the U.S., and people say, "Oh, my that's awful." But people don't march in the streets. But unborn, aborted babies cause protests, sit-ins, marches, court decisions, even murder of doctors, and bombing of clinics." That captures attention.

Disclaimer: The above was not posted to incite riots of this BB, flame wars or verbal grenades. IT was only posted to make a point.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 08, 2000.

Point taken, gilda!

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

gilda, my politics: eggsplanation

I do not not consider myself left or right wing so don't engage in this the left/right are wrong/right punch and judy show

I HATE COMMUNISTS (does this make me a fascist) no because

I HATE FASCISTS

I consider the left and right as implemented throughout the 20C as being very alike

the worst dictatorships have been those of the LEFT, which doesn't mean to say there have not been appaling dictatorships of the RIGHT

Do I think that the whites are entirely to blame for racism NO does that make me a racist NO

I think the problem lies with socialism of the right or the left

as I said before the left and right have both got it wrong

-- sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

sir richard:

After reading that explanation of your politics, I'm pretty clear on what you're not (communist, fascist, socialist, racist, right wing, left wing), but I've still got absolutely no idea what you are...

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

you mean to say you don't think there are alternatives to those points of view or labels

I am an individual with a considered opinion on most issues (not all) this opinion may or may not coincide with views of politicians/robot radicals/fanatical followers/ISTS of any persuasion. The problem is that most people have this naive black and white view of the world.

OK lets label everyone and take sides

thats what causes wars and revolutions

-- sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

sir richard, you said:

you mean to say you don't think there are alternatives to those points of view or labels

Not quite. It might be helpful to start with a label, though (no matter how vague), and work on an elaboration from there. I took a test somewhere on the net which claims to be able to tell you what your politics are, in a nutshell. I came out as a "liberal populist". Which I suppose means I'm "tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others" and I would "support the rights and the power of the people". A fair summary, though some qualifications might be needed, depending on the reader's gut feelings about the words "liberal" and "populist".

You went on to say:

I am an individual with a considered opinion on most issues

Good, but still not a lot of help!

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 08, 2000.

Sir Richard, I don't think left or right, or liberals or conservative are any more like than apples and and oranges. Fruits they may both be, but there ends the likeness. However there are places where they cross over. I am very liberal socially, but conservative fiscally.

Do I think whites are entirely to blame for racism. No, but...if white slavers hadn't been so damned eager to haul blacks from there own countries to sell here to slave owners, this wouldn't be such a volatile issue. There's rampant racism in Africa among whites and blacks too, but for now I'm talking about US.

No, you don't have to label everyone, except it makes a starting point, and you have to start somewhere. Here goes. We are all human beings; no wars or revolutions over that. Some are female, some male; no wars or revolutions, but lots of grand old set-to's.! Some white and black; uprisings and riots. Some different ethnic origin; now we're getting serious: throw in different religions and you have wars and revolutions and bombings and riots and hate crimes going on forever and ever.

So see how many words that took. Of course if you can see a person you don't need as many labels. You could tell I am a white, female, anglo-saxon, senior citizen. But you couldn't tell what religion I was, if any, or whether a flaming liberal or uptight conservative, or a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Reformer etc.

So labels are kind of handy, especially if your typing.

And I really don't have a black and white view of the world. I don't like absolutes, so I like the gray areas. IMHO, it does seem that liberals are more willing to forego absolutes than are conservatives.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 08, 2000.

Sir Richard, I don't think left or right, or liberals or conservative

we're agreed then (we don't have to agree but on this point we are)

Do I think whites are entirely to blame for racism. No, but...if white slavers hadn't been so damned eager to haul blacks from there own countries to sell here to slave owners, this wouldn't be such a volatile issue.

Sorry whites now are not to blame for the actions of their forbears I don't blame the curent generation of Germans for Hitlers nazis or the current Russians for Stalins worse crimes,

There's rampant racism in Africa among whites and blacks too, but for now I'm talking about US.

There is also rampant racism amongst blacks inthe UK and US.

No, you don't have to label everyone, except it makes a starting point, and you have to start somewhere.

Maybe but its a bit naive isn't it.

Here goes. We are all human beings; no wars or revolutions over that. Some are female, some male; no wars or revolutions, but lots of grand old set-to's.!

Yes of course its life.

Some white and black; uprisings and riots. Some different ethnic origin; now we're getting serious: throw in different religions and you have wars and revolutions and bombings and riots and hate crimes going on forever and ever.

Different races, creeds, religions and nationalities do not necessarily have to lead to wars etc.

I think the main problem we face now is totalitarianism, that caused the regimes of the Third Reich and Communism to take hold.

Political ideology has caused more wars than the above (at least in the 20C).

So see how many words that took. Of course if you can see a person you don't need as many labels. You could tell I am a white, female, anglo-saxon, senior citizen. But you couldn't tell what religion I was, if any, or whether a flaming liberal or uptight conservative, or a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Reformer etc.

Live and let live, hold views, agree to disagree

So labels are kind of handy, especially if your typing.

And I really don't have a black and white view of the world. I don't like absolutes, so I like the gray areas. IMHO, it does seem that liberals are more willing to forego absolutes than are conservatives.

Depends whether or not they're in power. The most absolute dictatorship was that of the left in the USSR (20,000,000 dead, what is more absolute than that and the Euro/US socialists actually praised the system and Stalin (e.g. HG Wells etc)imagine if Nazis started lauding Hitler (they'd be banned by the liberals), as far as I'm concerned socialism is fascism.

What we need is a new system to give more power to local people and voters to have more direct input to legislation, via referenda etc, dunno the complete mechnism, but now we are heading more and more towards totalitarianism where decision are made by far off committees, incompetent politicians, political party heirarchies, bureaucracy, multi national corporations.

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 09, 2000.

Sir R, I do not equate socialism with fascism. But I do agree that we are leaning more towards totalitarianism, and also agree we need more local control over decisions and local input into government decisions.

Shall we agree to disagree on the rest.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 09, 2000.

Sir Richard, you said: as far as I'm concerned socialism is fascism.

I think many Americans would agree with you. (Americans are invited to correct me at this point!) Socialism is, strictly speaking, an economic system that advocates public ownership of the means of manufacture and distribution of goods and services, presumably with the idea that essential goods and services (such as health care, water, power etc.) should be available to everyone regardless of income or social status, and not at the discretion of private interests. How you can equate that with fascism, which is a kind of nationalist totalitarianism, I really don't know.

You also said: What we need is a new system to give more power to local people and voters to have more direct input to legislation.

Hey, you may well qualify for the label "populist". Congratulations!

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 09, 2000.

Richard, just look at the Soviet empire and Stalinism, I'm talking about the actual manifestation of socialism in practice, it has never been anything else other than totalitarian. Stalinism and Nazism were indistinguishable (regardless of the theory of socialism). Regardng nationalisation it has been a total disaster in Britain and elsewhere no doubt. Rule by government departments over every aspect of the economy can only be bureaucratic communism.

Comparing Nazism and Communism, the latter has a far worse record of human rights violations and exterminations (the end justifies the means int he opinion of socialists, the exterminations continued for the entire life of the USSR including the post war period.

It is a statement of fact that in practice socialism is worse than fascism, at least hitler was defeated after a short period.

Of course have you noticed that the socialist press/media have almost completely censored proper analysis of the Communist era (by omission), whereas there is constant reminder of Hitler's atrocities.

-- Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

PS

Its worth reading up about Soviet and Socialist history, as I have, at the time "respected" socialists like H G Wells were lauding Stalin and the USSR, when he was exterminating millions (and it was known).

After glasnost the socialists went into hiding for a bit, now people are unaware/ignorant/apathetic about Stalinism, the evil of socialism is rearing its ugly head in Britain and the US it seems.

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

Richard (too many Richards here, this could get confusing!):

I don't think socialism necessarily leads to totalitarianism. If Stalin did what he did in the name of socialism (or communism), then he just gave it a bad name. What Britain had during the Labour governments of the 70s and the 80s was a form of socialism, I would have thought, but surely not totalitarianism?

Nationalisation of industry a total disaster? I suppose that depends on what you consider economic success or efficiency to be. True, few people would doubt that the privatisation (and opening up to competition) of telecommunications in this country has created a more efficient industry, and you could even argue that privatisation is worth all the unemployment is causes in the short term. But you only have to look at our railways to see that privatisation is not necessarily the right way to go. I think the fears about handing over to private ownership portions of industry where public safety is a concern are probably justified. Look at the mess Railtrack's in at the moment, for example. These industries, far from running themselves, now have the government on their backs all the time to make sure they're not cutting corners and ripping the consumer off. Maybe this scheme is more cost-effective in the long run, I don't know. But I certainly don't think it makes nationalisation look like a "disaster" in comparison.

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

I meant Labour governments of the 60s and 70s, of course. Oops! No mistaking the government of the 80s for Labour!

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

Interesting thread.

I have posted as Incredulous prior to Y2k.

I for one side with the demonstrators who come out against global capitalism. The trend seems to be that bigger is better with mega- corporations swallowing up competitors on a global scale. Now, I understand how getting bigger can sometimes result in wringing out inefficiencies in any organization. However, the end result of the bigger is better syndrome are large world-wide mega-corporations that are much less socially responsible. These big montrosities will put the squeeze on smaller companies and in the end we will end up with a situation similar to what the US experienced in the late 19th century- -namely huge monopolies only interested in the bottom line.

One other question I need answered. Has anyone in our government considered the National Security Implications of foreign based companies owning large parts of the US infrastructure. technology, and manufacturing base. It seems to me that this is a risk that is either ignored or isn't addressed by TPTB.

What was interesting about the WTO fiasco in Seattle was that it was opposed by such a diverse group of protesters. It will be interesting to watch the London Mayday event. Unforunately, our political system is corrupted by money and most of the money flows from the mega- corporations to the politicians pockets.

The above thoughts are just my opinions.

Take them for what they are worth.

-- greg holmberg (drgah@earthlink.com), March 10, 2000.

Greg, yes very interesting, there is an argument for responsible national businesses rather than global corporations.

Some argue that global corporations are a step towards global rule and are just another manifestation of global "socialism" or will lead to it.

It does work both ways US corporations have interests in other countries (as have UK cos of course).

National or small businesses do tend to get bought out if they are any good or pose a competitive threat, also it may be an easy way out for the owners to cash in a mega buy out then retire or start another.

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

Nationalisation is an unmitigated disaster. Railtrack inherited a shambolic network and unionised staff etc from BR, then have much work to do to repair it. The railways were better off when privatised in the 19C until 1949 (they were built by private enterprise don't forget) then destroyed by nationalisation, (not only that but lack of use).

Of course people have forgotten how bad the railways were under Labour in the 60s and 70s with constant strikes, bad service, evil sullen staff (maybe those bastards are still working for the railways) huge inefficient bureaucracy (yes and they were not much better under the tories in the 80s though they improved some aspects of the service a lot).

State ownership in practice is quite evil.

Look at the NHS that is an unmitigated disaster as is teaching. So was the Gas Board, the water board, BTel the whole lot of them, I know because I've had work experience in them.

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

State ownership in practice is quite evil.

Evil? You might not think it's a good idea, but evil? You remind me of the people who think the fractional reserve banking system is immoral. I can understand arguments about economic systems being unworkable or fragile, but evil?

OK, enough italics in this post already!

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

Yes totally evil, there's no logic in comparing it to another issue, there is no intelligence in that whatsoever, stick to the subject.

My arguments are based on experience not just regurgitating propaganda.

-- richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

state ownership will lead directly to totalitarianism, you talk about the Labour Party, the book 1984 was written by Orwell about 1948 Britain in which everything was nationalised by the post war Gov. that started our (UK's) economic and social decline which continues to this day.

state ownership where applied en masse in every country led to communism a system far worse than even fascism

please stick to the point when you discuss rather than making spurious comparisons with non-related issues, sure sign of muddy thinking

-- richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

richard: I wasn't comparing socialism to the fractional reserve banking system. I was comparing your opinion of socialism with some other people's opinions of fractional reserve banking.

What ever, if you do really think that socialism is evil, then either we have different ideas about what economic systems stand for, or we're working with different definitions of the word "evil".

I don't think you can take Orwell's 1984 as an unequivocal attack against socialism, or a demonstration that it will inevitably lead to totalitarianism. After all, Orwell himself was a Labour supporter. I see 1984 simply as a fantasy describing totalitarian government taken to its logical conclusion, namely complete control over both the thoughts and the actions of the people. But that's just my opinion. If I remember right, Orwell describes the government in 1984 as doing what it does in the name of socialism, while violating the very principles that underlie socialism. You could take that as an attack against what has been done in the name of socialism (e.g. by Stalin and other communist dictators), not against socialism itself. Too bad we can't ask Orwell what he was really trying to say.

-- Richard Dymond (omicron@zoom.co.uk), March 10, 2000.

yes comparisons like that are not really valid in logical argument and completely spurious, it's the sort of twaddle you get from politicians

Orwell was a disillusioned socialist who recognised later in life what it could lead to

he was right it did and had lead to communism in all its manifestations yes even where applied in a mixed economy

we have buried fascism, we haven't buried socialism in all its forms

its coming back, thanks to the silence of the media over the USSR, in fact the BBC is saturated with it

-- Sir Richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), March 10, 2000.