G8 Protests

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88283,00.html


ANNEMASSE, France — The thousands of protesters converging on this year's Group of Eight summit (search) are an eclectic bunch with a grab-bag of divergent interests -- so much so that some of them clashed on Saturday with Socialists sympathetic to their cause.


Why are these people protesting globalization?

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88283,00.html

Why are these people protesting globalization?

Because they are mainly a bunch of clueless idiots who don't have jobs or an understanding of history or human nature....plus many of them are longtime drug users... for starters.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88283,00.html
Why are these people protesting globalization?

Because globalisation should mean free and fair trade but what it actually means is that rich counties get access to poor countries markets while poor countries still cannot get access to first world markets. The little man gets shafted, the poor get poorer and the rich get greedier.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


.....rich counties get access to poor countries markets while poor countries still cannot get access to first world markets.


Why cant poor countries get access to first world markets? And what exactly does that mean? Do you have an example?


And why do the protesters think waving a sign and destroying property are going to do anything about it?

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


...while poor countries still cannot get access to first world markets.

:rolleyes:

What the hell are you talking about?

[Mr Manifesto]

Here (http://web.uct.ac.za/general/monpaper/99-no32/global.htm) is a link that looks at the pros and cons of globalisation. But the case for con is:

He acknowledged the well-known negative impact of globalisation: structural adjustment which undermines the role of the state in Africa; the logic of the market economy which tends towards homogenisation and structures classes into a consumption mode rather than production. Globalisation also encourages large-scale investments which destroy the environment and sustainable systems of production. It masks the depth of crisis in Africa by giving an impression of growth and free enterprise. Finally, globalisation has permitted the proliferation of illegal weapons and provoked the spread of infectious diseases.

Many of the G8 protestors are tired of economies and environmental systems being held to ransom by companies who often don't even see the damage they are doing. There was an infamous example- I believe it was an oil pipeline in Somalia or Nigeria, I cannot remember which. Anyway the effect of the oil pipeline was to at once cause major environmental havoc and leave the local population in poverty. Some were killed trying to steal oil from the actual pipeline.

I believe too that the same company (possibly Exxon) favoured one group of war-mongers over the other in the name of profits. You will probably find the full story here (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/IPEIE/Ogoni.html).

In short the companies care nothing about who they hurt as long as they have their money. They don't have to worry about what effect they are having on the countries they are bleeding dry because they do not have to live there. The G8 protestors are sick of it.

You ask why do they think sign-waving will change anything. Maybe they think that standing up and being heard is more productive than posting on a bulletin board.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The only reason I can think of is they are latter borns that wish to rebel against something. Seriously internationalism has been on the liberal/secular humanist agenda for decades. Now that it's furthered via globalization, many new age liberals and "humanists" are now protesting. It's as if they are protesting just to protest.

Oh well, all I know is the world cannot afford another world war and is more interdependent then ever. Globalization makes sense. It helps pave the way for internationalism.

[Mike B.]

What is the alternative to globalization?

Saying that it hurts the environment is almost saying we don't want third world countries to develop because they will use too many resources and hurt the environment. What is the alternative there? Constant and universal poverty?

I mean is there a real and useful alternative?

[Genghis Pwn]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
It's as if they are protesting just to protest.



Yep.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Oh well, all I know is the world cannot afford another world war and is more interdependent then ever. Globalization makes sense. It helps pave the way for internationalism.

Does it? Now we see companies getting rich while the rest of the world blames the G8 nations for its poverty. It seems to be creating greater rifts between countries. Now the multinationals are in the perfect position (for them)- they can say if you don't stand by us we will take our business to some other country.

Consequently the multinationals can do what they want without fear while the G8 nations have to worry about terrorist attacks and the effect of world-wide resentment.

Not what I had in mind when it came to internationalism.

[Tony]

Thanks for the info Mr Manifesto. I have always heard about these globalization protests and wondered what the beef was.

[DialecticMaterialist]

There have BEEN great rifts between countries. It's just now, with globalization, we have a chance to stop it at least partially. There will always be power rifts though. Even in the US, California for example holds much more power then Rhode Island.

Sorry but the world wasn't all kind and equal before globalization. You wish to talk of power rifts? What of the old british empire? Imperial Japan?


And yes this form of globalization isn't perfect, but you are supposed to get there in steps.

Just because things aren't perfect does not mean this isn't a forward move towards internationalism.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Does it? Now we see companies getting rich while the rest of the world blames the G8 nations for its poverty.

Oh yes, nothing like sensational accusations to make the headlines.

[Mr Manifesto]

I have come up with one example where globalisation has failed a country. There are many more. Would you present an example where globalisation has proven to be the saviour of a country? Or even just a success for a country? Try to pick a country that wasn't already in an economically superior position to begin with.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'll give you three: South Korea, Maylasia and Thailand: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2000/nye_globalization_iht.htm


and more on globalization:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2002/03/picture.htm

Related: 10 misunderstandings of the WTO: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/10mis_e/10m00_e.htm


And for countries that have gotten worse off, that could simply be due to internal or regional factors.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Tony



Why cant poor countries get access to first world markets? And what exactly does that mean? Do you have an example?


And why do the protesters think waving a sign and destroying property are going to do anything about it?

I dont support violence or the destruction of property- the people who do that are a disgrace to the human race.

Ah'll be duggin oop sum referrences reet no.

[Ladewig]

National, state/provincial, and local governments can lose a certain amount of legal autonomy through globalization treaties. This page (http://mindprod.com/nafta.html) sites some examples of state governments losing regulatory power due to NAFTA.

What makes this issue much more complex is that for every state government that is attacked for having, say, pollution controls that are too strict, there are probably 2-4 developing nations that are attacked for having pollution standards that are too lax.

Globalization is not the panacea that supporters claim it is. Neither is it the death of local culture, resources, and the environment that its detractors claim it is. The protestors might indeed be idiots, but not so much for their dislike of globalization, but rather for their belief that these types of protests will have a favorable impact.

[Jon_in_london]

Alright fine, Im too fing lazy to look up references.

Basically how it (doesnt) work is like this:

Poor country invokes some illegal tarriff to protect its local economy. Rich country says that isnt fair/breaks the rules and threatens a trade war that the poor country will obviously loose very severly.

Rich country invokes some illegal tarriff (eg. tarriff on imported steel) to protect its local economy. Poor country says that isnt fair/breaks the rules and cant do diddly-squat because a trade war will obviously be lost by the poor country very severly.

basically its might is right and devil take the hindmost.

Which is why people dont like it.

[max]

Jon-in-London

By gum! For the first time, I agree with you:D

[Shane Costello]

But then when Nike or Adidas start exporting stuff out of poor countires the same people scream "sweatshop" and "exploitation" (and before anyone asks I@m dead set against steel and agriculture tariffs).

Whatever about the merits of their case the way they go about making it is disgraceful, acting like a crowd of drunken football hooligans. There's "standing up and being heard", and then there's "Ceiminal damage".

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tony

Why cant poor countries get access to first world markets? And what exactly does that mean? Do you have an example?

And why do the protesters think waving a sign and destroying property are going to do anything about it?

To quote myself:

The real way that American foreign investment works is this:

Wealthy American investors build factories, farms, oil wells, etc in under developed countries where labor and resources are cheap.

The people eventually get restless and rebel against the foreign investors because of unfriendly business practices and the effort by business to maintain cheap labor and working facilities.

The American investors get support for a coup from the American government who employs any number of means to put an American business friendly leader into office in the country (overt war, covert war, funding of local loyalists, assassination, etc).

American banks, or the IMF, give loans to the country, which the American friendly leader agrees to take out, for things like the building of infrastructure, roads, railroads, shipping ports, etc. The rational is that this infrastructure will help the country develop economically. Of course the country is really paying to build things that serve the interests of the American investors.

America also agrees to train the police and military forces of the country so that the leader can protect his position.

America then pays "foreign aid" to the leader of the country in order to keep the leader loyal to American interests, as well as supplying the government with arms.

In addition, the American investors that are now doing business in the country also give payoffs to the local leadership to keep them loyal to the American business interests.

These countries do not have constitutions that grant significant rights to the people. The governments are loyal to America, not their own populations. As the people begin to fight for labor rights and improved working conditions and increased pay, the governments use the American supported military and police to oppress the population.

By doing this America has cultivated American loyalists in countries all over the world, who are loyal to American interests, not the interests of their own countries. America sees to it that these American loyalists are who maintains political power in these countries.

Indonesia is a classic example. How many clothes do you have from Indonesia BTW?

http://eagle.westnet.gr/~cgian/suha-cia.htm

http://www.namebase.org/scott.html

http://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap2.html

Indonesia has been a puppet of America since the 1960s, killing milions of people to serve American wishes.

Just research Indonesian history for yourself.

Colonialism officially ended with the end fo WWII, but its impossible to get rid of because the standard of living for devloped nations is dependant of exploitation of the 3rd world. So now colonialization is covert.

Nigeria, Chile, Nicoragua, Panama, and Venezuela are other good examples.

[DialecticMaterialist]

This Malochi is a prime example of how you make unwarranted generalizations and exagerate the truth. Yes the CIA gave the Indonesian government a list of communist leaders to the Indonesian army in 1965. Not like the Soviets or Chinese would have done any different had there been any pro-american/capitalist forces in any country they could influence.

However lets go into what this means, how it is relevant and what it does not mean/how it is irrelevant:

What it does mean:

1) The US government used immoral or questionable tactics to fight a political foe in another land. The US in a sense played dirty.

2) The CIA may have been involved in a coup. That was succesful in the sense of weeding out communists.


What it does not mean:

1) That Globalization is bad. This has nothing to do with globalization actually and you know it. This article has literally nothing to do with Globalization.

2) That Indonesia is and has been a US puppet state: the CIA gave a list to their governments. Maybe helped with a coup. That's it. Hardly proof that Indonesia is a puppet state.

3) The articles claim at most 200,000 communists were killed. Hardly the millions you claimed. And they were not by US hands or orders.

4) The so-called coup accusation is controversial and you know it. Even your third article admits this:

Official statements on the coup and its aftermath are practically nonexistent.

There is no reference to this in standard or mainstream literature on this subject.

Such talk is actually mainly confined to socialist articles like the "World Workers Web".

5) That the change in government is repsponsible for any problems Indonesia has today.

6) That your conjecture in reference to american investments has any basis in fact.


The so-called CIA coup and listing happened during the Cold War. The primary aim, even supposing the articles are true was to remove communists from power, not turn Indonesia into a puppet state, or help American traders exploit the region.

Proving one does not automatically prove the other.

That's no better then saying that since the Soviets helped Castro in some ways, that Cuba was a Soviet puppet state made to benefit the Soviet economy.

And I also fail to see what relevance a suspected 1960s coup and a list, have to do with modern globalization. The entire thing was a Cold War operation, if it is true.

But such is typical of you.

You oppose some sort of established practice or US policy and how you oppose it is not with a deep criticism of the policy itself but by spitting out buzzwords:

"Indonesia, Iraq,Iran,Vietnam,"Guatomala".

No matter how different the events are from eachother or the issue at hand. You then may also bring in a credible article and mix it with an incredible one, make a statement "American's exploit countries" and then put out an irrelevant "CIA gave a list of communist leaders" to somehow "prove it."

In short you are using irrelevant and sensational articles as sort of "magic bullets". Reagardless of how red herring or non sequitur such a practice is.

And you do this to back up fantastic claims, colonialism is still going, most of third world is US puppet states, US interventionaism turns nations into fundamentalists or communists etc. Very sweeping historical generalizations that Jared Diamond isn't bold enough to make.


All of which are supposedly backed by so-called Cold War operations, which prove absolutely nothing other then the US sabotaged communist movements.

So the evidence is basically: US had some covert operations influencing countries during the Cold War=

The US is still practicing imperialism, exploiting nations economically via the government, helping fundamentalist and communist causes and using Globalization as a means to promote imperialism.


Which just does not follow.

Digging up stories from the Cold War does not in any way harm the case for glablization or prove any of your sweeping historical conjectures.