Subject: Re: Five Years After the Battle for Seattle
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:45:25 -0800


yeah, but the seattle weakly ain't much of an alternative . . . it's
part of the village voice group.   check out *the stranger* for a more
palatable alternative to the alternative (dan savage, famous for
door-knob licking if you recall, writes for them).

roger


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck0" <chuck-AT-mutualaid.org>
To: "Infoshop" <infoshop-news-AT-infoshop.org>
Cc: <acc-intl-AT-lists.mutualaid.org>; "mgj-discuss"
<mgj-discuss-AT-mutualaid.org>; "a-librarians"
<a-librarians-AT-lists.mutualaid.org>; <srrtac-l-AT-ala.org>; "Anarchy
Mailing List" <anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 8:12 AM
Subject: Five Years After the Battle for Seattle


> Five Years After the Battle for Seattle
> The Seattle Weekly trashes the anti-globalization movement
>
> By Chuck Munson
> Infoshop News
> November 30, 2004
>
> Kansas City — The media spin cycle leading up to major
> anti-globalization protests has become so predictable that activists
> have been forced to come up with better media strategies to keep up
with
> the lies and disinformation. The mainstream media starts the cycle
> several months in advance with articles and coverage about the
upcoming
> summit and accompanying protests. This coverage always includes an
> obligatory interview with the local authorities who claim that they
will
> be “ready” for the protests. These early articles will include space
> devoted to the issues on the table, but as the event nears, the
coverage
> focuses more and more on the expected clash between protesters and
> police. Activists have tried many different ways to change this
> narrative, to force the media coverage back to the issues and
reasons
> for protest, without much success. Since these summit meetings never
> allow dissenters inside, people are forced to take to the streets in
> protest, thus reinforcing the spin that these events are mostly
about
> protesters confronting the police. At some point in the media spin
> cycle, the media repeat some new police propaganda about anarchists
and
> “outside agitators.” The police plant fabulous stories in the media,
> ranging from alarmist stories about activist scavenger hunts to
claims
> that  protesters will throw “urine-filled bottles” at the police.
When
> the police claim that activists are using plastic bottles to make
> Molotov cocktails, the mainstream media dutifully publishes the
police
> disinformation with nary an attempt to investigate the police
claims, or
> point out the fact that Molotov cocktails are made with GLASS
bottles.
>
> The cycle is the same every time. It’s no wonder that more and more
> activists have given up talking to the media, if they aren’t simply
> hostile to the media and efforts by activists to work with them.
>
> Sadly, the independent media has reflected this framing of the
> protests—Indymedia websites are dominated by pictures of conflicts
with
> the police. More troubling is an attack last week by the liberal,
> so-called “alternative” newsweekly, the Seattle Weekly, on the
> anti-globalization movement and its accomplishments since the 1999
> anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle. In the
leadoff
> article, prominent Seattle activist, Geov Parrish, analyzes the
> accomplishments  and state of the post-Seattle movement. Philip
Dawdy
> looks at the police angle and argues that police departments
transformed
> into a more effective force against activists. Knute Berger pens a
> rather shocking right-wing conflation of the anti-globalization
movement
> with the fundamentalist terror movement led by Osama bin Laden. The
> language of these pieces is hostile towards activists and the
> anti-globalization movement, while at the same time pointing out the
> many successes and achievements of the 1999 Seattle protests (N30)
and
> the North American anti-globalization movement.
>
> The media spin machine in recent years has added a new component to
> coverage of the anti-globalization movement—questions about the
state of
> the movement and whether or not the movement is “dead.” This shallow
and
> superficial measure of dissent and movement strength relies on old
myths
> that dissent is best judged by how much coverage it gets on the
> television news. In other words, if the movement isn’t rioting, then
it
> is “declining” or “beginning to sputter,” to use Geov Parrish’s
words.
> In reality, contemporary anti-systemic movements can’t be judged
solely
> by the amount of press clippings they get. There is more going on
that
> doesn’t lend itself to the sensational gaze of the TV news camera.
But
> there have also been some historic reasons why the North American
> anti-globalization movement disappeared from the public eye. One
> significant reason was the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent wars
launched
> by the Bush administration.
>
>
> What 9/11 Really Did to the Post-Seattle Movement
>
> In order to understand why the North American anti-globalization
> movement disappeared from the media spectacle in 2001 it is
important to
> know that large anti-globalization protests had been organized for
the
> Fall meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund,
which
> were scheduled to meet in Washington, DC in late September 2001.
There
> was a six month gap between the March 2001 anti-G8 protests in
Quebec
> City and the scheduled protests in Washington, DC. After 9/11
happened,
> some protest groups cancelled their plans while others simply
changed
> theirs. The media characterization of the movement as petering out
was
> understandable given the lack of another “Seattle” in late 2001, but
it
> was unfair given the circumstances that activists had to deal with
after
> 9/11.
>
> The 9/11 attacks would dramatically interrupt not just the
> anti-globalization movement’s plans for the September protests, but
they
> would throw a monkeywrench into the plans by activists to add a new
> dimension to the American anti-globalization movement. One group of
> anarchists had been working for over a month on a secret plan with
other
> activists to stage an occupation of an abandoned building on the
D.C.
> General Hospital campus. While other activists were working on
logistics
> for the protests and plans to attack the fence that was going to be
> erected around the World Bank and IMF meetings, this group of
activists
> was hoping to organize a direct action that would tie together
> globalization and the local agents of neoliberalism who were
planning to
> shut down D.C.’s only public hospital.
>
> Other international events had prompted this group of anarchists to
plan
> a direct action that would spotlight local issues of globalization
in
> Washington, D.C. In July 2001, the protests against the G8 summit in
> Genoa, Italy had ended violently, with one activist being brutally
> murdered by the police. There was a feeling among American activists
> that the Genoa protests would play a significant factor in how the
> Washington protests would be framed. From past protests it was known
> that the police would make up propaganda about “violent anarchists”
and
> “outside agitators.” The action planned for D.C. General was seen as
a
> way out of the stereotypes about anarchists promoted by media and
police
> disinformation. There were other ongoing efforts by activists to
make
> connections between the anti-globalization movement and local D.C.
> residents, such as the organizing work that the Anti-Capitalist
> Convergence was doing with the residents of the Arthur-Capper
> neighborhood in southeast D.C.
>
> The September protests in Washington were shaping up to be pretty
huge.
> The ACC, the Mobilization for Global Justice, and other groups had
been
> organizing for six months for the protests. The activists planning
> street strategy had to deal with the World Bank and IMF changing the
> venue for the summit several times. The police were estimating that
> around 100,000 protesters would descend on Washington. The word on
the
> streets was that the September protests would be “Seattle II.” A
perfect
> storm of dissent was brewing that involved organized labor, the
> anti-globalization movement, religious activists, anarchists, NGOs,
> anti-capitalists and the Latin America solidarity movement.
>
> The media wasn’t doing stories on the “decline” of the movement, in
> fact, they were fighting over access to the protesters. In one comic
> example, a group of anarchists involved with the black bloc were
invited
> to a meeting with the national editors of the Washington Times. The
> Times wanted to embed reporters and a photographer in the black bloc
and
> other groups. The bemused anarchists agreed to work with the Times
and
> let them “embed” the photographer in any “interesting” protests that
> were being planned.
>
> The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 changed everything.
While
> protesters always understood that events had a way of eclipsing
media
> coverage of protests, the 9/11 attacks were something beyond
anything
> that American activists had ever experienced. Like everybody else,
> activists were shocked by the attacks. The 9/11 attacks had an
immediate
> effect on plans for the protests. A meeting scheduled that afternoon
> between the black bloc anarchists, the religious activists, and the
> AFL-CIO was attended only by the organizer, Lisa Fithian. Within
days,
> the Mobilization for Global Justice—under pressure from nervous NGOs
and
> large unions—cancelled their protests over the objections of the
> grassroots activists in the MGJ coalition. Members of the
> Anti-Capitalist Convergence agreed to continue the protests, but the
> public cancellation announcement by the “Mobe” effectively disrupted
the
> national mobilization that was building. The ACC eventually decided
to
> scale back their protest to a national anti-war march. The
anarchists
> involved with the plan to take over the hospital had to change their
plans.
>
> The 9/11 events had an effect in derailing one of the largest
> anti-globalization protests that had been planned to that date in
the
> United States. The cancelled September 2001 protests disrupted the
> rhythm of the North American anti-globalization movement. Not only
did
> 9/11 take the anti-globalization movement off the global stage, but
also
> months of organizing ended up with little to show for all of that
work.
> Anti-globalization protests were hastily organized for the
rescheduled
> World Bank meetings that were moved to Canada, but they weren’t very
> large. Three months later the movement started to pick up the pieces
> with protests in New York City against the World Economic Forum, but
by
> that point the movement was under pressure from several new factors.
>
> Into the Breach
>
> While most activists were distracted by the aftermath of the 9/11
> attacks, one little authoritarian sect was busy making plans. The
> International Action Center, a New York-based front group for the
> Workers World Party--which was widely known for its famous
spokesperson,
> former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark--had been trying to become
a
> player in the planning of the September anti-globalization protests.
> After being rebuffed by both the Anti-Capitalist Convergence and the
> Mobilization for Global Justice, the IAC resorted to one of their
> favorite tactics and in June 2001 announced that they were
sponsoring a
> generic anti-Bush mobilization for the same weekend in September.
Their
> plan was to compete with the coalitions organizing the
> anti-globalization protests with their fake coalition, hoping along
the
> way that the police would deny them parade permits so that a court
> battle would establish the IAC as the primary coalition for the Fall
> protests.
>
> Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, the IAC and the WWP had plans in
place
> to create a national anti-war coalition that they would call Act Now
to
> Stop War and End Racism (International A.N.S.W.E.R.). They decided
to
> morph their September anti-Bush protest into one that would be
against
> the war that everybody expected the Bush administration to
implement.
> The leaders of the IAC and WWP also understood an important thing
about
> the American left, which would play an important factor in the
eclipse
> of the anti-globalization movement: American leftists have short
> attention spans. The IAC/WWP gambled that the American Left would
follow
> form and abandon the anti-globalization movement for anti-war
activism.
>
> The jump by many activists from anti-globalization activism to
anti-war
> activism was one of several factors that led to changes in the
American
> anti-globalization movement. The cancellation of the September 2001
> protests after the 9/11 attacks made it look like the movement had
lost
> gas, despite the feisty March 2001 protests in Quebec City. In the
> progression of large anti-globalization protests in North America,
there
> is a big hole where “Seattle II” should have occurred in September
2001.
> The 9/11 attacks and the rise in patriotism and jingoism afterwards
> scared some activists into withdrawing from visible activism. Many
core
> movement organizers were burned out from two and three years of
> organizing summit protests. There was vocal interest among many
movement
> participants that organizing locally was something that needed more
> attention.
>
> The 2004 U.S. presidential campaign has also proven to be a huge
> distraction for many activists. Not only were resources and money
from
> progressives poured into the election, but some activists found
> themselves working on campaigns instead of grassroots activism. Much
of
> the alternative media was effectively detoured to provide mountains
of
> shallow coverage of the elections. Many activists involved with the
> anti-globalization movements focused this year on the Republican
> National Convention, instead of anti-globalization protests such as
the
> poorly attended one against the G8 Summit held on Sea Island,
Georgia.
>
> While there are several reasons why the anti-globalization movement
> “started to sputter” after 9/11, the reality and scope of the
September
> 2001 mobilization belies Geov Parrish’s argument that “the flame of
> Seattle-inspired protest was already beginning to sputter.” Parrish
also
> repeats the canard that the movement was alienating “the sort of
> middle-class, family-oriented attendees who made more recent antiwar
> protests larger and, in the public's eye, more credible.” On the
> contrary, up until 9/11 the movement had been growing rapidly and
had
> been drawing more interest, support, and participation from
mainstream
> people. Even one of the undercover police officers who had
infiltrated
> the ACC and MGJ admitted to activists after she was outed that she
had
> come to agree with the activists’ arguments about globalization.
>
> Accomplishments
>
> In Geov Parrish’s look at the legacy of the Seattle protests, “Is
This
> What Failure Looks Like?”,  it’s unclear if he wants to bury the
> movement or give it credit for its many accomplishments. The
subtitle is
> negative enough with its use of the word “failure.” Parrish admits
that
> the 1999 protests were a “critical event” and that they “inspired
> hundreds of millions around the globe.” On the standard activist
> scorecard, any protest that “inspires millions” is not going to get
a
> checkmark in the “failure” column. Parrish attempts to boil down the
> movement’s “failure” to its inability to change government policies.
> Perhaps Parrish really wants to argue here that the movement hasn’t
> stopped the WTO in its tracks, but he settles for dissing the
movement
> on its policy record. Later in his piece, he does mention successes
like
> the Indymedia network, but tempers that with an aside about the
Seattle
> IMC closing its storefront space.
>
> So what are the accomplishments of the anti-globalization movement,
> especially the North American wing? The accomplishments are many and
> include:
>
> * The international Indymedia network was hatched in the heat of the
> Seattle protests and the international “N30” day of actions against
> capitalism. The network grew from one Independent Media Center (IMC)
in
> November 1999 to 153 IMCs around the world today. The Indymedia
network
> runs on anarchist principles, software, and servers. The success and
> growth of Indymedia is such that a capitalist media corporation with
> millions of dollars would have a tough time of replicating
Indymedia.
> There are dozens of physical Independent Media Centers. Many IMCs
print
> their own newspapers, including a biweekly full color newspaper
> published currently by the New York City IMC. When the Indymedia
network
> is attacked by some government, such as the recent shutdown of
servers
> by the FBI and European authorities, it makes international news.
>
> * The direct action, confrontational style of the anti-globalization
and
> anti-capitalist movements made the police, governments, and the rich
> respect the power of grassroots activism again. As Noam Chomsky
would
> describe it, the global elites once again feared the "crisis of
> democracy." The global elites were forced to hold summit meetings in
> obscure places like Cancun, Mexico, Sea Island, Georgia, Alberta,
Canada
> and other venues that could easily be defended by a small army.
Miles of
> fencing and legions of robocops surrounded summits in Washington,
Miami,
> and Quebec City. It’s hard to argue that a movement is a “failure”
when
> the police still spend millions to keep working people from
attending
> global economic summits.
>
> * The World Bank, IMF, other neoliberal institutions, and national
> governments have been forced to play a defensive public relations
game.
> After Seattle, the World Bank morphed into an institution that
claimed
> its biggest priority was fighting global poverty. More importantly,
the
> street protests focused public attention on these institutions and
> global trade policy. Quasi-secret trade negotiations such as the WTO
and
> the FTAA now have to be conducted fully in the public gaze.
>
> * As Parrish points out in his article, the Seattle protests
inspired
> millions around the world. After years of asking North American
> activists to get involved in the fight, we finally took the fight
> against globalization and neoliberalism to the back yards of the
> institutions responsible for global misery. Millions of Americans
> learned about the WTO, the FTAA, CAFTA, and institutions such as the
> World Bank. More importantly, they saw that Americans opposed these
> things, often in large numbers.
>
> * The movements provided an opportunity for activists to explore,
> discuss, and challenge each other on issues of anti-oppression,
racism,
> sexism, homophobia and other alienating and oppressive behaviors
within
> the movements themselves.
>
> * The Post-Seattle movements provided practical experience and
knowledge
> to every generation of activists. After years of being marginalized,
to
> the point where the cops wouldn’t even take the Seattle mobilization
> seriously, the movements scored some huge mobilizations. They reaped
> media attention that still benefit the movements today. Tens of
> thousands of activists learned new things, built relationships with
each
> other, and gained wisdom about what works and what doesn’t work.
>
> * The Seattle protests, as well as “N30,” “J18” and subsequent
> anti-globalization protests, vindicated anarchist methods of
organizing
> and dissent. Activism went from pointless permitted marches around
the
> White House that everybody ignored, to a movement that was
democratic,
> transparent, empowering, inspiring, and attention getting.
Hierarchical
> organizing was finally consigned to the dustbin of history and a
more
> beautiful flower of dissent unfolded. The strength of the flat,
> networked model of organizing was again demonstrated on February 15,
> 2003, when the huge global protests against the U.S. invasion of
Iraq
> were organized using the methods of the anti-globalization movement.
>
> * The North American anti-globalization movement threw up numerous
> hurdles into the process of globalization. Our protests threw sand
into
> the gears of free trade and opened up more space for dissent against
> globalization around the world. Several prominent people associated
with
> neoliberalism started expressing their reservations more publicly,
> including prominent economists such as Joseph Stiglitz.
>
> * New organizations and movements within the movements were started,
> such as the street medic and medicine movement, which has grown in
> numbers and organizations (BALM, Black Cross, DC Action Medical
Network,
> etc.).
>
> * The movement continues activism on other issues such as
biotechnology,
> human rights and media reform, often demonstrating its wide-reaching
> influence on policy issues..
>
> * The Internet has become an important tool for the organization of
> activism and dissent. There are now thousands of activist websites,
> email lists, and discussion boards, many of them connected to the
> anti-globalization movement. Activists continue to expand the use of
new
> technology, such as the use of text messaging at the recent RNC
protests
> in New York City.
>
> * A network of radical internet service providers (ISPs) has sprung
up,
> including Riseup, Mutualaid, resist.ca, Interactivist, OAT, and
others.
> Radical geeks brought together by anti-globalization protests and
the
> Indymedia network have developed their own international network of
> mutual aid, support, skills-sharing, free software and solidarity.
>
> * Nonsense about the “end of history” and the triumph of capitalism
were
> debunked. Decades of work by the ruling class and American
conservatives
> to marginalize protesters and activists were undone in the short
space
> of one week. Americans rediscovered dissent and the right wing
started
> obsessing again about the “Vietnam Syndrome.” It also became clear
to
> the global elites that a new bogeyman was needed to marginalize
> dissenters now that the Soviet Union had disappeared into history.
>
>
> The More Cops Change, the More They Remain the Same
>
>
> Parts of Geov Parrish’s article and all of Philip Dawdy’s article
are
> devoted to an analysis of what the police learned after Seattle.
Parrish
> continues his past liberal condemnation of radical protestors:
>
> “More forceful police (and army) tactics led to escalating,
> ever-more-ugly confrontations that encouraged street-battling young
> radicals but which discouraged the sort of middle-class,
family-oriented
> attendees who made more recent antiwar protests larger and, in the
> public's eye, more credible.”
>
> Parrish provides no concrete evidence that militant street
> protestsdiscouraged middle-class attendees. In fact, the numbers
> attending anti-globalizations protests after Seattle continued to
> increase and included more and more middle and working class people.
> Trade unionists complained that the union march in Quebec City didn’
t
> hook up with the militants who were fighting the police. The
September
> 2001 protests in Washington had scheduled numerous permitted events
for
> families. Parrish blames the radicals for an imagined image problem,
> echoing liberal attacks on radicals that have become common.
>
> Parrish continues:
>
> “The window breaking perpetrated by a few dozen anarchists in
Seattle
> became justification in the American public's mind for violent
> law-enforcement measures that in turn further limited the public's
> sympathy for future demonstrations.”
>
> This is one of the uglier accusations that liberals have lobbed at
> anarchists and other radicals, that we are responsible for our own
> victimization and the increase of police repression against other
> activists. Instead of attacking the police who come to
demonstrations
> with all kinds of weaponry, the fury of the liberal activist is
turned
> on radicals who are somehow responsible for the police repression.
>
> Philp Dawdy’s article, “What the Cops Learned,” purports to explain
how
> American authorities changed their policing tactics after the police
> fiasco during the 1999 Seattle protests. While this article has some
> interesting information about policing of activism, it gives the
police
> far too much credit in “learning” how to deal with protesters. If
the
> police have learned anything since Seattle, it’s that they can’t
take
> activists and protesters for granted. The police actions during the
> Seattle protests stemmed from a general attitude among American
> authorities that activists weren’t to be taken seriously. The police
had
> been lulled into complacency towards activists after decades of
> predictable protests. In Washington, for example, there was an
> unofficial protocol between police and protesters about how one went
> about getting arrested in front of the White House. The police were
> responsible for this status quo of predictable protests, having
turned
> to a new concept called “community policing” that was developed in
the
> wake of bad publicity generated in the late 60s and early 70s from
> pictures of police beating protesters.
>
> The Seattle protests were a wake-up call for the American
authorities.
> The Battle of Seattle had caught them with their pants down. Their
> disrespect for protesters had created a “perfect storm” of events
that
> played right into the hands of the Seattle protesters. The police
> “learned” that they had to go back to the traditional techniques of
> crowd control, political propaganda, and the tested tactic of brute
> force. The American police were also in a good position to police
> dissent thanks to the militarization of police departments during
the
> Clinton administration. One of the shocking things about the Seattle
> protests was the sight of Robocops wandering around pepper-spraying
> activists while wearing the new military gear.
>
> Dawdy’s piece includes several errors. He writes that there was “no
> precedent in recent American history for creating a fortress around
> conference sites.” Perhaps not fences around trade summits, but the
> police in Washington, DC had erected a fortress around the NATO
summit
> held there in 1999. Dawdy writes that,
>
> “The other fatal error in Seattle was to make mass arrests. Pugel
> advises against that. ‘It requires an incredible amount of police
> resources to do that, and it put a huge burden on prosecutors and
the
> criminal-justice system,’ he says. ‘Go after the instigators
instead.’”
>
> In fact, the Seattle police attempted to make mass arrests on
November
> 30th, but gave up because they were overwhelmed by activists. The
Direct
> Action Network had hoped for mass arrests on N30, but the police
opted
> to start attacking nonviolent protesters. (Contrary to the myth
promoted
> by liberal activists, the black bloc march happened hours after the
> police started attacking protesters with pepper spray). Thousands of
> protesters were attacked with poison gas and weapons. Most
protesters
> were never warned, they were simply attacked brutally. By the end of
the
> day the Seattle police had pissed off thousands with their use of
> violence, setting the stage for riots that continued into the night.
>
> The most effective thing that the police learned to do after Seattle
was
> to sharpen their propaganda skills. The police understand that the
media
> will uncritically report anything said by the police about
protesters.
> Thus, cooking supplies for the April 2000 protests in Washington
became
> “bomb making materials.” The police learned to provide the divide
and
> conquer game, telling the media that the “good protesters” were
going to
> be disrupted by “anarchists” and “outside agitators.” The mainstream
> media doesn’t challenge these lies and doesn’t point out, for
example,
> that anarchists are deeply involved in the planning of summit
protests.
> The police learned that propaganda was useful not just in demonizing
> protesters, but in scaring away protesters. Propaganda also covered
up
> the fact that the police were still pretty incompetent when it came
to
> dealing with protesters.
>
> Dawdy’s article gives the impression that despite a few mistakes in
> Seattle, the police are now prepared to deal with protesters
> effectively. Dawdy points out that the use of “non-lethal weapons”
> sometimes goes wrong, such as the recent case of the white woman
killed
> in Boston during a Red Sox victory celebration. In fact, the police
use
> these weapons daily against poor working people and arbitrarily
against
> protesters. Policing of summit protests after Seattle showed that
the
> cops were willing to use violence against any kind of protester. The
> police not only saw any protester dressed in black as an
“instigator,”
> they acted like every protester was target for police violence.
Police
> motorcycles attacked protesters at peace marches. The police
arrested
> everybody in a park in Washington, DC, leading to a huge
embarrassment
> for that police department. And contrary to police department PR,
> rank-and-file police are poorly trained in crowd control tactics and
> lack experience in handling militant protests.
>
> Since Seattle, the police have relied on propaganda to demonize
> protesters, scare tactics and sheer numbers to keep more people from
> joining protests, and violence to bully and terrorize protesters.
The
> police haven’t really “learned” anything in so much as they have
fallen
> back on traditional violent tactics to stop dissent. Some of this
has
> kept people away from protests. Many rank-and-file radicals take the
> police seriously, but don’t let the hype deter them from planning
> radical actions. Much was made about the “Miami Model” of policing
> during the FTAA protests last year. This new model was actually more
of
> the same thing: lots of cops, threats of violence, and a
geographical
> location that was difficult to reach for working class activists.
>
> Increasingly these days, more protesters are deciding to take their
ball
> and play elsewhere. Instead of facing off against the police at
summit
> protests, more folks are organizing local protests and direct
actions.
> There has been an increase in illegal actions, such as last week’s
stunt
> in Lafayette, Louisiana, where unknown people glued locks on the
doors
> of dozens of businesses. The police may succeed in preventing the
rabble
> from bringing democracy to trade summits, but more people are
deciding
> to take their dissent directly to the physical manifestations of
> capitalism. This is a growing trend, but mass protests at trade
summits
> will still happen for the foreseeable future.
>
> Terrorism-baiting the Anti-Globalization Movement
>
> The Seattle Weekly’s retrospective continues with a right wing
attack on
> the movement in an essay by Knute Berger titled “How 9/11 Trumped
N30.”
> Berger’s piece addresses a legitimate point about how the 9/11
attacks
> and George W. Bush have affected both the anti-globalization
movement
> and globalization. The 9/11 attacks gave George Bush and his
supporters
> an opportunity to pursue unilateralist foreign and economic
policies.
> Berger writes:
>
> “Their interests have been dramatically, if dangerously, advanced by
> wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the open embrace of unilateral
and
> pre-emptive international actions—on behalf of not just "democracy,"
but
> free markets and lower marginal tax rates. By cloaking itself in an
> endless War on Terrorism, by asserting the American way at gunpoint,
by
> allowing George W. Bush to increase the size, scope, and power of
> government in favor of the big guys and at the expense of the little
> guys, the imperium has released its inner beast. The so-called
> neoconservatives have tapped into a strain of American arrogance
that is
> feeding the angels of our worst nature, but in the guise of
advancing
> our better ones. We are now beginning to see what an enormous,
global
> government based on greed looks like.”
>
> While Berger is correct in pointing out how the current world
situation
> benefits some capitalists, the new American imperialism flies in the
> face of the hyper-libertarian ideas of free market capitalism. The
Bush
> administration’s response to 9/11 has thrown a wrench into
globalization
> and derailed free market ideologues, but globalization proceeds
today.
> Just look at all of the outsourcing that is going on, or last week’s
WTO
> decision that went against the United States.
>
> Berger’s article is more troubling because it repeats insane right
wing
> arguments that Osama bin Laden is part of the anti-globalization
> movement, or allied with it in some way:
>
> “The dark side of the anti-globalization movement is outright
terrorism.
> The Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were
> monstrous atrocities.”
>
> Osama bin Laden has never been part of the anti-globalization
movement,
> which is an international movement of concerned and committed
grassroots
> activists. Osama bin Laden is a fundamentalist religious fanatic who
is
> waging jihad against the U.S. and other governments. Arguing that
the
> 9/11 attacks were in synch with the anti-globalization movement is
like
> the illogical argument that vegetarians are closet fascists because
> Adolf Hitler happened to be a vegetarian. The 9/11 attacks may have
been
> effective attacks on the symbols of American capitalism and
militarism,
> but the anti-globalization movement has nothing in common with the
> religious jihadists led by Osama bin Laden.
>
> Lastly, Berger repeats another liberal myth about Seattle, that most
> protesters denounced the anarchists: “…many in the
anti-globalization
> movement criticized the anarchists for giving the Seattle protests a
bad
> name, for tainting a global message that would have been more
powerful
> without all the broken windows.” In fact, a few people denounced the
> anarchists, most famously Medea “peace activists should vote for war
> criminals” Benjamin, but many in the movement understood the
importance
> of the actions undertaken by the Seattle black bloc. After all, what
’s a
> revolution without its tea party?
>
> Has It Really Been Five Years?
>
> The Seattle Weekly retrospective on the 1999 anti-WTO protests
> recognizes the historical importance of that explosive week in
Seattle.
> At the same time, it repeats myths about the protests and the
movements
> while giving the authorities a virtual free pass for continued
violence
> and terrorism against dissenters. The anti-globalization and
> anti-capitalist movements have seen many successes and a few
defeats,
> but it may be too soon to judge the long-term influence of the
> movements. Globalization continues, but with more widespread
resistance
> around the globe. The North American anti-globalization movement may
not
> dominate the front page, but it continues to mobilize people for
> protests. The most important lesson learned from the Battle for
Seattle
> is that average working people can come together to dramatically
> challenge the rich and powerful and make history in the process.
>
> Sources
>
> This Is What Failure Looks Like
> By Geov Parrish
> http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0447/041124_news_wtogeov.php
>
> What Cops Learned
> By Philip Dawdy
> http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0447/041124_news_wtocops.php
>
> Mossback — How 9/11 trumped N30
> By Knute Berger
> http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0447/041124_news_mossback.php
>
> FURTHER READING
>
> Confronting Capitalism: Dispatches from a Global Movement
> by Eddie Yuen, Daniel Burton-Rose, George Katsiaficas. (Soft Skull
> Press, 2004)
>
> Globalize Liberation : How to Uproot the System and Build a Better
World
> by David Solnit. (City Lights Publishers, 2004)
>
> Infoshop.org’s Coverage of the 1999 Seattle Protests
> http://www.infoshop.org/no2wto.html
>
> No Logo
> http://www.nologo.org
>
> Reader’s Guide to Anti-Capitalism
> http://www.infoshop.org/octo/anticap_biblio.html
>
> We are everywhere: the Irresistible Rise of Global Anti-Capitalism
> by Notes from Nowhere. (Verso, 2003)
>
> GROUPS
>
> Anarchist People of Color
> http://www.illegalvoices.org/
>
> Anti-Capitalist Convergence
> http://www.abolishthebank.org
>
> Indymedia
> http://www.indymedia.org/
>
> Mobilization for Global Justice
> http://www.globalizethis.org/
>
> Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
> http://www.ocap..ca
>
> Seattle Indymedia
> http://seattle.indymedia.org/
>
> Props to Kirsten Anderberg for providing some of the information
that
> went into this article. Special thanks go to friends and comrades
who
> provided feedback.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Infoshop-sustainers mailing list
> Infoshop-sustainers-AT-infoshop.org
> http://www.infoshop.org/mailman/listinfo/infoshop-sustainers
>
>
>