Are you thinking of going to the G8 in Scotland? WHAT FOR?

by :-) Wed Feb 09, 2005 17:28

yiz ar all edin up tae scotland wi thae mac wombles
didnae ken want tae ken eftir that least all thus yon blabbers wi auld Jee8 to git them oot.
Ken?
to git them oot, n give tae bairns o afrika a brake like.

plenty of common ground though

by Chekov Wed Feb 09, 2005 17:39

"Unfortunately this was one of the outcomes of Mayday 2004, where representatives from the Dublin Grassroots Network (DGN) had gone on the national media repeatedly assuring there would be no violence or rioting."

This is absolutely not true. Never once did a DGN spokesperson give such an assurance. They actually went out of their way not to do so when pressured to do so on many occasions.

by info junkie Thu Feb 10, 2005 01:27

New Dissent Newsletter

Dissent is a new network, created to build a mobilisation against the G8. The network is based on the Peoples’ Global Action Hallmarks, rooted in local and autonomous organising and action, and aims to go beyond the G8. The PGA is a decentralised, non-heirachical, global network of social movements, for a copy of the hallmarks visit www.agp.org

http://www.dissent.org.uk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=docclick&Itemid=34&bid=84&limitstart=0&limit=5

Dissent is a new network, created to build a mobilisation against the G8. The network is based on the Peoples’ Global Action Hallmarks, rooted in local and autonomous organising and action, and aims to go beyond the G8. The PGA is a decentralised, non-heirachical, global network of social movements, for a copy of the hallmarks visit www.agp.org

Interesting article bar the obvious slander as pointed out. Did workers or locals of at Fruit Of The Loom have benefits or wip rounds?

I liked this bit from here
http://enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3851
Rather than pretending that an activist vanguard can boost community confidence, it is better to learn how working-class communities develop their own forms of resistance. To work this needs serve the dual purpose of both making concrete connections to locals as well as being good PR but should be done in a way that aims to defuse the myth that activists especially anarchists are elitists who want to teach ordinary people how to suck eggs.

fair play to those who go

by Cian FNB Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:09

I'll be going because its a social event.
It gives us a chance to be with people
who share similar views. To be with
thosands of such people expressing discontent is reinvgorating.
To concentrate on the violence and mainstream media activity that
sometimes surrounds summits is
to submit a superficial reading of the
event. Summits are often the site of
many positive developments such
as temporary free zones, interesting
and original protest and independent media
to name but a few. I dont go just to march but
to learn and skillshare.
As for the money--what sort of system
to propose to collect and distribute
all that money? I'd love to hear it.
And your idea of revolution, which we
should be getting closer to.
Summits are definitely not the be all and
end all but are quite usefull and I agree with you point about local protests.

Tihs post is very coherent, Im in a rush,
I'll post a better reply later.
I'd invite anyone who is interested in this
debate or interested in going to the G8 to
come to the CERTAIN DEATH VEGAN CAFE
on the 27th of Feburary. It starts at six.
It is the warehouse, which is off north strand.
go to www.geocities.com/badbooksdublin
for directions! THe meeting is to organise a
local DISSENT group in Dublin.

Local groups could deal with local issues is
build-up protests before they go to Scotland
encompassing some of the issues you mentioned in your post.
Cian

by scottibitch Thu Feb 10, 2005 18:47

( message from a Scotish native/activist... )

The G8 in Scotland (ahh thae bonny hills) is the first ever in Scotland.
Scotland is actually a very repressed and racist place, it needs help to understand why the G8 is BAD.
Security both inside and at travel ports has been stepped up quite considerably for this event, you may not even get there.
The venue is located in a difficult area (not to mention hostile locals)to reach as per usual with all G8's.
The wombles may very well attend as they have a good relationship with scottish activists but they in no way will be organising counter measures as the locals will know the land better.
EVERYONE SHOULD RESIST THE G8 FOR THE SIMPLE FACT OF HOLDING YOUR FREEDOM WHILST FIGHTING FOR OTHERS TO HAVE SOME!
TO SIT IN SILENCE WHILE THE FENCE OF OPRESSION AND CRUELTY FOR CAPITAL IMPERIALIST REGIMES ARE RAISED AGAINST THE SECOND AND THIRD WORLD IS WRONG!!!
I do not know if you will go, but if you do give it a blast.... see you at the barricades!
p.s. bring yer puttin set!

by barra Thu Feb 10, 2005 21:04 aranu21 at hotmail dot com

the fact of the matter is for people who or want to quesition and challenge neoliberalism it is vital people met up and exchange ideas and feed off each others energy. In the society we live in this is not possible. People from diverse and diffent backgroungs who have particular social issues they care about find it hard in this escapist, apathetic and fragmented culture to met up and plan effective campaigns because of social isolation and the odvious other factors.

It is odvious the media will vilify the g8 protesters and the summit's sercurity personal will eventually contain and disperse the crowd and the summit will continue as planned. This should not make people who are thinking about or are going to the protest to lose heart.

The important of mass protests (and direct action) aganist capitalist structures can not be underestimated. It does not matter if the protest fails to shut down the summit, what matters is that its another opportunity to display international soladarity against neo-liberalism which will strengthen the resolve of people to fight aganist injustice, poverty and greed.

by Terry - NUIG Eco Soc/AF/organise (pers caps) Thu Feb 10, 2005 23:10

"Summit protests act as a magnet for multinational demonstrators to ...."

etc...etc.. totally agree, especially bit about money, is this a sport or are we serious?

by jack white Thu Feb 10, 2005 23:33

its from a pga (people's global action www.agp.org) email list but afaik its not on the web.




*Strategies of repression against the movement at summits*


The new « anti-globalisation » movement in the North first totally surprised the police with their new forms of organization and tactics. In Seattle, just 8000 young people, very well organised in affinity groups, blocked the 13 roads leading to the summit meeting (locked down with tubes and motocycle locks or just holding together) and stopped the opening for most of the day. The plans for the action were public, but apparently the cops just didn't imagine that it would be so hard to break up.

But ever since they have taken us very seriously and their constantly evolving tactics are shared internationally. We must also watch them and change accordingly.

Their first major step (trying still to appear non-violent) was to put a barrage of cops around the summit and get the delegates in very early in the morning. But as the mobilisations were getting much bigger, it was still possible for us to surround them and stop the delegates getting out.

In Prague, 20 000 people blocked the IMF/WB summit so well that they had to leave like rats, by the underground! This was also possible because, instead of bickering about tactics, the demonstrators organised three different kinds of demos (a tutti bianchi, a pink samba and a more hard core one) which converged on the meeting, but didn't interfere with each other. The next day many delegates didn't dare come and the last day of the meeting was canceled. Then there was the summit in Barcelona which was actually abandoned... This was too much for the governments, which decided to forget about looking democratic.

In Quebec they started a new more aggressive strategy: a no-go zone with a huge barrier, but also preventive attacks against the demonstrators before they got to the barrier, so that a real siege could not happen. This was the scenario again in Genoa, played even more brutally. (Already in Goteborg, the european heads of state, including the socialist Jospin, had condoned the use of regular bullets against demonstrators.)

The police had also decided to no longer allow the demonstrators to coordinate different forms of action so easily, by simply agreeing on « a diversity of tactics ». They deliberately attacked everyone with the same violence and even drove different kinds of demos into each other, hoping to create tensions between them. As Berlusconi said the day after « It wasn't possible to make distinctions among them. »

Simultaneously they were also less and less democratic about the right to come demonstrate at all. The supposed freedom of movement within the Schengen countries was regularly suspended and anyone identified in one demo could be denied entry (often for several years!) if they tried coming to another. (These measures are quite illegal and generally don't stand up to a legal appeal, but by that time its over.) Attacks and intrusions on convergence centers before the demos also became more frequent.

Despite all this, the big protests continued and it was difficult to totally ban them as they remained very popular (more than 60% of europeans polled after Genoa for example). The current tactics of the police and authorities may well be to try and make the demos look violent enough that people will accept the simple denial of this right.

For Davos (Anti-WEF) 2003, the authorities tried a new card (which was almost simultaneously used against the School of the Assassins demo in the USA (Yes, they network too!) : A demo would be permitted but only after the demonstrators had been individually searched and identified. When the demo refused, it was violently attacked, although miles from Davos.

The G8 in Evian was as usual preceded by an incredible fear campaign (mixing of course demos and terrorist threats, and bringing in more than 20 000 troops and police, more than a hundred helicopters and warplanes...). At one moment the right wing of the government did try to have the demos banned outright, but it didn't work. However, they used the occasion to prepare for the future. The police completely evacuated the center on the night before the summit, when the most destruction was done (and unfortunately quite a bit of it was actually against ordinary people). This was used to justify unprecedented police violence against the demos (including the police crime at Aubonne or the totally illegal raid and violence against the Indymedia center) and then a ban on all demos.

For Davos 2004, the organisers, feeling the danger of police escalation, decided to take a step back from direct confrontation. They called the demo not in Davos but in Coire, the capital of the canton. The authorities could have taken this as a satisfactory compromise, but they seem intent now on eliminating all big demos on the subject, even if they don't block the meetings. They hi-jacked the train after the demo, gassed, beat and held prisonner more than a thousand people for hours in the cold.

Davos 2005 was less violent but almost worse. The main demo was called this time in the federal capital, very far from Davos. But the city (majority socialist and greens...) banned the demo! At the last minute (too late to mobilise), they cleverly authorised something, but the police were searching and arresting arbitrarily people as they arrived in Bern. Another anti-WEF demo in Bale was attacked and dispersed with rubber bullets at close range. At least in Switzerland, they are trying to not allow anything anywhere! In Bern, the organisers responded by calling for small groups of decentralised demonstrators, mostly doing street theatre, etc. I guess it was the best thing to do, but it remains a tough situation.

*And the next G8?*

It would be interesting to know how these developments in Switzerland compare to other places. Judging by them (and by the little bit we saw of english cops at the ESF, where they were already clearly criminalising the Dissent network) one can imagine that they might try to totally stifle us, and maybe any big demo against the G8 in Scotland. First of all, the frontier of GB is much harder to pass than others at any time. Immigration is as dictatorial and detailed as in the US. Each person gets checked. I can't imagine any activists known to their local police getting by just before the summit. And then its a long way to Scotland and the summit is out in the countryside...

I think that for foreigners a good plan B is maybe more important than the plan A ! Like blocking all the frontier points? Or demonstrating in all the capitals? Or against multinationals and consulates of all 8 ?

*And the future?*

Clearly they have less and less qualms about stifling protest. Even regular union pickets are being criminalised here now. So how do we go on? Its not about out-fighting or out-running the robocops. Basically, we will be able to defend the right to protest if we do our protesting (and other political work) in ways that most people understand and accept. Its the only thing that might force them to tolerate protests. (The question isn't really decided here yet. There is also a reaction against this repression.) Or at least it could open the doors of some houses when we really need it !

by *********************** Fri Feb 11, 2005 02:06

Too much to reply to here really, on the issue of money and how it could be better used, I dont believe the €30,000 is in any way an accurate figure and there is still nothing stopping YOU from putting on a gig and raising €30,000 for use in other revolutionary activities.

Going to the g8 isn't going to change the world in itself but not going will achieve less, internationalism is our strenght. Bashing "summit hoppers" seems to be the great new trend amongst the older crowd (and their many publications) yet the "movement" wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is today were it not for these "summit hoppers".

by jack white Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:33

Bashing "summit hoppers" seems to be the great new trend amongst the older crowd (and their many publications) yet the "movement" wouldn't be nearly as strong as it is today were it not for these "summit hoppers".

Who? Where? What? (How? and Why? probably don't fit here...). I honestly haven't seen much 'summit hopping' bashing. That said it has been critiqued since Seattle which is no harm.
We all know that its not enough to just have these international mobilisations. We all kow we need to put the work in at home, in projects that last longer than a weekend. Nobody's arguing against that,.
Personally I'm all up for people heading off to major protests, I only really got involved in politics here after going to Genoa.

by blah Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:58

Cut from the article linked below:

"(The Glorious Revolutionary Federation of Fortune 500 Killers) wonders what might have happened had these protestors organized around substantive issues of actual day-to-day social meaning to the poor and non-white populations who are conspicuously absent from most of these protests and "nights of political cabaret," "(NEO-CON)ey Island Block Parties and Fashion Shows," and "all-out raves." Smaller but persistent protests around the country at poorly managed county hospitals and private insurance companies might actually force the issue of national health program onto a more prominent stage. Using issues like health care as a lens, protestors could have mounted broader criticisms of the system that breeds such ills. What is needed are practical campaigns centered around such issues, and furthermore, solidarity among such issue-based campaigns so that people understand how segregated and poor housing is connected to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, in turn connected to our abhorrent drug policies. But puppets, and poetry slams, and clown makeup, and the same old banalities since 1999 reign instead."

by Joe Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:57

Wait a second weeler some of us 'older crowd' were summit hopping when you were still in a nappy (ok I exaggerate but you deserve it!) See for instance http://struggle.ws/ws/ws51_unemployed.html This isn't so much an age thing as a needed debate. And some of us intend to go to Scotland for the G8 - it would be a lot smarter to work together than to set up fake divisions.

The original article has a point in that if you could somehow magically turn the cash and energy that will go into going to the G8 into local projects then you would achieve a lot. But such a magic wand does not exist and in terms of people getting involved in stuff locally the evidence seems to point at a bit of summit hopping being useful in that respect. Whereas preaching at them that they should be doing what you want them to do rather than what they want to do doesn't work.

Lots of stuff on this and accounts of previous protests at http://struggle.ws/wsm/global.html

by 8888888888888 Fri Feb 11, 2005 13:47

Sorry, wasn't trying to create any sort of division between "older" ppl and "summit hoppers", that would be rediculous.

Have just read way too many articles similar to the one here about how focus on summits isn't enough (obviously), seems to me they aren't suggesting any real alternative apart from vague suggestions of building local community struggles.

check out www.dissent.org.uk on the forum for the same argument repeated again and again..
The new "international socialism" *yawn* and the new "red and black revolution (which is brilliant) both dedicate a lot of space to discussing summit protests, which is a good thing but one gets bored..

by blah Fri Feb 11, 2005 14:18

weeler, there are some suggestions for local campaigns in the article.

i was outside the Temple Bar Music centre about 3 months ago. bumped into a couple of mashed-up lads who were in my affinity group in genoa, hadnt seen them since. i was talking to them about something lefty-ish, and they said to me "oh are you still into all that shite?" :-(

by ? Fri Feb 11, 2005 14:57

both the high road and the low road?
Get tae Scotland n get yon gits oot!

-

by Chekov Fri Feb 11, 2005 15:43

For a start, since this is the first article that 'atlantix' has written on the site, it's probably advisable to approach it with some scepticism. There's really no way of knowing if this article is genuinely concerned with more effective left-wing movements or alternatively written by somebody with the opposite agenda. But, for argument's sake, let's assume that it is genuine and look at the negatives that it highlights.

Back in the pre-911 days of the global summits, there probably was a naive feeling among some protestors that the movement as it stood had a genuine revolutionary potential. The protests would continue to get bigger and bigger and eventually they would result in a revolution! Although this was probably never more than a naive optimism among some of the political neophytes that had entered politics through the summit protests, it probably doesn't even exist anymore. For example, if you go to a dissent meeting, or went to a DGN meeting before last Mayday, you will find that discussion is dominated by the question of how to reach out to local communities in struggle and how to give the spectacular protests roots in local communities. It's certainly not a problem that has been solved, but it is appreciated by virtually all activists who get involved in these protests nowadays. So I think that the argument for local organising and activism is one that is generally accepted and doesn't really have to be made any more.

This brings me on to the claim that "[b]y putting effort and energy into organising travel to a distant place, other campaigns - that are often directly related to the issues thrown up by the G8 - are ignored."

I don't think that this is true and I don't think that there is any evidence for it. For example, since the start of the summit movement there has probably been a tenfold increase in anti-authoritarian political stuff in Ireland. The vast majority of this activism is focused on stuff that is local. I think that much of this upsurge is attributable to the summit protests.

I also think that the argument about expenses doesn't really add up. These trips to summit protests are seen by many people as a good way of combining a holiday with activism. You could just as easily look at the amount of money that people spend on hedonistic holidays away and say that they could travel to scotland instead and have a much cheaper holiday and do something useful at the same time and keep the money saved on the flights to amsterdam or spain or wherever for local political work.

I don't think that anybody is arguing for a political approach that is focused on big international mobilisations. This article, on the other hand seems to be arguing that only local work is useful. The vast majority of people who will travel to the G8 in scotland realise that it is a complement to local work. With an increasing number of decisions which affect us on a daily basis being made by unaccountable multi-national organisations, it makes sense to highlight the international opposition. To decide to retreat back to an entirely national-based opposition would be a big step backwards in my opinion.

by unpopular front Fri Feb 11, 2005 20:10

I agree with the original writing. It's typical to insinuate that the writer was some sorta spook because they've suggested that popular activism is pointless/wasteful.
I agree that travelling to demo's is sometimes productive, when it means lending support to locals needing help. And the kick off for these globalised protests - in Seattle- was great, but it was spontanious. A lot of people seem to have gotten caught up in events, and they took the law by surprise. Now there are busloads of holidaymakers, shuttled to these events, and the law KNOW what to expect. They are armed to the fuckin teeth, there is no hope of stopping the summit. We are driving into their hands, and giving the pigs some bodies to test their gadgets on.
Regarding the suggestion that someone put on a benefit gig to raise the -approx- 30 grand, what?? The point is that why do we need an "event" to raise money? Why do we need to get something for our euro?
Yes maybe it is a good way of hooking up with other peope, but why not organise an event somewhere/somewhen else, on our own terms, where we're less likely to come out of it poisoned+battered.
I'm not just being a chickenshit here! I do agree that if I was living in Scotland/nearby these things, I would try+get near enough to do some damage, but I think it is a waste of energy (and fuel, money, time) to travel hundreds of miles into the arms of the british army/police.

by pc Sat Feb 12, 2005 05:01

"but dont act when Greencore shuts down a sugar plant for naked profiteering" Why not an orchestrated smashing of Adshel bus shelters, an outlet of Clear Channel? Why not an occupation of Greencore? to be honest i know absolutly nothing about it, atlantix please help us and give us an education on it and the world of farming and the ifa and tell us how easy it for anrchos and farmers to organise together?? http://212.17.35.157/ifa/Press/DisplayFullArticle.asp?ID=671

by Aidan Sat Feb 12, 2005 16:16

Do you ever bother doing any research? if you did you'd know that sugar beet subsidies are helping dump sugar on third world countries, irish farmers have gotten fat off sugar because it is subdisied while those in the third world die, because they can't get a good price for their crop.

The green party have come up with some creative alternative uses for the plant and different crops the famers could grow.....

But you'd know this because you're sitting here passively waiting for information to be delievered to you.

Be the media? Do some research.......

Chekov the author seems to be well researched and concerned about the issues raised and your suspicious does not suit you or do you justice.

The author does have a very good point, protests like Genoa, Seattle, are solid focal points for a movement, but at the same time the energy and passion raised by these events is unfocused and poorly directed when we return home.

They protests draw in a type of protestor eager for the crash bang wollop and the drama (and the SWP vutlures eagerly hoping to pick up some recruits) but the lack of organisation and direction afterwards leaves alot to be desired.

While I agree about the fruit of the loom, and disagree with greencore, there is a health campaign about road development.

Finally shouting something should be done, we should be focused on this, puts you in my mind in the same camp as PC here, you're demanding to know why something isn't been done, start doing it, let people know get involved. it isn't something you can do yourself, but i've generally found in the nucleus of any good campaign you'll find three or four commited activists and a couterge of hangers on, it's those three or four people who get all the work done......

by pc Sat Feb 12, 2005 18:37

if got past your anger issues you still need to deal with. you would notice I was infact challenging atlantix to come up with something more then vague ideas of local issues to work on, echo-ing those above, i wasn't writing an artilce but a comment, I was being slightly sarcastic by suggesting farmers and anarchos would be out protesting together about not keeping secured markets a stated by the ifa in the link....

by Aidan Sat Feb 12, 2005 19:42

that sarcasm comes across in your coherant and lucid post

by tokesworth Sat Feb 12, 2005 22:39

Personally I think a good enough reason for going is to demonstrate your anger against as tangible a focus as there is for so much global inequality and greed. To see such amounts of people using our numbers to force these fuckers to show their hand is wothwhile in itself. The fact that they slowly and gradually encroach further & further upon peoples' freedom to demonstrate (with police violence, intimidation, surveillence etc), and a growing culture of fear and control in general (with CCTV, increased border control, branding of activist organisations of dissent as terrorists etc) is a further reason to defy the fuckers who benefit from this.

Nobody going to this thinks they're bringing about a revolution, they know that they're there to scream their rage against the bastards who keep us down and do what they can to disrupt the summit.

The various attempts to instill people wanting to go to this with guilt cos "they could be doing so much more" is hilarious...so symptomatic of the Pathetic Left...one type of action does not exclude another.

by thinking... Wed Jun 29, 2005 15:49

I was just thinking about this last night and the whole local vs. summit-hopping question... wouldnt it be better if people travelled to Mayo now and helped the blockade there, because the locals look like they are going to be jailed, instead of going to Scotland? An extra 100 or so Irish people in Scotland wont make that much difference, but in the west it would make a huge impact...

by dara Wed Jun 29, 2005 16:07

there's definitely a valid point there, currently an issue of worry for me. what happens if when we get back from scotland and head to mayo the campaign has been lost?

The main reason that stops me feeling like a self-indulgent summit-hopper is that the g8 gives me an opportunity to get international activists involved. I'm in london now, and am going to do everything i can to inform people and encourage them to go to rossport post g8.

this is still an point of concern though. Primarily, I think that the people on the ground now can hold it for a little longer. I think that I might be able to accomplish more by attracting more people to the cause in London and Scotland and joining the campaign immediately after.