World Bank/imf Protests?

[Bye bye now have fun]

anyone going to dc for them the 24th-26th? just wondering

[LJ04]

of what's this a protest? i did a sloppy google search and it basically said a protest against capitalism: "Breaking the Bank: As Neoliberalism Comes Crashing Down, Institutions that caused the mess should go with it!"

if that's the purpose, no, i won't be there. if i understood wikipedia's explaination of "neoliberalism", it's really conservatism. and as far as "the institutions that caused the mess", thank the democrats like barney frank, frank rains, and the rest of the corupt involved with fanny and freddie and the absurd mandates these people imposed upon "the institutions" to force this whole situation.

[Bye bye now have fun]

most people give the excuse that they do immoral stuff and destroy the earth for profit. apparently they make poor nations poorer and rich richer. personally i dont like them because they have secret meetings, their ultimate goal is to control the worlds money supply and they are the first step in a single world government. they are also going against a true free market

[Jeff_T]

Its the International Monetary Fund. I learned a bit about it last year taking international finance, but their main task is keeping the balance of payments "scorecard" for all nations. They essentially are in the background in case a country has something happen with their currency, i.e. depreciate very quickly against other trading partner's currencies. The can borrow reserves to help stabilize/revalue the currency. I know a bigger example was in the 90's(late) with the Brazilian real, when it collapsed. Take that for what its worth. If they are trying to take over the world or make developing nations poorer, I didn't hear that side.

[LJ04]

most people give the excuse that they do immoral stuff and destroy the earth for profit. apparently they make poor nations poorer and rich richer. personally i dont like them because they have secret meetings, their ultimate goal is to control the worlds money supply and they are the first step in a single world government. they are also going against a true free market

none of that sounds any good. sounds like they shoulda kept this meeting secret! i'll have to read more about it. it'd be fantastic to know what's behind everything without all the spin and propaganda every which way. unfortunately, i don't think i'll ever be in that circle.

[An1m]

most people give the excuse that they do immoral stuff and destroy the earth for profit. apparently they make poor nations poorer and rich richer. personally i dont like them because they have secret meetings, their ultimate goal is to control the worlds money supply and they are the first step in a single world government. they are also going against a true free market

Thank you Alex Jones. The world bank and IMF do not desire to, have the capacity to or take any steps to control the world's money supply. That would be the world's central banks my friend. The World Bank doesn't have "secret meetings" Their terms are generic, open and applied, essentially, one size fits all to all nations who want a loan, which is the largest reason for most of the failures it produces.

The world bank and IMF are the first step in one world government? What a joke, The European Union, NAFTA, the African Union and the Asian Union are steps toward one world government. You should do some research or at least keep the ideas that you're parroting from Alex Jones straight.

The IMF and World bank DO however make developing nations indebted to them, force them to do business with western corporations like Monsanto who makes their farmers buy terminator seed every year just to feed themselves. It does make them privatize things like national water supplies, to the detriment of the local populations,which thankfully tends to lead to popular uprisings.

They're going against a true free market? The Bretton Woods institutions, are hated precisely because they aim to strengthen the free market at the cost of people. They actually do promote free market capitalism, they make 3rd world nations ditch Import Substitution Industrialization and socialization to the point where all of a nations natural resources are privatized and in the hands of western corporations.

As usual, you know not of what you speak, and I know because I spend my life studying political science and International affairs, especially in Latin America and the Middle East. You have clearly taken your time to inform yourself again, quite punx of you to go out and protest something which actually works very well with your professed political views as a "conservative" and advocate of "free markets." Oh well, Up the Punx!

[Bye bye now have fun]

i fail to see how forcing nations to pool money is free market. a free martket is a market with out things fucking with it. lsat time i checked they effected the market. also nafta isnt meeting so why protest it? personally i think all trade agreements are stupid. when did i ever say i like the EU?

[An1m]

i fail to see how forcing nations to pool money is free market. a free martket is a market with out things fucking with it. lsat time i checked they effected the market. also nafta isnt meeting so why protest it? personally i think all trade agreements are stupid. when did i ever say i like the EU?

I am now completely convinced that you don't actually read other people's posts before replying. I would engage your post but considering that it has very little to do with my post, I will refrain.

[Bye bye now have fun]

you JUST said that they are supporting free market. maybe im using the wrong term, but by free market i mean Laissez-faire.

[NarghileNights]

i feel like if i say anything it is just going to piss people off..

what's the old saying? never underestimate the power of stupid people in a group. that's just what a protest is! thankfully though, the smart people (cops) bring tear gas.

[Bye bye now have fun]

if its a peaceful protest (Seattle amirite?) they have no right to use tear gas unless they disruptive

[erufiku]

No. I feel quite comfortable enjoying the lifestyle of the 20% of the world population that uses 80% of the world's resources. Why would I want to change that?

Just taking the stance that 99.99% of the people would take if they were faced with the option of helping other nations through reducing their own standards of living. Other than that I don't think there's anything wrong with a little march. Good for the obesity.

[judgeposer]

About protesting generally, I wanted to share this quotation from my “intellectual hero” Alasdair MacIntyre, which I know, somewhere, in some other thread, I have already shared. About protest, he says:

It is easy also to understand why protest becomes a distinctive moral feature of the modern age and why indignation is a predominant modern emotion. . . . [T]o protest was once to bear witness to something and only as a consequence of that allegiance to bear witness against something else.

But protest is now almost entirely that negative phenomenon which characteristically occurs as a reaction to the alleged invasion of someone's rights in the name of someone else's utility. The self-assertive shrillness of protest arises because the facts of incommensurability [what results when debating parties begin from different premises] ensure that protesters can never win an argument; the indignant self-righteousness arises because the facts of incommensurability ensure equally that the protester can never lose an argument either. Hence the utterance of protest is characteristically addressed to those who already share the protesters' premises. The effects of incommensurability ensure that the protesters rarely have anyone else to talk to but themselves. This is not to say that protest cannot be effective; it is to say that it cannot be rationally effective and that its dominant modes of expression give evidence of a certain perhaps unconscious awareness of this.

Go out and protest, by all means. All MacIntyre means to convey is that it will seldom be the case that your protesting will actually convince anyone else, let alone those you protest 'against,' at least rationally. But, what then motivates protesters? Why do it? Edited April 1, 2009 by judgeposer

[An1m]

i fail to see how forcing nations to pool money is free market. a free martket is a market with out things fucking with it. lsat time i checked they effected the market. also nafta isnt meeting so why protest it? personally i think all trade agreements are stupid. when did i ever say i like the EU?

you JUST said that they are supporting free market. maybe im using the wrong term, but by free market i mean Laissez-faire.

Okay the world bank doesn't "force" anyone to pool their money. It is a bank, it has member countries which are comparable to stakeholders at any other bank. The bank lends money and manks interest just like any other bank. The world bank has conditions for its loans just like any other bank. Their goal is to spread markets around the globe, what they do is desocialize and privatize poor country's natural resources and liberalize their economies.

Please, please, please explain to me what part about a capitalist bank, spreading market capitalism is anti-free marker? "Oh no! there's people pooling their money together... THOSE DAMNED COMMIES!" Pooling money happens in capitalism too. Ever hear of the stock market? Shareholders?

The point isn't that NAFTA isn't meeting, the point is that you are accusing the world bank of something that NAFTA, and the European union are guilty of, because you obviously are not informed. The World Bank promotes your ideals, according to you, you should love them, but instead in your confused, "I am a conservative-punk state", you feel the need to act like a punk, and protest with them even though you actually have no clue why.

Having a free market doesn't mean that no entity whatsoever affects the market. In a free market fluctuations occur, and certain fluctuations could occur based on who does or does not receive a loan. Why is the world bank any different in this respect?

[gaia.plateau]

Before I respond to anything here within... let me clarify some points on the 'Bretton Woods Trio'. I've read hundreds of books and articles on these for classes in international development, international conflict, third world politics, the cold war, global politics, international order, international trade, global economics, etc. etc., written by conservatives, liberals, neoconservatives, neoliberals, libertarians, marxists, constructivists, economists, political scientists, etc. etc. etc. and I've written on the positives and the negatives. So I have a fairly solid and objective understanding of their place in the international system.

In a way, these international monetary institutions do help the free market by putting foreign direct investment and capital in countries of the Global South like Chile, Singapore and South Africa, and breaking down their trade barriers.

In a way, they don't, because they also allow countries of the Global North to keep their own trade barriers high. This double standard allows industrial countries to sell their products to underdeveloped countries without tariffs and subsidies, while forcing the same underdeveloped countries to pay variably astronomic tariffs to sell their products to industrial countries.

Who they are good for: Western, capitalist states like the US, Britain, Canada, etc.
Who they are bad for: underdeveloped countries, any state that accepts their help, the world in general.

Some acronyms
IMF - International Monetary Foundation
GATT - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
WTO - World Trade Institution
IMI - International Monetary Institution
BWT - Bretton Woods Trio
DC - Developed country
LDC - Less developed country
LLDC - Highly underdeveloped country
SAP - Structural adjustment programme
FDI - Foreign direct investment
TNC - Transnational corporation

Very Brief History
The IMF, WTO and World Bank were founded at Bretton Woods, New England in 1947, at Truman's initiative. The point, essentially, was to rebuild the global economic system directly to US interests. The WTO was created to enforce the GATT, and the IMF and World Bank were created to fund the economic restoration of Europe and the Global South, maximizing their dependence on the US.

I'll write an extremely, extremely simplistic breakdown of how the Bretton Woods Trio and other actors interact with countries of the Global South, or LDCs.

Step 1: Colonialism
c. 1400s-1900s: Industrialized states colonize countries of the Global South for the purpose of resource exploitation. They become colonial states.

Step 2: Revolution
c. 1800s-1900s: Inevitably, nationalist sentiments and alienation cause populations to revolt against their colonial masters.

Step 3: Post-Colonialism
c. 1900s: Colonial states are sold to their people, and debt begins to build up. Structural systems of sociopolitical oppression and socioeconomic inequality translate from the colonial period to the postcolonial period. In many cases, postcolonial governments are proxies for former colonial powers, again for the purpose of resource exploitation.

Step 4: Structural Adjustment
c. 1947 to present: Because of their debt and foreign pressures, LDCs are forced to accept 'aid' from IMIs and DCs. 'Aid' actually means loans, usually with upwards of 20% interest, and 'aid' always comes with strings attached, most notably SAPs. An SAP's mandate is to maximize economic growth in an LDC or LLDC so that they can pay back their debts. This generally entails tearing down a country's education and healthcare programmes, which most economists agree are the most important things for building a strong economy, and allowing unfettered, unregulated FDI and TNC access.

Step 5:Neo-Imperialism
c. 1947 to present: The governments of LDCs become increasingly corrupt, and IMIs and TNCs subvert their economic and foreign policies. Prices of water, food, electricity and fuel are kept as high as possible, while minimum wage, working conditions, living standards, education and healthcare are kept as low as possible. This allows for maximum inversion of resources and a steady source of cheap, desperate labour. Additionally, it's been proven that the more desperate a population is, the more tolerant they will be of political corruption and sociopolitical oppression, which allows the cycle of corruption and exploitation to continue at maximum speed. Examples of successful neoimperialism are Iran from 1953-1979, Nicaragua until 1977 and after 1990, and Guatemala from 1954 to present. You can make a strong argument that the Cold War was actually a front for the USA and USSR to neocolonize the Global South.

if that's the purpose, no, i won't be there. if i understood wikipedia's explaination of "neoliberalism", it's really conservatism.

It's the polar opposite of conservatism, actually. Except instead of government and government-sponsored institutions economically interfering domestically, they do it internationally.

and as far as "the institutions that caused the mess", thank the democrats like barney frank, frank rains, and the rest of the corupt involved with fanny and freddie and the absurd mandates these people imposed upon "the institutions" to force this whole situation.

The BWT have only ever helped the American economy, they have very little to do with the recession, and neither do the people you named.

they are the first step in a single world government.

The BWT would be completely against the idea of a world government; without the idea of "us vs. them", you can't justify exploitation.

In theory, the BWT's objectives are to proliferate and enhance free market economics globally, independent of any one nation.

In practice, the BWT's objectives are to invert the resources and economies of LDCs, and subvert their political structures thereby strengthening the geopolitical power of the US (currently).

If they are trying to take over the world or make developing nations poorer, I didn't hear that side.

It's not like the BWT are a bunch of sinister fiends with big black mustaches, sitting around a table scheming up ways to be evil... They act as they do because taking over the world and making developing nations poorer is profitable for them; it's a means to an end. If we can accept freedom and human life as having no value, it would be a lot harder to argue that the BWT are doing anything wrong. Still: see my response to erikfu.

if its a peaceful protest (Seattle amirite?) they have no right to use tear gas unless they disruptive

This is correct. However, not having the right to use force does not mean that they will refrain from doing so.

No. I feel quite comfortable enjoying the lifestyle of the 20% of the world population that uses 80% of the world's resources. Why would I want to change that?

Just taking the stance that 99.99% of the people would take if they were faced with the option of helping other nations through reducing their own standards of living. Other than that I don't think there's anything wrong with a little march. Good for the obesity.

I'm going to completely regard all ideas of morality and ethics in answering you, because if I include them the arguments are endless.

The problem is national interest vs international interest. If we accept that national interest should always come first, then our imperative is to fuck over everybody who doesn't live in our own country to thereby gain the most for ourselves. Again, if you disregard ideas of morality and ethics, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this.

However, there are other factors. I'm just going to list the first two that come to my head, but I could give you many.

Collective Security
What happens when your country is attacked by an aggressor who is stronger than you? Why should any other nation come to your aid? If we go entirely by the imperative of national interest, they should allow you to be conquered unless the aggressor could become a hegemon by conquering you.

Environmental degradation, climate change and ecological collapse
If every country is only out for their own national interest, there is no reason to curb carbon emissions and etcetera because you don't know if anyone/everyone else will do the same, therefore putting you at a disadvantage. There's pretty much a 100% consensus in the scientific community that if we stay our present course, the planet is completely fucked in as soon as 10-15 years.

You can't go whole hog for national interest and happily exploit half the planet for your own national gain, while wanting international interest to take precedent in order to avoid destruction.

Well... that ate up 20 minutes of paper writing. I'd better look for another means of procrastination.

[gaia.plateau]

Oh, and as to whether the protest will have any effect...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO_Ministeri...rotest_activity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement

Qualification: wikipedia is the root of all evil. But still, easier than searching for reputable sources. Edited April 2, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[erufiku]

Sigh, I see your point, of course. It was a troll-ish response.
It's just that "morality" and "ethics" have nothing to do with politics. Also, the protests such as the one scheduled all usually boil down to one thing: a bunch of well dressed people step out of the nearest Starbucks to shake their fists for a while, get bored, and go in for another cappuccino while texting their friends how awesome the protest was. High fives for civil disobedience ensue. Everyone who should be there protesting is... at work, doing their jobs and making everyday life possible.

[gaia.plateau]

the protests such as the one scheduled all usually boil down to one thing: a bunch of well dressed people step out of the nearest Starbucks to shake their fists for a while, get bored, and go in for another cappuccino while texting their friends how awesome the protest was. High fives for civil disobedience ensue. Everyone who should be there protesting is... at work, doing their jobs and making everyday life possible.

I think that you're right for the majority of North Americans. Organized protestation means very little when most of the people involved are basically just using other peoples' dilemmas as distractions because they're bored. My opinion is that these starbucks intellectuals, with all their smugness and ennui, are doing more damage in the problem of corporate-led globalization than any corporation. Still, there's something to be said for the fluidity of membership in these kinds of social movements.

That said, we North Americans didn't invent protest. Look at the non-violent resistance movement in India against British colonialism, for example; extremely effective, because it was their problem, and they took to the streets because they didn't have a choice.

I think the Vietnam anti-war movement gives a lot of insight into this... I'm actually just about to start an essay on it, my last one of my Canadian academic career.

If we look at the anti-war movement in the United States, we see a bunch of bored hippie douchebags who, for the most part, weren't really affected by the cause they were involving themselves with. Conversely, look at the anti-war movement in Vietnam, where Buddhist monks set themselves on fire in front of the capital building in Saigon, and city-wide protests, images of which had significant effect on ending the war.

It's important to take with a grain of salt the sentiments of the fair-trade douches with their hemp bracelets and tweed jackets, bleating about the evils of corporations without any meaningful understanding of what they're talking about... but it shouldn't be applied to the idea of non-violent resistance in general which can be extremely effective in some contexts.

I think this expresses what I'm trying to get at.

I never thought about the universe, it made me feel small
Never thought about the problems of this planet at all
Global warming, radio-active sites
Imperialistic wrongs and animal rights! No!

Why think of all the bad things when life is so good?
Why help with an 'am' when there's always a 'could'?
Let the whales worry about the poisons in the sea
Outside of California, it's foreign policy

I don't want changes, I have no reactions
Your dilemmas are my distractions

I never looked around, never second-guessed
Then I read some Howard Zinn now I'm always depressed
And now I can't sleep from years of apathy
All because I read a little Noam Chomsky

I'm eating vegetation, 'cause of Fast Food Nation
I'm wearing uncomfortable shoes 'cause of globalization
I'm watching Michael Moore expose the awful truth
I'm listening to Public Enemy and Reagan Youth

I see no world peace 'cause of zealous armed forces
I eat no breath-mints 'cause they're from de-hoofed horses
Now I can't believe; what an absolute failure
The president's laughing 'cause we voted for Nader

I want to move north and be a Canadian
Or hang down low with the nice Australians
I don't want to be another "I-don't-care"-ican
What are we gonna do Franco, Franco Un-American

Edited April 5, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[An1m]

I have lot's of problems with hippies in certain areas but I think it's sad that you reduce their efforts and their contributions to boredom and label them douchebags. I think that the hippies were anything but bored, and that having a concerned and informed generation of youth was integral in ending the vietnam war. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how many monks set themselves on fire a world away, it makes for a good album cover but in the conscience of the average American it meant nothing at the time.

Seeing video of the endless streams of caskets coming back from overseas helped end the war faster than any other factor. Protest and discontent with the war amongst young people and, later, the greater population was also a great contributing factor.

I don't know when or where the last protest you attended was but I damn sure didn't see anybody drinking starbucks, or wearing tweed blazers at any protest that I have ever been to. The people who tend to protest are usually much more informed about the issues they are protesting than you seem to think.

And for the record I think it's ironic but also completely predictable that NOFX should be quoted in this thread. I don't know if you listen to Propagandhi but if you don't you should listen to "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism".

[gaia.plateau]

I think that the hippies were anything but bored, and that having a concerned and informed generation of youth was integral in ending the vietnam war. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how many monks set themselves on fire a world away, it makes for a good album cover but in the conscience of the average American it meant nothing at the time.

...

Protest and discontent with the war amongst young people and, later, the greater population was also a great contributing factor.

"The fact of the matter" is still controversial, in fact there are as many peer-reviewed, academic studies which have found that the concerned and informed generation of youth did more to prolong the Vietnam war as there are which have found them to be effectual in ending it. The argument for the former is that the extremism of the anti-war movement in the US, eg. The Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc., polarized the "silent majority" against the ideology of peace, therefore swaying public opinion to support Nixon's continuation of the war. I'm sure I'll be able to provide several sources for this in a few days, if you'd like.

Conversely, the anti-war movement of the Unified Buddhist Church in Vietnam which was spearheaded by Thich Nhat Hanh, who interestingly was a major catalyst for the anti-war movement in the US after he spoke out against the war at several American universities, made a number of powerful contributions to ending the war. Domestically, the UBC undermined what little legitimacy was left in both the Diem and Thieu regimes, empowering nationalist anti-war sentiments both in the South and the North. Studies have also found that the Vietnamese non-violent resistance movement, motivated largely by the UBC and other actors, also had a substantial effect on American public opinion.

Seeing video of the endless streams of caskets coming back from overseas helped end the war faster than any other factor.

That's correct, but I'm not sure that it's relevant to the discussion.

I don't know when or where the last protest you attended was but I damn sure didn't see anybody drinking starbucks, or wearing tweed blazers at any protest that I have ever been to. The people who tend to protest are usually much more informed about the issues they are protesting than you seem to think.

If you think that the majority of members in post-modern social movements are generally informed... you should look into the works of people like Paul Wapner, Joshua Gamson and Todd Gitlin, just to name a few. The reason that post-modern movements have had some success since the late 60s is because most of their members aren't well informed or genuinely committed to the cause; it allows for great fluidity and volume of membership.

As for the organizers... some are sincere and brilliant, others are insane and ridiculous.

The point I was making in agreement with erikfu, is that in the paradigm of protest du jour, social movements focused around real problems are increasingly comprised of members motivated by ennui and boredom, or at best the desire for personal satisfaction, rather than genuinely altruistic imperatives.

for the record I think it's ironic but also completely predictable that NOFX should be quoted in this thread. I don't know if you listen to Propagandhi but if you don't you should listen to "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism".

I do, I have, and I assume you're leaving the topic of the Vietnam anti-war movement as a commentary on the viability of protest to return to the issue of BWT protestation. It's interesting that you chose to reference this song, since as a critique of corporate-led globalization...

we may face a scorched and lifeless earth,
but they're accountable to their shareholders first.

...it contradicts what you've posted in this thread.

the world bank doesn't "force" anyone to pool their money. It is a bank, it has member countries which are comparable to stakeholders at any other bank. The bank lends money and manks interest just like any other bank. The world bank has conditions for its loans just like any other bank. Their goal is to spread markets around the globe, what they do is desocialize and privatize poor country's natural resources and liberalize their economies.

Definition of irony. Edited April 5, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Bye bye now have fun]

im going to have to agree with giaa on the most part about uninformed protesters. coming from a school that you can find at least 3 people that will protest it raining ive seen some really stupid ones. as for the starbucks drinking ive only seen it 3 times, the first was when the agnostics and atheists got next to some crazy guy that just told everyone they were going to hell and eternity was a long time and just did this "ask an atheist" thing (in the end both of the parties involved look retarded), when vegiterians and vegans protests the schools uses of meat and caged eggs, and im not sure if this was a protest or not but it was a seesaw with 2 girls riding it and a ring of people sitting around it. personally i think that 99% of them do it to make a scene. like when the people were protesting the gay pride protesters and they just stood next to each other yelling at each other or the people that walk around with late term illegal abortion signs outside of building trying to make people throw up. then some people have good ideas but just dont get it. i saw someone i know from a class at a sweatshop protest and asked her about it. i told her that they would never pay "fair wages" to them they would just move to another place that is marginally better wages. then some crap about people having the right to get paid justly. i asked what would happen if the factory shuts down and which i got no reply to and proceeded to tell her that they kids arent busting their ass to buy a new ipod or 100$ pair of jeans they are working in dangerous conditions so they could eat. none of that actually had to do with making a scene but they did later get arrested for refusing to leave a building after it closed down. ironically the best informed protest that i asked about was the one to stop Israel from bombing Palestine. I originally thought they were just there to hate jews but they admitted that israel was getting attacked and not everyone felt that way and other shit. either that or it was the most uprising since it all started a millennium ago when they got butthurt that a bunch of rabbis called Muhammad a false profet.

[gaia.plateau]

Edited April 5, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[An1m]

I think that the hippies were anything but bored, and that having a concerned and informed generation of youth was integral in ending the vietnam war. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter how many monks set themselves on fire a world away, it makes for a good album cover but in the conscience of the average American it meant nothing at the time.

...

Protest and discontent with the war amongst young people and, later, the greater population was also a great contributing factor.

"The fact of the matter" is still controversial, in fact there are as many peer-reviewed, academic studies which have found that the concerned and informed generation of youth did more to prolong the Vietnam war as there are which have found them to be effectual in ending it. The argument for the former is that the extremism of the anti-war movement in the US, eg. The Weather Underground, Black Panthers, etc., polarized the "silent majority" against the ideology of peace, therefore swaying public opinion to support Nixon's continuation of the war. I'm sure I'll be able to provide several sources for this in a few days, if you'd like.

Conversely, the anti-war movement of the Unified Buddhist Church in Vietnam which was spearheaded by Thich Nhat Hanh, who interestingly was a major catalyst for the anti-war movement in the US after he spoke out against the war at several American universities, made a number of powerful contributions to ending the war. Domestically, the UBC undermined what little legitimacy was left in both the Diem and Thieu regimes, empowering nationalist anti-war sentiments both in the South and the North. Studies have also found that the Vietnamese non-violent resistance movement, motivated largely by the UBC and other actors, also had a substantial effect on American public opinion.

Seeing video of the endless streams of caskets coming back from overseas helped end the war faster than any other factor.

That's correct, but I'm not sure that it's relevant to the discussion.

I don't know when or where the last protest you attended was but I damn sure didn't see anybody drinking starbucks, or wearing tweed blazers at any protest that I have ever been to. The people who tend to protest are usually much more informed about the issues they are protesting than you seem to think.

If you think that the majority of members in post-modern social movements are generally informed... you should look into the works of people like Paul Wapner, Joshua Gamson and Todd Gitlin, just to name a few. The reason that post-modern movements have had some success since the late 60s is because most of their members aren't well informed or genuinely committed to the cause; it allows for great fluidity and volume of membership.

As for the organizers... some are sincere and brilliant, others are insane and ridiculous.

The point I was making in agreement with erikfu, is that in the paradigm of protest du jour, social movements focused around real problems are increasingly comprised of members motivated by ennui and boredom, or at best the desire for personal satisfaction, rather than genuinely altruistic imperatives.

for the record I think it's ironic but also completely predictable that NOFX should be quoted in this thread. I don't know if you listen to Propagandhi but if you don't you should listen to "Rock for Sustainable Capitalism".

I do, I have, and I assume you're leaving the topic of the Vietnam anti-war movement as a commentary on the viability of protest to return to the issue of BWT protestation. It's interesting that you chose to reference this song, since as a critique of corporate-led globalization...

we may face a scorched and lifeless earth,
but they're accountable to their shareholders first.

...it contradicts what you've posted in this thread.

the world bank doesn't "force" anyone to pool their money. It is a bank, it has member countries which are comparable to stakeholders at any other bank. The bank lends money and manks interest just like any other bank. The world bank has conditions for its loans just like any other bank. Their goal is to spread markets around the globe, what they do is desocialize and privatize poor country's natural resources and liberalize their economies.

Definition of irony.

I suppose you missed the point of my post on the world bank. Maybe since I haven't expressly outline my political views in this thread you were lost, however most of the people who would read my posts, know exactly where I stand on the Bretton-Woods Institutions and know my political beliefs in general. I was pointing out to GNU that they happen to support his ideals, and I wondered why he would consider protesting them since he likes to think of himself as some sort of modern-conservative "punk."

I was speaking dispassionately about the aims of the World Bank, I was not absolving them of any guilt for the things that they do. In fact if you had read my words in context, that should have been very, very, very clear, considering that I talked about the things that they do in pursuit of spreading markets. Pointing out that someone is wrong, does not mean that I am defending the World Bank's actions.

This would also be why I posted about one of the Greatest Bands of All Time's songs, in response to one of the crappiest, hypocritical, mall punk bands of all time. Propagandhi is also directing some of those verses at nofx, if you hadn't noticed. They have a bit of a back and forth going. Propagandhi points out that nofx are gargantuan hypocrites and nofx points out that Propagandhi only preaches to the converted.

The only irony here is that you completely missed the point of everything that I said. Is this where I link you to the defintion of an obvious and pervasive word?

[An1m]

im going to have to agree with giaa on the most part about uninformed protesters. coming from a school that you can find at least 3 people that will protest it raining ive seen some really stupid ones. as for the starbucks drinking ive only seen it 3 times, the first was when the agnostics and atheists got next to some crazy guy that just told everyone they were going to hell and eternity was a long time and just did this "ask an atheist" thing (in the end both of the parties involved look retarded), when vegiterians and vegans protests the schools uses of meat and caged eggs, and im not sure if this was a protest or not but it was a seesaw with 2 girls riding it and a ring of people sitting around it. personally i think that 99% of them do it to make a scene. like when the people were protesting the gay pride protesters and they just stood next to each other yelling at each other or the people that walk around with late term illegal abortion signs outside of building trying to make people throw up. then some people have good ideas but just dont get it. i saw someone i know from a class at a sweatshop protest and asked her about it. i told her that they would never pay "fair wages" to them they would just move to another place that is marginally better wages. then some crap about people having the right to get paid justly. i asked what would happen if the factory shuts down and which i got no reply to and proceeded to tell her that they kids arent busting their ass to buy a new ipod or 100$ pair of jeans they are working in dangerous conditions so they could eat. none of that actually had to do with making a scene but they did later get arrested for refusing to leave a building after it closed down. ironically the best informed protest that i asked about was the one to stop Israel from bombing Palestine. I originally thought they were just there to hate jews but they admitted that israel was getting attacked and not everyone felt that way and other shit. either that or it was the most uprising since it all started a millennium ago when they got butthurt that a bunch of rabbis called Muhammad a false profet.

Noam Chomsky has a monologue against pornography, which I don't personally agree with, but addresses your quip about sweatshops handily. Also, sweatshops do get closed down, and factories do get forced to pay living wages. Public outcry and public pressure helps subject huge corporations like Gildan, and Gap, that get caught red-handed employing sweat-shops to open up to independent review and pay living wages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE <---- I think that's the video Edited April 6, 2009 by An1m

[Sonthert]

Where to start?

All that needs to be said regarding the goals and the positive contributions of the IMF/World Bank is their terms for the loan to Paraguay and requiring their municipal water supply to be privatized...the residents were banned from collecting their own water (even rain water) and had to pay up to like 25% of their income for water if they wanted water. WTF? They require farmers to use seed sold from companies that has to be repurchased each year rather than using natural seeds that can be reharvested for the next year from crops, the way people have been doing it for thousands of years. To what end? To create financial stability and prosperity by giving it away?

Secondly, why is it that proponents of global warming frequently say "Almost all scientists agree" or as Gaia put it "There's pretty much a 100% consensus in the scientific community that if we stay our present course, the planet is completely fucked in as soon as 10-15 years."

I don't think the consensus is near 100% scientists agreeing with this. I agree that 100% of the scientists who have a financial motive agree with this as well as other well-intentioned people. Cause and Effect haven't been established, the scientific data they're using is a hodgepodge of 130 years of recorded data and radioisotope data. I've listened to the pro-side very carefully and they have lots of data, some correlations, but no proof. Some of their data is contradictory or nonsensical. Science isn't a democracy. Its rigorous. The gloom-and-doom scientists also predicted that chloro-fluorocarbon free radicals would destroy the Earth's ozone layer permanently. Seems like everything's doing better on the ozone layer so far. The chemistry's correct, but the absurd assertion by the scientific community that these chemicals would be up there forever dissolving ozone and that there was no way for the Earth to make more ozone. The Earth would become unliveable. The scientists were all 100% in agreement then, too. So, now we have even a greater threat, global warming. Now, everything will be destroyed because of carbon dioxide. I've heard the song before, it doesn't sound any more convincing. The ozone hole was/is a problem, but its solvable and its not going to be the end of the world. Same with global warming.

I don't doubt that its true to some extent, but 10-15 years the Earth will be completely fucked? Are you serious? They said the same thing in "The Limits to Growth" (~1974). Do you guys mean it for real this time? Have you heard of Chicken Little and "The Sky is Falling" syndrome?

That being said, I agree with most of the conservation matters that global warming advocates propose. What I object to is their obvious hyperbole directed at people that would seem to be stupid and gullible. So, if you believe global warming is a certainty and 100% of scientists agree...read some opposing viewpoints...their science is far better than the the global warming side.

With that, the IMF/WB has been accused of using the global warming issue to keep countries from developing in the most natural, logical way everyone else did it..carbon emissions. Critics argue there is a hollowness to the global-warming protocols, aimed at keeping the developing countries as contributing hegemonic servants of the developed countries. I agree. This is China's contention, too. I doubt you could compare the carbon emissions of Uruguay to those of Germany or the United States. Across the board cuts of carbon emissions, like a 20% reduction from all countries serves to protect the interests of the developed countries, whereas a sliding scale with larger cuts for larger polluters would help developing countries develop and probably reduce carbon emissions by more, overall...flat carbon emission reductions can only objectively be seen as regressive, the same way "flat income taxes" are regressive and benefit the wealthy.

I believe the word, you're looking for gentlemen, in regards to protesters is dilettante. Somebody who professes great knowledge about a field but possesses very little in the most superficial way.

Also, for you pro-socialist types, the Soviet Union was one of the worst polluters and almost went out of their way to not rotect the environment claiming environmental damage was something that resulted from capitalism, from a profit motive. Tell that to the farmers who couldn't grow crops because their ground was polluted by sulfur from dirty coal-burning power plants that had zero environmental safeguards.

Gaia, its a mixed bag. Its easy for people opposed to protesting, the Vietnam War, for instance to say the protesting did nothing and even lengthened the war. If it did, then its time to replace our government and it might be one of the first examples of it.

I don't know...it sounds like An1m and Gnu are agreeing on some superficial level here...miracle of miracles?

I object to war, I object to political violence. They are courses of action that must be carefully weighed as a last resort, not a political policy. I do believe in personal violence, for personal motives, as a measured response, not as an arbitrary or rash course. Does that qualify me as a liberal hippie douchebag? If you wish to test that, come out my way and mess with my ride.

Overall, I think the IMF/WB's relationship to the developing countries is the roughly the same as big tobacco is to smokers. "Really, we want to help you to help yourself quit smoking."