WELL DONE INDYMEDIA!

by Phuq Hedd Mon May 13, 2002 19:18

The anti-globalisation term is a very broad, wishy-washy, umbrella term that can be used by people that believe one or more of the following:

1. nation states having control over their own capitalist economies is good (the good old days pre-1973)
2. capitalism can be "reformed" and made more humane just like it was (when?!!): groups like Jubliee2000, DropTheDebt
3. capitalism is the root cause of all the problems, the new world of mobile capital and production is an acceleration of the problems
4. the post-WW2 institutions (IMF, WB, NGOs, UN) can exercise more humane, people-oriented policies in a benevolent world capitalism

anti-capitalists believe:
the root cause of the problem is capitalism, messing around trying to reform capitalism is flawed because it is fundamentally the exploitation of the majority for the profit of the minority.

by phill Mon May 13, 2002 18:40

anti-captialism means against a system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

anti-globalisation is a very loose term, used to freely by the left at the moment
it could mean, you are against global travel, global communication, global sport associations, or as (I presume) it is used by the left, anti global capitalism

the term, anti globalisation is causing much confusion
it makes protestors who travel to far of lands to protest seem like hipocrits (surely soemone who doesn't like global things would stay at home and not travel)

ant-capitalism is less wooly banner to protest under

without wanting to get in the middle of faction bickering, I would say that as campaign names go "globalise resistance" is quite good. It puts the emphasise on the resistance being global, and doesn't make one think "what is it these people don't want to be globalised?"

just my tupence worth
Phill

by Magpie Mon May 13, 2002 12:56 case81 at hotmail dot com

whats trhe difference between anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation?

by just me - no affiliation Mon May 13, 2002 11:46 Dublin

Just an observation right, but did anyone notice that on the Late Late when Pat Kenny asked Joe Carolin what kind of society he would have in place of a capitalist one which we have today, joe failed to answer to question instead choosing to reiterate what he had already said was at fault in our society....does he even know what hes at?

by shane Mon May 13, 2002 10:59

labour is not a fucking socialist party, jim, you need to wash your filthy mouth out. how is it that labour would go into coalition with the devil, if it gave them some power, but refuses to contemplate a coalition with the ONLY socialist party in the dail, Sinn Fein, (or even Joe Higgins). and dont give me any shite about Sinn Fein and the IRA, that phase of history is over, SF is now being judged politicaly and not militaristically, and all the conservatist parties are running scared. how is it that SF is the only party to offer free health to ALL rather than labours continuation of the two-tier system. no, the future for labour is coalition with FF and FG, maybe then we can organise resistance more efficently and effectively,

by shane Sun May 12, 2002 17:57

i defy anyone to have the nerve to call the labour party anything but an establishment right-wing party (doesn't matter how moderate they are), and the support of the irish times, RTE, and the various trade unions shows how conservative and pathetic they are.

by Frederic Jameson Sun May 12, 2002 02:05

One thing about that thing on Kenny: constant reiteration of it being a totally peaceful protest. I was there, I know as much as anyone that it can be classified as a peaceful protest as a whole but we all know that there was belligerance and some violence not just against Gards but by scumbags pissing off protesters. This primarily went on at Burgh Quay, though.

In the interest of keeping things fair and honest, admit that there was some 'violence' and an 'incident' at Burgh Quay and deal with it; convincing ourselves there wasn't is to ignore something rotten and potentially damaging to RTS especially and the movement as a whole.

The debate, an honest debate, has to continue.

by Frederick Jameson Sun May 12, 2002 00:43

"they are openly backed by the right-wing agenda" ..... who cares that they are called the Labour Party or whatever

by Comrade Jim Sun May 12, 2002 00:11

Shane I pretty lear that the Times and RTE are supporting Labour party and it the Indo that is supporting FF.

Do you even read the times