G20 talks being held in Toronto - and as usual, there are swarms of protesters around, some of them violent and destructive. What exactly are they protesting against? Globalization? Why protest the inevitable? And why protest against people who are trying to prepare us for the inevitable? My initial reaction is that these people are just angry and frustrated in search of an object - any object - for that anger and frustration - but i admit i might be wrong as their actual motives are foreign to me . . .
anyone care to enlighten me as to the evils of the G20?
Whatever the specifics of what they are protesting, and whether or not they dress it in violent images, they are functioning as manifestations of the presence of discontent with the (and I preface this with saying I once might have made references to Gramschi here (did I spell that right?)) hegemony of official (early Habermas would say “legitimate”) power [holy crap, look at me name drop this evening! Don’t ask me to back it up with exegesis though…]
it doesn’t make sense to me to protest against the fact that something is going to happen anyway - that’s like protesting against an oncoming hurricane - you should be spending your energy preparing for it
unless you mean to imply that the classification of globalization as “inevitable” is just a propaganda thing or a selling point, in which case i’d probably have to disagree . . .
perhaps, but it’s not like it’s a media conspiracy - people would much rather hear about the violence (provoked or not) than the actual policies being decided - blood and destruction sell, but policy generally causes people’s eyes to glaze over
part of me thinks the protesters probably don’t care a whole lot about the policies being decided - i mean, the big question this time around is whether Europe needs more stimulus or more austerity measures in order to weather it’s current economic situation, which is dire - that’s a pretty necessarry question to answer at this point, whether or not you agree with whatever answer they come up with - and the protests were taking place even before an answer was arrived at
there needs to be some kind of economic power structure in the world, tho - i doubt these protesters are all capitalist free-marketers (tho perhaps some are anarchists) - it only makes sense that the leaders of those nations with the biggest stakes in the global economy would also be meeting to discuss how to manage it, don’t you think? at least it’s not a meeting of corporate CEOs making the policy decisions
we need a framework for globalization to grow into - letting it run rampant will not be good for anyone - sure official power structures are inherently dubious institutions, but why protest until they’ve actually made decisions one could disagree with?
in looking for such reasons, i am assuming of course that the decision to protest was a rational one . . . but, like i said, maybe these guys are like the tea partiers, just angry at nothing in particular and looking for someplace to focus that emotion . . .
i don’t know - even considering the hegemony, i fail to see what’s so bad about the G20
maybe there’s some kind of Foucaultian-style analysis that people are working from of which i am unaware
i am of course duly impressed by your name dropping, Oughtie - mine pales in comparison, since Foucault is such an obvious choice here.
Everything is a media conspiracy, as the media is owned by the same interests who decide the policy. My eyes don’t glaze over during policy because I’m not dumb and I care.
I’m guessing the protests are protests? If so, there are important issues involved, and many reasons to be anti-globalization. The biggest issue in my opinion has to do with sovereignty. Elected governments have seen their power to rule themselves as they see fit reduced in recent years, as organizations like the World Bank or WTO strong-arm less powerful countries into implementing certain economic policies. These policies are obviously policies that the most powerful nations (and corporations) would like to see in place, so that the rest of the world (including “the environment”) will bend over for them.
From the Wiki article I linked:
Also, I doubt the protestors see whatever it is they are protesting against as inevitable. Were you serious about that? People protest things in order to effect change, or protect the status quo from change.
If this meeting is similar to past meetings, the protests are not just about globalization, but about every damned thing people would like to blame on government. Like the tea party movement, you couldn’t get two protestors to agree on the time of day let alone any particular complaint. It’s much ado about nothing. If you look at the results of the meeting in terms of policy, there was little or no agreement on anything of substance - up to, and including, what to have for lunch.
I agree. However, protests these days seem to be inevitably ineffective… unless they happen to be useful to rich, corporate, and investor interests, like those of the “tea party” which the media both funds, encourages, incites, and builds up.
again, i believe the diminished sovereignty of ALL nations (powerful ones included) is an inevitable result of the technological and economic age in which we live - the blurring of lines between nations is in many ways something to welcome, however.
the world economy is/will be based in investment. this is both unfortunate in some ways and fortunate in others - propaganda comes from all sides of the issue, tho, mainly because everyone (powerful interests included) has a hard time predicting exactly what is going to happen as globalization proceeds.
i do believe globalization is inevitable, yes - what the protesters believe, i’m not sure - but i think it’s naive to assume that we can stop globalization. especially by protesting the IMF and World Bank - which actually do a lot of good in some ways - i think making financial resources available to even the poorest nations is a good thing, at least in principle
my personal feeling is that globalization, like the older system of sovereignty, will have both its ups and downs - Chomsky’s right that the wealthy will benefit the most but the wealthy ALWAYS benefit the most - under any system - that’s the way of any world, not just a globalized one.
i don’t think that’s entirely true, though it is in some cases
i was most certainly not suggesting that you are dumb or don’t care - i’m just talking about what most interests the general public - if it bleeds, it leads, as they say
i agree - there are definite similarities i see between protests like these and the tea-party movement - like i said, there’s so little agreement on every side because nobody really knows exactly where we are currently headed - globalization is, ultimately, a somewhat vague concept
Also, some protests get “help” if they serve the MIC and corporate interests (like those of the tea party) and some get pushed off into “free speech zones,” infiltrated for disruption, and either ignored by the media or if not completely ignorable, then marginalized, attacked, and ridiculed.
Not only does the G20 need protesting, it also needs very critical scrutiny outside the propaganda machine.
But as I tried to point out, it’s not an across the board thing. It’s not globalization versus anti-globalization. It’s about how to globalize. We do have elected governments, and we do protect against powerful interests. What makes modern times so special that we can’t do that anymore? Why can’t we govern international waters for instance, in order to control overfishing of certain fish populations, like the bluefin tuna? Why isn’t that globalization inevitable? These issues can be addressed; the specifics of globalization are not at all inevitable. I think it’s extremely cynical to assume otherwise.
ok, but WHY is what i’m asking - what specifically is so bad about the G20 and what theyre doing (which, as Tentative points out doesn’t seem to be very much) . . .
The “need” depends entirely on your perspective. Some view the G20 as representative of “evil capitalism” - exploiting the earth and its people. In my experience, that seems to be the most obvious. Some form of environmental, human rights driven frenzy that necessitates protesting.