Skip to comments.Huge protest march passes off peacefully
Posted on 03/18/2002 12:56:27 PM PST by gfactor
Hundreds of thousands of people staged a peaceful demonstration against global capitalism in Barcelona on Saturday, underlining that their movement did not die with the September 11 attacks against the US and that their protests need not be marred by violence.
Organisers said the turnout, which they put at more than 500,000, surpassed their expectations. The march was the largest staged in "Red Barcelona", a city that was collectivised by anarchists during the Spanish civil war and which retains strong leftwing sympathies.
The protest would have been much larger were it not for the fact that dozens of buses carrying anti-globalisation protesters were detained at the French border. Spain suspended the Schengen treaty, which guarantees the free movement of European Union citizens, during the duration of the EU summit.
To lessen the potential for conflict, organisers agreed to stage their main demonstration on Saturday evening, after the EU summit was over. The route of the march was also away from the the summit venue. Barcelona's city authorities agreed that riot police would keep a low profile during the march.
"One of our main aims was to remove the stigma of violence that had become attached to our anti-globalisation movement," said Luis Edo, a member of Attac, a group that advocates a worldwide tax on speculative capital movements and the forgiveness of third world debt. "We convinced police that we were capable of keeping the peace."
The march was organised in three blocs, like samba schools in a carnival parade. The first was led by the Movement against a Capitalist Europe, with more than 100 organisations. A middle group was led by European "nations without a state" - Catalans, Basques, Corsicans and Scots who want to be independent nations within Europe. The third group of Socialist party and trade union activists did not even get a chance to parade, such was the human log-jam on the streets.
Police later reported isolated clashes with radical youths which ended with some smashed shop fronts and 50 arrests.
Mr Edo believed the Barcelona protest set a milestone for the anti-globalisation movement. "Our challenge now is to convince the public that our proposals are not Utopian," he said.
No problem. I think the proper word is dystopian.
col·lec·tiv·ize Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vz)
To organize (an economy, industry, or enterprise) on the basis of collectivism.
an·ar·chy Pronunciation Key (nr-k)
1.Absence of any form of political authority.
2.Political disorder and confusion.
3.Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
The point is, for those of you in Rio Linda, anarchic
collectivization is an oxymoron.
then how did they do it? are you saying it didn't happen?
Sometimes, I miss ol' Joe. He had a certain way of reducing the ranks of leftists.
I maintain that there is much more at play here than just a bunch of loony socialists. It's one thing to support capitalism. It's another to support your nation being absorbed into the Borg. I view the European Union model of a super-state to be problematic.
A Republican representative form of government binds our states to the United States. Direct elections are used to select our leaders. The binding of the European Nations to the European Union super-state Borg, has nothing to do with being a Republic or representative form of government. The citizens of the EU are merely absorbed. They become a part of the collective, but they do not vote for the EU super-state officials.
I believe that a lot of people are waking up to the nature of the EU, and I don't think they like what they are seeing.
Is living under a capitalist based tyrany all that different than living under a socialist based form of tyrany? When you lose direct control over the people who make the decisions that govern you, you live under a form of tyrany IMO.
I object to our current globalist capitalist frenzy because I recognize that corporations wield extreme power. The corporations makie decisions that better their corporate situation with absolutely no concern or loyalty to their home nation. This negatively impacts our nation. When Loral gave missile tech to China, it was to better Loral's position. To hell with the negative impact on the U.S. This is not the only instance of that happening. It's merely the tip of the ice berg.
I would suggest that people need to think more about these issues and be a little less quick to pass European protests off as simply the work of anti-capitalists or world marxists. There are some valid issues for concern in Europe and in our own nation.
Very funny. Spain stopped the anti-globalisation protesters by suspending a globalisation treaty.
So did the protesters win a minor victory with the treaty being suspended or did they lose by being stopped at the border?
A: Yes. Under capitalism you can choose with whom you do business. Under socialism, the choice is made for you. That choice is the essence of freedom.
Posting on Free Republic and not understanding the difference can be hazardous to your self esteem. Are you sure you will be happy here?
A: Nope. It was a National Socialist economy. Like good socialists everywhere, the Nazi's picked the winners, and people were forced to do business with them (Volkswagen, Krupps, oil industry, etc.)
I will grant you that it is possible to have nominal capitalism and political totalitarianism simultaneously (see China). But, that is not the case in 90%+ of the countries in which capitalism is practiced. It is virtually impossible for the two to mix.
"Moreover, Catalan liberals, although relatively more modern than the rest of progressive republicanism in Spain, still lacked adequate experi- ence and understanding of what the arduous task of grass roots political organization required. What was needed, then, on the wild new frontier of political life in post-revolutionary Catalonia, was a new kind of party, able to mobilize its base `bottom-up' (taking a leaf out of the CNT's book) and also unafraid to enter the fray because it had no pre-existing organizational stakes or power base to protect - only everything to gain.
"The political force which emerged to fill this political space was the PSUC (United Socialist Party of Catalonia), formed on 23 July 1936 from the merger of four smaller parties. Although the tiny Catalan section of the official (i.e. Communist International- aligned) Communist Party was one of the four, the tendency in both the AngloAmerican historiography and other literature (including Orwell) to present the PSUC as the Communist Party of Catalonia tout court is highly problematic. By far the most important numerical and ideological com-ponent in the PSUC was the Unió Socialista de Catalunya, a Catalan social democra- tic party headed by the ambitious Joan Comorera.
"Prior to the war the party merger had stalled on Comorera's refusal to accept PSUC affiliation to the Communist International (Comintern). But his reluctance evaporated in the wake of the July Days. Now, for Comorera, as for the entire liberal left in Catalonia, the overwhelming need was to mount a common defence of social `normality'. The organizational expertise and resources of the Comintern could only facilitate this process. Moreover, now the Comintern was every-where espousing politically middle-of-the- road alliances between liberals, socialists and communists as part of its Popular Front strategy, then affiliation must have seemed a small price to pay. "
From another source, a description of Red Barcelona.
The incident known as "Red Barcelona" (first referenced at 32) is the first of a series of global leftist hemorrhages debated by
Edgars characters. Anarchists and communists, formerly allies, end up killing each other over disagreements about fighting their
mutual enemy, the fascist Franco. Cited by Phil as a "cautionary tale," "anarchists were smashed by the communists" (38).
Indeed, while leftist allies were fighting, their mutual enemy managed to crush both of them, ironically, during the workers
Five Days in May.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. Kristallnacht showed only the chosen "were allowed to own their own businesses." Industries that did not conform to Nazi intent were nationalized.
As to the finer points of compensation, I am ignorant. But I'm guessing that by 1939, any sort of profits were indeed effectively confiscated for the war effort. A very few embezzling Nazis made it out of the country with lucre, but most industry was destroyed and leadership died.
Compared to capitalism which you equate to tyranny, what economic model do you support that yields more freedom?
And I say that what the power hungry dogs that run multinational corporations have in mind for the rest of us in monopoly capitalism, which isn't free enterprise at all. They are working hand in hand with the socialists in governments all over the world to tax and regulate their smaller compeditors out of business. These are taxes and regulations that only the multinationals can pay and comply with and still stay in business. And no, when they get their way you won't have a choice because only a few select entities will still be in business. No difference between communism and these jackels except who owns the means of production. I think a better term for monopoly capitalism is "mercantilism," which was what the founding fathers rebelled against. Also, communists love monopolies; they are much easier for the state to take over than a whole bunch of small businesses.
And that is precisely what big business and big government is trying to do now.
anarchic self management? smashed by both the stalinists and franco in catalonia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.