> Do you have some experience working as a bouncer? Why does it matter how
> old these protesters are? If they are young people, that's good, because
> that means that we have another generation of young anti-capitalists.
> The problem here is that the older generations aren't involved in these
> protests like we should be.
It matters because it shows the organizers of these protests didn't reach out to anyone beyond their tiny radder-than-thou, protest-hopping, social niche. My concern is that these protests are turning into another youth lifestyle phenomenon, not unlike following jam bands around the country. That doesn't bode well for the future of militant protests. Maybe these protests weren't more broad-based because no one else thought they would accomplish anything?
> Apples and oranges. The Jena protests reflect a zeitgeist where many
> people are angry with the stupid amount of racism that still pervades
> this country. The DC protests never claimed that they would be some big
> thing. I'm actually impressed with the protests, because they got more
> militant. That's a good sign, especially if lots of young people were
> involved. It's also encouraging that U.S. activists are still organizing
> protests against the World Bank, IMF and capitalism and are willing to
> throw bricks.
Yes, they were different: Jena was very successful, and the DC protest was a fucking bust. Both protests presented themselves as popular mobilizations against systemic oppression. But only one can claim to have had any discernible impact. What does it mean for a protest to "reflect a zeitgeist," anyway? Sounds like a mystical-sounding dodge so you can ignore the fact that the kids in DC would rather riot than organize and network with anyone who isn't as punk rock as they are.
Stupid militancy is still stupid. These protests had no discernible objective beyond "fight neoliberalism!" As such, the violence lacked much of a political character -- it was more of a temper tantrum. Different situations call for different tactics: Violence, property destruction and sabotage are sometimes necessary and sometimes desirable, but not always -- it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. The DC protesters couldn't even articulate what they were against, exactly. If you can't even do that, how are you going to make wise tactical decisions?
> The youth need theory? No, they need to get out there and throw more
> bricks. There is plenty of theory and plenty of armchair intellectuals
> (especially on this list). If you say that "this shit isn't working",
> then you are basically saying that militant protests, anywhere in the
> world, by anbody, is a waste of time.
Bullshit. I am opposed to senseless protests that accomplish nothing more than injuring innocent bystanders and making all of us who oppose capitalism look like raving idiots. [Insert your favorite quote about the importance of action informed by theory here]. As we've discussed previously, there are plenty of good targets for militant action -- military recruitment stations, for instance. But it's so much cooler to throw a brick at a stupid mall chain store...
> Good for them, although I'm critical of these protests because the
> people involved aren't doing enough advance organizing. I've been
> critical of this on the Infoshop Forums, criticizing these
> manifestations over the fact that the younger activists are taking
> shortcuts and not understanding that successful black blocs in the past
> have always involved months of organizing.
That's disturbing. Maybe they're not organizing because these kids are more interested in being part of some silly counterculture that promotes recreational violence rather than fighting capitalism.
> Buy Nothing Day is a fucking joke. Vandalizing chain stores is more
> direct and preferable. If people would go out and vandalize more chain
> stores, the capitalist chains would start having problems. McDonalds,
> for example, had to spend millions of dolalrs on PR after millions of
> dollars in damage were inflicted on the chain globally by
> anti-capitalist protesters. Chain stores are extremely sensitive to
> anything which affects their reputation negatively.
Well, I bet the BND activities -- like passing fliers out to people heading into the mall -- will provoke more people to think critically about consumerism than smashing a girl in the face with a brick. And besides, the whole anti-corporate, protest-hopping subculture is far more vulnerable to capitalist incorporation than a simple message: don't buy things you don't really need.
McDonalds has been responding to a shift in the market away from their shitty food. The firms making money are selling more upscale fare and McDonalds' image is downscale (Wal-Mart is having the same problems). There are also concerns about work conditions, the treatment of the animals in McDonald's food, etc. These have been far more important to damaging McDonalds' reputation in the U.S. than a smashed window here and there.
In other countries, McDonalds is seen by some as an agent of American imperialism, so arguably it makes sense to smash their windows in those places. In the U.S., that's more likely to give McDonald's street cred for being un-PC.
> People can say that the capitalists aren't quaking in their boots, but
> Georgetown businesses did board up their windows. The capitalists were
> extremely worried about the anti-globalization movement. If these
> protests and actions gain some momentum, the capitalists will be worried
> again.
Yeah, some businesses lost revenue and had to board up. That doesn't mean a lot in the scheme of things. The anti-globalization movement originally scared the establishment because it was actually effective.
Now what's left of the anti-globalization movement is claiming victory because some chain stores lost money for the final two hours they were open. Ahh, sweet victory! As for these protests gaining momentum beyond the present social niche of under-21 protest-hoppers -- I see no evidence of that. In light of Friday's actions, I have no reason to be optimistic.
-WD