Huge protest march passes off peacefully

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.

To: DoughtyOne

Are you saying that 1930s German people were not allowed to own their own businesses or do business with anyone they chose? Are you saying that all
profits were given to the state, only a set salary being paid to business owners?

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.

14 posted on 3/18/02 3:10 PM Pacific by Brad Cloven

Well it does seem that Kristallnacht would indicate that the businesses were privately owned. Destroying state property would have been self-defeatist for the state.

I would also agree that by 1939 there may have been governmental interventions. At some point they certain would have been expected as the war ensued.

I'm not sure that the word Socialist in the name of Germany was as indicative of it's true nature as one might think. It's my thought that capitalism did exist until the mid to late 1930s. It may have survived into the 1940s.

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.

Compared to capitalism which you equate to tyranny, what economic model do you support that yields more freedom?

I equated a non-representative form of government to tyranny. The topic of capitalism vs socialism was secondary. The EU super-state will be a capitalist state. (Let's ignore the obvious exceptions for a moment.) I still maintain that there is a similarity between the EU and Nazi Germany. Both were and are capitalist ventures. Both became, or were from the onset a non-representative form of goverment.

Non-representative forms of government rule from an absolute authority. They anwer to no one. That's tyranny. I addressed the issue of that tyranny. Again I will ask, if tyranical governments that rule over a capitalist society, can't be every bit as bad as a tyranical government ruling over socialism?

The focus of this question is not intended to cast a dispersion on capitalism. It addresses non-representative forms of government. Is tyrany good or bad, regardless of whether a society is capitalist or socialist in nature?

I say tyranny is always bad. In no way did I attempt to say that capitalism is always bad.

That being said, life is full of some pretty great things that are very detrimental if not held in check. Capitalism is great when it is not recognized as the sole guiding principle of the universe. There are times when capitalism should be reigned in.

In the old model of capitalism that saw international trade in terms of obtaining supplies from outside one's borders that were not available at home, capitalism was a fantastic model. Even capitism that sees nations trading finished products to one another is great as long as it is managed properly. But when capitalism is given free reign across international borders there is a danger for capitalist interests to supercede national interests.

Is it ideal to allow a Loral to give away national security secrets to a rogue nation? Is it advisable to allow certain strategic manufacturing industries to completely abandon the United States? Is it a good idea to send all manufacturing overseas so that in the long run manufacturing R&D will be developed outside our borders, not within?

These are issues that are much more complex than the simple "is capitalism good or bad" question. I believe capitalism can be good and bad.

Representative forms of government yield the best hopes for freedom. Capitalism helps. Socialism sucks. But then our nation has become to a large degree a socialist state. No our government hasn't nationalized businesses, but it has nationalized portions of their income. It has nationalized portions of our individual income as well. And that's where Nazi Germany comes in. To the extent that Germany's economy operated under socialism, I believe ours does as well.

Let's just make sure our leadership does not go down the path of developing a level of leadership that is beyond answering directly to the people.

An American Union on the order of the European Union would have such a level of government. The United Nations is seeking to set themselves up as a world leader. They will answer to the EU, an AU or even and ASU. They would be twice removed from directly answering to the people. But they could step into any area on the planet and supercede everyone elses authority. If either an AU or the UN manages to userp power over the US without direct answer to the United States voting public, it will be time to slap our national leadership so hard they'll be looking for their teeth (and a new life) on the next continent.

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.