🚀 go-pugleaf

___________________________________________________________________________
BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK cur boy Mosley AND STAY THERE!    
___________________________________________________________________________

On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, stereotype wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:56:30 +1000, "Jacques Chester"
> <jacques.chester@student.usyd.ee-dee-you.au> wrote:
> 
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >MAD MAL <m.bradley@student.murdoch.edu.au> wrote in message
> >news:Pine.GSO.3.96.1000728155151.22538H-100000@student.murdoch.edu.au.
> >..
> >>
> >> Interestingly this thread has been diverted to doom and gloom
> >> predictiond based on our views of human nature and capacity for
> >> violence...
> >
> >I'm not so concerned about the individuals,
> >Mal - I just happen to recognise that
> >individuals in mobs tend to surrender their
> >own individual rationality. It's probably
> >a pack instinct inherited for times of
> >extreme danger - everyone attacks at once,
> >in a frenzy.
> 
> Not true. they don't surrender anything, they acquire a whole new set
> of behaviour on top of what is already there.

Though not necessarily all good...

> >It can be defeated, but it takes a good deal
> >of work. One of the groups who have a
> >good control of replacing the irrational
> >mob with a obedient one is the military.
> >The romans excelled in creating disciplined,
> >well-ordered armies - and crushed the
> >hitherto unstoppable hordes of various
> >nations.
> 
> Yeah, and they did it by taking on a whole new set of behaviour. The
> situation is what determines the behaviour. ie. Nazi Germany, Seattle
> etc. Nobody loses themselves or their normal set of responsibilities.
> There is another set of responsibilities based on the objective at
> hand. Too many people claim that groups lose control, that doesn't
> happen, what happens is that they adjust their behaviour to achieve
> the objective. The demonstrations in Seattle were well planned from
> the start. Unfortunately there was a few people there to cause trouble
> who achieved exactly that. Nothing happened that wasn't intended. It's
> just that individuals who exhibit that behaviour are quickly stamped
> on. For groups it's a different story.

Yes and the is how S11 is based, groups or tribes of activists working
together...

Now in Australia it is possible that a minority of groups may have a
violent / agitator agenda as in Seattle, but mostly it will be a carnvial
atmosphere where people have fun whilst protesting globalisation...

The doom sayers will always focus on the potenial negatives!

A minority may use more extreme forms of protest, but I believe that S11
in general will be less nasty than Seattle or the Phillipines, Aussies
are nicer people!

> >If it can be kept spread out and in a good
> >mood, yes it can. If crowds jam up, the
> >odds of violent outburst rises.
> 
> Providing you prepare yourself for the crowd, chance of violent
> outburst does not arise. 

Which I am sure is on the S11 planning agenda...

> When you go to a football game with 80000
> people, you might see the occasional fight. But those people lose
> control because of alcohol. 

Alcohol is the worst drug of all, up there with tabacco

> What happened in Seattle was not because
> of the crowd, the crowd was required for what happened to actually
> happen. Is this making sense?
> 
> >You must also consider the "thinning" effect.
> >That is, when things turn violent, those
> >people possessed of their senses and in a
> >non-violent frame of mind tend to leg it.
> >Suddenly all that's left are the
> >troublemakers, sans any moderating elements.
> >
> >> IT IS THE POLICE WHO HAVE TO RETAIN CONTROL OF THEMSELVES!!
> >
> >This is *always* an issue. Police are just
> >as vulnerable to the same kind of mindless
> >action as anyone - but they furthermore
> >have the weaponry to make their actions that
> >much more brutal.
> 
> People in groups don't lose it. There is whole different set of
> behaviours that groups have. People don't lose their identity, they
> acquire a new one which the group gives them. The cops who beat up
> Rodney King are a good example.
> 
> >
> >> Police must accept their loss of control during the carnival and
> >> hold the barracades, and no doubt there will be plain clothes( and
> >> others) spotting peoples who are on the nastier side...
> >
> >I'll be interested to see what the police
> >plan is.
> 
> No doubt they'll go there expecting trouble, and as such they will
> incite the violence. Again, people go there with a plan and an
> expectation of what will happen. Those who go there expecting trouble
> will inevitably find it or deliberately cause it.

Sad but oikely true...
 
> >> > There really is no other choice.
> >>
> >> OH, BUT THERE IS...
> >
> >Such as?
> >
> >When a protest becomes a riot, negotiation
> >and mild coercion cease to be options. A
> >rioting mob has nobody who leads it that can
> >be talked to or even intimidated. It only
> >understands one language: force. As I've
> >pointed before, this is true of any mob.
> 
> True, that still doesn't mean the violence happened because of the
> crowd.

The crowd controll is the crucial factor...
 
> >> > I don't believe that violent mob action is even
> >> > remotely productive.
> >>
> >> Mob action yes, but the violence isnt necessarily from a protester
> >> or order controller point of view...
> >
> >I hope it doesn't happen, Mal. Prove me wrong.
> >
> >> > There is, of course, a cynical body of thought
> >> > that suggests that the "organisers" know all
> >> > this, and are seeking out confrontation for
> >> > the attention it will bring to "the cause".
> >>
> >> The thing is that the various tribes work independantly, some may
> >> not even like one another, but for the S11 day they are part of the
> >> carnival, some tribe could be thugs but I know of none
> >> personally...
> >>
> >> Confrontation is appart of the process and getting 'the' message
> >> across...
> >>
> >> Some people will be more confrontational than others, even
> >> violent...
> >
> >Which is how Seattle devolved into a civil
> >riot. Started off well, some people took
> >the whole "fuck the system" thing to heart,
> >and then wondered why the police beat them
> >up and gassed them.
> 
> Did you grow up in the northern territory by any chance? You haven't
> been in many crowds have you? 

Ever been to a Big Day Out?
Heaps of sex, drugs and music with very little agro, Australians are
unique as alot of similar international evens have much darker reps...

> And you have a strange view of the
> world. Do you actually think these people went there to riot for the
> sake of it? They always have an objective, whatever that might be.
> With pommy soccer hooligans it is to prove that Britannia still rules.
> With the people in Seattle, it was to send the WTO and the US
> government a message. They achieved that and more.

INDEED

> >To some people, this response is proof of
> >their beliefs. Fair enough. But do they think
> >that continuing to incite police violence
> >is really going to improve the situation?
> >Not really. If anything, they'll make it
> >worse. First Law of Bad Management: If
> >something isn't working, do more of it.
> 
> Again you assume that the police have no role in inciting the
> violence.
> 
> >
> >[..]
> >> But what of your view on globalisation?
> >
> >I think that there are material gains from
> >trade for all countries. I also think that
> >there are very dangerous consequences in
> >backing away from trade as fast as we have
> >moved towards it.
> >
> >However I do think we need to slow down the
> >process of integration. As the saying goes,
> >"Preach the need for change - but never
> >change too much at a time". Globalisation at
> >the moment is an overrevving beast that
> >has been dangerously distorted by certain
> >nations (in particular, the USA and China).
> >I think we'd do well the take the foot off
> >the accelerator some, and start considering
> >certain critical structural issues. Such
> >as: where will the demand of the next
> >fifty years come from? Who will supply that
> >demand? And will there be a mismatch? And
> >what happens when too many people miss out?
> >And how do you spread the benefits of
> >growth across international borders?
> 
> That's what Karl Marx said 150 years ago. ""The exploitation of the
> world market has given a cosmopolitan character to production and
> consumption in every country. Old established national industries have
> been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new
> industries whose introduction becomes a life and death question for
> all civilised nations. In place of the old local and national
> seclusion and self-sufficiency we have intercourse in every direction,
> universal interdependence of nations"
> 
> Karl never gets credit of course. He described globalisation 120 years
> before it was renamed in the 1970's. A new term, globalisation, was
> invented to describe the exact same thing as what has been happening
> since about 1800, as if it's a new phenomenon. After ww2 we had the
> same pace of change we have now. Back then it was considered to be
> healthy, now it's seen to be dangerous. What has actually happened is
> that more people have been left behind and more countries can't keep
> up with those holding the reins. There is no need to "slow down" as
> you say, the problem is that the safety net has been taken away. We
> can keep up the current distribution of wealth and watch the whole
> thing self-destruct, or we can put the safety net back. There is no
> point telling people "the world has changed". What has actually
> changed is that too many countries and too many people are blaming the
> victims, instead of their own behaviour, for the problems we now have.
> In the current economy, ether will be winners and losers, the only
> problem is that we used to care about the losers and now we don't.
> Which is why plenty of people are pissed off.

May be 'we' do...
Maybe 'they' in power increasingly do not!
 
> >It's the industrial revolution all over
> >again, in many ways.