Oh, grass roots movements have accomplished plenty. I note that you and Puff have left out the most successful grass roots political movement this century - one that deposed the government in the country in which it started, lead to sweeping political and economic changes throughout the whole world, was unusually successful in removing the source of all its ills, and had an impact which affects us to this day. Have you figured out what it was yet, kids?
Iiiiiiiiiiiiit's
National Socialism!
G8 protests....fucking hippies
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
Then why were commentators on Rwanda pointing out that, during the genocide, the soldiers commiting atrocities made their way to the refugee camps, stocked up on food aid, and then headed back off to kill more Tutsis? Armies march on their stomachs.[/quote]Geebs wrote:I already told you. Google "wabenzi"HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:The way we back these governments is through aid? YOU ARE FUCKING KIDDING RIGHT?That's not an argument, that's just contradictionHM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:I did not oversimplify, I made an accurate statement. if you like I will point you towards resources which will help you to learn the basics of what's going on. you really are completely mis/uninformed on this. opposition to globalization is Luddism? puhleaseThat's just not an argument at allHM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: in absence of knowing anything about this issue you buy into a load of utter shitThe anti-war protests were successful? What the fuck are you on, IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICE THERE WAS A WAR IN IRAQ AND THE US ARE CURRENTLY IN OCCUPATION. That's about as successful as the dinosaurs' grassroots anti-meteor protest.HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:as for change brought about by grassroots activism i can think of a few off the top of my head...
the civil rights movement USA
suffrage movements many
labour rights
Iraq War number 2 successful in many countries
[quote="HM-PuFFNSTuFF]edit: trade not aid is how we back the autocrats in Africa extraordinarily unfair trade
you're right, I wasn't making arguments in those cases, I was making observations. Well done.
Yes there is a war in Iraq but in case you didn't notice, many countries chose not to take part. Dozens of these countries did take part in Iraq war 1 and would likely have done so again if not for the masses who organized to protest well before the invasion started.
As for your armies march on their stomachs argument, this is a classic fallacy that stopping food aid will stop the autocratic armies. Just like the U.S. policy to bomb crops in Vietnam to starve the North Vietnamese fighters, this argument is a joke. The real losers are the civilians. The real solution is to not do business with these regimes. Ridiculously liberal trade policies mean foreign enterprise reaps huge profits with a reciprocal tacit support given by the West. Social concerns are ignored.
The corruption isn't just in these puppet nations, it's in the mechanisms of the puppet masters (us). i.e. wto imf
Also it's largely about the business of selling weapons.
Compare aid $ to Africa versus western business/trade $ in Africa and you'll see how the two compare.
Sarcastic wit aside, the only reason it had so much effect on everyone else is because reactionary governments and politicians saw it as a perfect rationalization for things they had wanted to do for years.Geebs wrote:Oh, grass roots movements have accomplished plenty. I note that you and Puff have left out the most successful grass roots political movement this century - one that deposed the government in the country in which it started, lead to sweeping political and economic changes throughout the whole world, was unusually successful in removing the source of all its ills, and had an impact which affects us to this day. Have you figured out what it was yet, kids?
Iiiiiiiiiiiiit's
National Socialism!
Anyway, you're ignoring the entire civil rights movement.
And women's suffrage.
The Rodney King protests didn't get shit done except hurt people, but the million man march will be remembered for a long time yet.
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
What are you getting at here? Oh and I think you'll find the Solidarity movement was grassroots even if it sprang from a trade union.Geebs wrote:Bollocks. Human rights as we understand them were defined by the UN in 1948 - so what you consider to be your individual liberties are defined and protected by the people you're criticising.seremtan wrote:i think you overstepped the line between considered comment and idiocy hereGeebs wrote:Actually, what has been acheived through grass roots protesting, apart from black eyes for a large number of policemen?
um, let's see: democracy and individual liberties for starters. all the stuff that rulers don't usually hand out benevolently but has to forced from them
Democracy is a system of government by which the entire voting population can actively take part in government. The Athenian model doesn't work outside the city state, which is why there is a bureacracy.
In England, the Divine Right of Kings wasn't eliminated by a bunch of peasants with rakes. It was eliminated by the middle classes.
Solidarity was supposed to be a grassroots movement, but actually it was a trade union.
Why do you ask the original question when you later admit that social movements have achieved much? Backpeddling or trolling?
Are you saying that these people are protesting democracy? No, they are protesting the deficiencies of our current democracy.
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
and in case anyone is looking for an organization in Africa to donate to, these people do great work.
http://www.cpar.ca/home.asp
Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief
http://www.cpar.ca/home.asp
Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14376
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
not to go on about this but this whole issue is so misunderstood it could use a little more attention and clarity...
More Money Is Transferred From Poor Countries to Rich, Than From Rich To Poor
For the OECD countries to meet their obligations for aid to the poorer countries is not an economic problem. It is a political one. This can be seen in the context of other spending. For example,
* The US recently increased its military budget by some $100 billion dollars alone
* Europe subsidizes its agriculture to the tune of some $35-40 billion per year, even while it demands other nations to liberalize their markets to foreign competition.
* The US also introduced a $190 billion dollar subsidy to its farms through the US Farm Bill, also criticized as a protectionist measure.
* While aid amounts to around $50 to 55 billion per year, the poor countries pay some $200 billion to the rich each year.
* There are many more (some mentioned below too).
In effect then, there is more aid to the rich than to the poor.
link
Aid Amounts Dwarfed by Effects of First World Subsidies, Third World Debt, Unequal Trade, etc
Combining the above mentioned reversal of flows with the subsidies and other distorting mechanisms, this all amounts to a lot of money being transferred to the richer countries (also known as the global North), compared to the total aid amounts that goes to the poor (or South).
As well as having a direct impact on poorer nations, it also affects smaller farmers in rich nations. For example, Oxfam, criticizing EU double standards, highlights the following:
Latin America is the worst-affected region, losing $4bn annually from EU farm policies. EU support to agriculture is equivalent to double the combined aid budgets of the European Commission and all 15 member states. Half the spending goes to the biggest 17 per cent of farm enterprises, belying the manufactured myth that the CAP [Common Agriculture Policy] is all about keeping small farmers in jobs.
— Europe’s Double Standards. How the EU should reform its trade policies with the developing world, Oxfam Policy Paper, April 2002, p.18 (Link is to the press release, which includes a link to the actual Microsoft Word document from which the above is cited.)
The double standards that Oxfam mentions above, and that countless others have highlighted has a huge impact on poor countries, who are pressured to follow liberalization and reducing government “interference” while rich nations are able to subsidize some of their industries. Poor countries therefore have an even tougher time competing. IPS captures this well:
“On the one hand, OECD countries such as the US, Germany or France continue through the ECAs [export credit agencies] to subsidise exports with taxpayers' money, often in detriment to the competitiveness of the poorest countries of the world,” says [NGO Environment Defence representative, Aaron] Goldzimmer. “On the other hand, the official development assistance which is one way to support the countries of the South to find a sustainable path to development and progress is being reduced.”
...
As well as agriculture, textiles and clothing is another mainstay of many poor countries. But, as with agriculture, the wealthier countries have long held up barriers to prevent being out-competed by poorer country products. This has been achieved through things like subsidies and various “agreements”. The impact to the poor has been far-reaching, as Friends of the Earth highlights:
Despite the obvious importance of the textile and clothing sectors in terms of development opportunities, the North has consistently and systematically repressed developing country production to protect its own domestic clothing industries.
Since the 1970s the textile and clothing trade has been controlled through the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA) which sets bilateral quotas between importing and exporting countries. This was supposedly to protect the clothing industries of the industrialised world while they adapted to competition from developing countries. While there are cases where such protection may be warranted, especially for transitionary periods, the MFA has been in place since 1974 and has been extended five times. According to Oxfam, the MFA is,
“...the most significant..[non tariff barrier to trade]..which has faced the world’s poorest countries for over 20 years”.
Although the MFA has been replaced by the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) which phases out support over a further ten year period — albeit through a process which in itself is highly inequitable — developing countries are still suffering the consequences. The total cost to developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World.
— Clothes, The Citizens' Guide to Trade, Environment and Sustainability, Friends of the Earth International, January 24, 2001
There is often much talk of trade rather than aid, of development, of opening markets etc. But, when at the same time some of the important markets of the US, EU and Japan appear to be no-go areas for the poorer nations, then such talk has been criticized by some as being hollow. The New York Times is worth quoting at length:
Our compassion [at the 2002 G8 Summit talking of the desire to help Africa] may be well meant, but it is also hypocritical. The US, Europe and Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world’s poorest people.
“These subsidies are crippling Africa’s chance to export its way out of poverty,” said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, in a speech last month.
Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that’s about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right.
“It’s holding down the prosperity of very poor people in Africa and elsewhere for very narrow, selfish interests of their own,” Mr. Malloch Brown says of the rich world’s agricultural policy.
It also seems a tad hypocritical of us to complain about governance in third-world countries when we allow tiny groups of farmers to hijack billion of dollars out of our taxes.
— Nicholas D. Kristof, Farm Subsidies That Kill, New York Times, 5 July 2002
In fact, J. Brian Atwood, stepped down in 1999 as head of the US foreign aid agency, USAID. He was very critical of US policies, and vented his frustration that “despite many well-publicized trade missions, we saw virtually no increase of trade with the poorest nations. These nations could not engage in trade because they could not afford to buy anything.” (Quoted from a speech that he delivered to the Overseas Development Council.)[/url]
More Money Is Transferred From Poor Countries to Rich, Than From Rich To Poor
For the OECD countries to meet their obligations for aid to the poorer countries is not an economic problem. It is a political one. This can be seen in the context of other spending. For example,
* The US recently increased its military budget by some $100 billion dollars alone
* Europe subsidizes its agriculture to the tune of some $35-40 billion per year, even while it demands other nations to liberalize their markets to foreign competition.
* The US also introduced a $190 billion dollar subsidy to its farms through the US Farm Bill, also criticized as a protectionist measure.
* While aid amounts to around $50 to 55 billion per year, the poor countries pay some $200 billion to the rich each year.
* There are many more (some mentioned below too).
In effect then, there is more aid to the rich than to the poor.
link
Aid Amounts Dwarfed by Effects of First World Subsidies, Third World Debt, Unequal Trade, etc
Combining the above mentioned reversal of flows with the subsidies and other distorting mechanisms, this all amounts to a lot of money being transferred to the richer countries (also known as the global North), compared to the total aid amounts that goes to the poor (or South).
As well as having a direct impact on poorer nations, it also affects smaller farmers in rich nations. For example, Oxfam, criticizing EU double standards, highlights the following:
Latin America is the worst-affected region, losing $4bn annually from EU farm policies. EU support to agriculture is equivalent to double the combined aid budgets of the European Commission and all 15 member states. Half the spending goes to the biggest 17 per cent of farm enterprises, belying the manufactured myth that the CAP [Common Agriculture Policy] is all about keeping small farmers in jobs.
— Europe’s Double Standards. How the EU should reform its trade policies with the developing world, Oxfam Policy Paper, April 2002, p.18 (Link is to the press release, which includes a link to the actual Microsoft Word document from which the above is cited.)
The double standards that Oxfam mentions above, and that countless others have highlighted has a huge impact on poor countries, who are pressured to follow liberalization and reducing government “interference” while rich nations are able to subsidize some of their industries. Poor countries therefore have an even tougher time competing. IPS captures this well:
“On the one hand, OECD countries such as the US, Germany or France continue through the ECAs [export credit agencies] to subsidise exports with taxpayers' money, often in detriment to the competitiveness of the poorest countries of the world,” says [NGO Environment Defence representative, Aaron] Goldzimmer. “On the other hand, the official development assistance which is one way to support the countries of the South to find a sustainable path to development and progress is being reduced.”
...
As well as agriculture, textiles and clothing is another mainstay of many poor countries. But, as with agriculture, the wealthier countries have long held up barriers to prevent being out-competed by poorer country products. This has been achieved through things like subsidies and various “agreements”. The impact to the poor has been far-reaching, as Friends of the Earth highlights:
Despite the obvious importance of the textile and clothing sectors in terms of development opportunities, the North has consistently and systematically repressed developing country production to protect its own domestic clothing industries.
Since the 1970s the textile and clothing trade has been controlled through the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA) which sets bilateral quotas between importing and exporting countries. This was supposedly to protect the clothing industries of the industrialised world while they adapted to competition from developing countries. While there are cases where such protection may be warranted, especially for transitionary periods, the MFA has been in place since 1974 and has been extended five times. According to Oxfam, the MFA is,
“...the most significant..[non tariff barrier to trade]..which has faced the world’s poorest countries for over 20 years”.
Although the MFA has been replaced by the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) which phases out support over a further ten year period — albeit through a process which in itself is highly inequitable — developing countries are still suffering the consequences. The total cost to developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World.
— Clothes, The Citizens' Guide to Trade, Environment and Sustainability, Friends of the Earth International, January 24, 2001
There is often much talk of trade rather than aid, of development, of opening markets etc. But, when at the same time some of the important markets of the US, EU and Japan appear to be no-go areas for the poorer nations, then such talk has been criticized by some as being hollow. The New York Times is worth quoting at length:
Our compassion [at the 2002 G8 Summit talking of the desire to help Africa] may be well meant, but it is also hypocritical. The US, Europe and Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the world’s poorest people.
“These subsidies are crippling Africa’s chance to export its way out of poverty,” said James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, in a speech last month.
Mark Malloch Brown, the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports. By coincidence, that’s about the same as the total of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left hand every cent we give with our right.
“It’s holding down the prosperity of very poor people in Africa and elsewhere for very narrow, selfish interests of their own,” Mr. Malloch Brown says of the rich world’s agricultural policy.
It also seems a tad hypocritical of us to complain about governance in third-world countries when we allow tiny groups of farmers to hijack billion of dollars out of our taxes.
— Nicholas D. Kristof, Farm Subsidies That Kill, New York Times, 5 July 2002
In fact, J. Brian Atwood, stepped down in 1999 as head of the US foreign aid agency, USAID. He was very critical of US policies, and vented his frustration that “despite many well-publicized trade missions, we saw virtually no increase of trade with the poorest nations. These nations could not engage in trade because they could not afford to buy anything.” (Quoted from a speech that he delivered to the Overseas Development Council.)[/url]
-
Nightshade
- Posts: 17020
- Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2000 8:00 am
That's not really true. The government reflected the people; you can't peddle to the lowest common denominator unless they're pretty common.R00k wrote:Sarcastic wit aside, the only reason it had so much effect on everyone else is because reactionary governments and politicians saw it as a perfect rationalization for things they had wanted to do for years.Geebs wrote:Oh, grass roots movements have accomplished plenty. I note that you and Puff have left out the most successful grass roots political movement this century - one that deposed the government in the country in which it started, lead to sweeping political and economic changes throughout the whole world, was unusually successful in removing the source of all its ills, and had an impact which affects us to this day. Have you figured out what it was yet, kids?
Iiiiiiiiiiiiit's
National Socialism!
Same as the Yanks got the government and president they voted for, whatever the liberal bluster.
