On Monday, a small group went inside the BP command center in New Orleans to confront those responsible for the spill.
This protest was symbolic; a small number of people couldn’t really disrupt the activities of BP.
Imagine, though, if they had a few hundred angry and determined people. Then they could have shut that place down.
Small numbers + confrontation = symbolic (with potential for effectiveness)
* * *
Hundreds or thousands of people will hold hands on beaches worldwide this weekend, protesting the catastrophe in the Gulf and demanding an end to offshore drilling.
http://www.handsacrossthesand.com/
This might be personally cathartic for some, but how will this stop the atrocities? Will the oil companies and governments of the world care about what people want, and respond accordingly? They have demonstrated time and again that they do not, and will not.
Large numbers – confrontation = symbolic (without potential for effectiveness)
* * *
On Sunday in Oakland, CA, hundreds of people blockaded an Israeli ship to protest Israel’s blockade of Gaza. The union workers at the docks refused to cross the picket line, and commerce was disrupted.
Large numbers + confrontation = effective action!
This is why it’s important to confront the actual centers of power. Location, location, location.
* * *
How will the people overthrow those in power, and put a stop to exploitation and ecocide?
Large numbers + organization + a plan + confrontation = revolution
29 Comments.
Will the oil companies and governments of the world care about what people want, and respond accordingly?
People want drilling.
Well, Stephanie, at this point it will take MILLIONS of people going to Capitol Hill and sitting their asses down and block traffic until their demands are met. Since we have 30 million or more unemployed people, numbers aren’t a problem. The problem is getting the word out. Any suggestions?
The one, sure-fire, way to get the word out is to get Michael Moore to do it. Do you have any way to contact Michael Moore about organizing a massive sit-down strike? (We could do it without him, but it would be better with him.) If getting a hold of him is within the realm of possibility, tell him that these are the list of demands:
1) A moratorium on ALL home foreclosures in the United States, effective immediately.
2) A continuation of all unemployment benefits for the next six months. There will be no more demonization or criminalization of unemployed persons.
3) Set up a Works Progress Administration to hire unemployed persons to repair infrastructure around the country, and set up Green Jobs Program to hire unemployed persons in environmentally-friendly, sustainable manufacturing and cottage industry. All the persons hired for these jobs must be US Citizens or legal residents already residing in the country on this date or before, and all the job sites must be within the United States (not on foreign soil) and therefore subject to US labor laws.
3) The immediate arrest and prosecution of all the members of the BP corporate personhood within the United States (not including minor shareholders). Arrest warrants and bounties will be posted for those members not currently in the United States. All of BP’s assets in the United States will be seized and sold off to benefit the victims of the spill (those who lost their lives and livelihoods).
4) Relief wells around the BP spill site will immediate be built with around-the-clock labor.
5) All of the US troops stations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan must be vacated from those countries within three months.
6) All private military contractors, either foreign or domestic, currently receiving US taxpayer money shall no longer receive this money, effective immediately.
And that’s just for starters, Stephanie. I’m sure there are lawyers who can put these demands in legalese. I would contact Michael Moore myself, but my email would get lost in the shuffle, I’m afraid. But perhaps you have some ideas to get the ball rolling here.
Susan,
The majority of the country (ie those of us who work and pay taxes) don’t give a rats ass about Micheal Moore.
As for unemployment extension, here’s an idea. Let’s give the jobs performed by illegal aliens to Americans and cut off their unemployment.
US395 get your head out of the corporate ass and dig the elephant shit out of your ears, eyes and mouth.
The illegals are here because oligarchs, both north and south of the border, want them here.
ps. Can you tell me where in the free market I can purchase some unemployment insurance? Thanks!
olegna78 ,
You don’t need to purchase it. Try getting a job.
Predictably inarticulate response from a proven tool
>>Try getting a job.>>
She can’t, Highway. The illegal aliens took her job.
Susan, in your point 3) are you really suggesting arresting engineers, secretaries and various paper shufflers at BP? On what grounds and trumped up charges? Even the creepy creatures that are part of the US federal judiciary “personhood” wouldn’t conceive of such a tyrannical abuse of power.
Oleg, you’re right about the interests north and south of the border wanting the illegals there, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re taking up jobs some Americans might need now. Aren’t most calling it quits and returning home, anyways?
Oh, BTW, great last minute win, USA! Hope you make it to the semi-finals.
Why is it that conservatives say that the free market means that corporations can move jobs across national boundaries whenever they want, but that employees can’t move themselves across national boundaries? Why is that corporations that do this are labeled as responsibly serving their shareholders, but the employees who try to cross borders are labeled as illegal aliens? Why do the laws make all this border crossing relatively easy for corporations, and nearly impossible for employees?
Seems to me that this has nothing to do with freedom and free markets, and everything to do with keeping corporate power in control.
What do you mean by “confrontation”? The fact is, Martin Luther King Jr was much much more effective than Malcolm X. Non-violent confrontation can get results; violent confrontation usually leads only to more violent confrontation.
<<<[The fact that Oligarchs and corporations dictate whether or not there are illegals] doesn’t change the fact that they’re taking up jobs some Americans might need now. Aren’t most calling it quits and returning home, anyways<<<
there is no point talking about our jobs or illegals when neither us nor illegals are choosing anything here. All you gotta focus on is whether or not you can thwart the oligarchical entities north and south of the border. For now that means stop voting for pro corporate candidates and stop buying corporate products. But it's probably too late now. That is important to keep in mind, because it underscores the importance of being frank your friends and family and risking losing them. Remember, it's probably too late to defeat the oligarchs.
It is too late only if you still believe in socialist fairy-tales, Oleg.
Why is it that conservatives say that the free market means that corporations can move jobs across national boundaries whenever they want, but that employees can’t move themselves across national boundaries? Good example of what passes for thought on the left.
US 395 — maybe you can help me. You consider something to be obvious that I can’t understand at all. Please explain — you may use simple words so that I will have a chance to understand!
Why is it that conservatives work very hard to make sure that capital, good, and jobs can flow freely over national borders, with as little legal impediment as possible — but, when it comes to workers, suddenly the whole “free market must dominate all” argument cannot be found, and conservatives work very hard to make sure there are as many legal impediments as possible for workers who wish to cross national borders?
Thanks in advance!
Lee, not being a conservative, I can’t answer for Route. I can tell you that, in my view, labor should be freely allowed to move across borders, as long as all parties involved are in accord. Obviously, capital and goods always move around in voluntary, mutually agreed exchanges.
Now, I ask of you, why is it that so-called liberals are all for government regulation, except when it comes to abortion clinics, and are all for personal freedom and privacy, except when it comes to recreational drugs?
<>
Tell that to the banks who just got my grandchildrens’ college money.
Apparently, socialism is the only reality. The only question is whether we can partake, or if it is only for corporations.
Tell that to the banks who just got my grandchildrens’ college money.
That sounds like theft to me. What did they do?
bucephalus says:
I can tell you that, in my view, labor should be freely allowed to move across borders, as long as all parties involved are in accord.
Cool.
Obviously, capital and goods always move around in voluntary, mutually agreed exchanges.
Unfortunately too many in this world are desperate, and sometimes that means that people are exploited as they buy goods necessary for survival. But, for the most part, I agree with you.
Now, I ask of you, why is it that so-called liberals are all for government regulation, except when it comes to abortion clinics …
I’m not sure I follow you. Clinics are regulated, are they not? It used to be that trained technicians could provide abortions — my understanding is that the procedure isn’t all that difficult — but with government regulations, now an MD must perform the procedure. Standard procedures, confidentiality laws, etc., etc. must be followed.
… and are all for personal freedom and privacy, except when it comes to recreational drugs?
Again, I don’t follow you. Are you saying that liberals are more likely to want to outlaw recreational drugs than conservatives? I would have thought it the other way around.
Thank you for the frank, but polite discussion.
Oh, I get it. You’re saying that usually liberals want to regulate, and drugs are an exception. My bad.
I think the stereotype is that liberals think people are more important that commerce and, where there is confrontation between the two, liberals will choose to regulate commerce and liberate people. Fiscal conservatives are the other way around.
Lee,
Conservatives believe that freedom of commerce is related to freedom of individuals. And we have never believed in unregulated commerce, but we do believe in Federalism.
“That sounds like theft to me. What did they do?”
I’m sure you have heard of the bailout. It is ongoing. Tens of billions a month going to failed banks. Or do you need another free education?
No olegna, I am in complete agreement with you. And only 50% of the bailout has been spent.
Are we talking about Reagan’s bailout, or Bush’s bailout? Or are we perhaps talking about the perennial bailout of the US surplus workforce (Coast Guard, Army, Navy, jail, etc…)
Olegena,
I’m talking about any bailout of anyone. It’s not the federal government’s job to be bailing out any private entity. That goes tax credits and subsidies as well. Should that apply to non-profits as well? Probably.
The private Aerospace industry, by its own admission, could not survive in a pure market economy with no government subsidies.
Guess you would just love to be speaking German right now..
Why would I be speaking German if the private aerospace industry received no subsidies?
“Why would I be speaking German if the private aerospace industry received no subsidies?”
there is a gun to my head right now. Want me to die? Just tell me you are serious, and I will pull the trigger.
You want to talk about the first wind tunnel in 1936? Or the $200,000,000 in US planes sold to the allies starting in 1939?
I admit my ignorance of aerospace subsidies of 1939. If they helped us win WWII then I support them.
phew