Middle class attacks the Summit of Americas Dissatisfaction with imperialism surfaces at Quebec City protests Quebec City, Quebec, CANADA--Chanting "Who owns this summit? We do," tens of thousands of protesters packed Quebec City on a gloriously sunny and clear day to protest the Free- Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement signed in Quebec City. Rulers from 34 countries including an average of 100 staff members each went to Quebec City to talk, negotiate and hold ceremonies for a treaty previously worked out in its details in Buenos Aires, Argentina earlier in April. Protests peaked April 20th and 21st. Even the New York Times reported that one piece of the crowd alone was a mile long and a boulevard wide on Saturday the 21st. In addition there were more than 6000 more radical protesters closer to the police lines in various spots across the city.(1) MIM finds the claim of 60,000 people total to be likely. "Free trade" is trade between countries without tariffs, which are government placed taxes on imports or exports. The FTAA is a "free trade" agreement that is a proposal, as yet unratified, that reduces tariffs by 2005 in all of the Western hemisphere except Cuba and resolves other "non- tariff barriers to trade." Governments and businesspeople of capitalism spend much time wrangling over what constitutes fair business competition. When one country wants to export to another country and finds a tariff or other rule that dampens its export business, the business and government complain to the country setting the tariff or other regulation concerning trade or investment. Such conflicts over trade led to World War I and still constitute a major problem for the imperialist system, which has war built into it. Recent agreements concerning investment (MAI), the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the GATT and the related WTO semi-enforcement body all shape the legal basis for "fair" competition amongst countries in business. In the imperialist countries, the middle classes feel that these new agreements threaten their economic advantages over people from poor countries, because the imperialists use these new treaty laws to roll back reforms that the middle- classes fought for or worked out in previous deals with their rulers. The justification that the rulers give for rolling back reforms is that it is unfair for some countries to have these social reforms, because it makes the terrain of business competition uneven. The Wall Street Journal and others call these various reforms in different countries "trade barriers." In the treaty language it becomes possible for corporations to sue governments that cause them economic disadvantage with business laws that other countries do not have. In the oppressed nations, many see the trade agreements as positive proof that imperialism intends to deepen its economic control of their countries. MIM does not actually oppose the FTAA or any other international trade agreement. MIM opposes the profit-system as a whole, and that is not a matter of any particular treaty. All such treaties are products of monopoly capitalist corporations exercising their "freedom" to super-exploit or exploit people who need to work to live. The "freedom" the imperialists and their lackeys writing the trade treaties support is the freedom to own private property at the expense of the survival rights--food, clothing, shelter, medicine, environment--of the proletariat. In contrast, we believe in "dictatorship of the proletariat," which means the forcible and legal suppression of those who believe property is above any persyn's survival rights. Instead of attacking individual treaties in the fashion of economic nationalists such as Patrick Buchanan or even Hitler in his day, MIM supports an international minimum wage, an international child labor law, international maximums for hours worked per week, environmental protections etc. We do not believe the capitalists can actually implement their free trade utopias and we believe the protesters at Quebec City generally have the wrong strategy while we agree with some of their environmental, feminist, employment and humyn rights goals. While MIM is concerned with environmental protections, wage laws and the rights of wimmin and children, MIM believes the attack on that front should be global, and not "anti-globalization." It is time to admit that the U.$. imperialists succeeded in establishing their New World Order and we should not pretend that the imperialists are not calling most of the shots in this world. There is no world not dominated by U.$. imperialism to go back to, the way some anti-globalization people talk. At the same time, we support the education of the imperialist country middle-classes on the violence of the state. We also support the efforts of oppressed nation movements to oppose globalization, because economic nationalism in oppressed nations is one type of applied internationalism. It is only in the imperialist countries that we oppose economic nationalism. Wall of security To host the event, Canada gathered 6,000 police and 1200 military personnel. 5000 police focussed on gathering near politicians and getting them from place to place. The rest focussed on the exterior of their "wall of shame" as the protesters called it. The wall was 2.4 miles of concrete and wire fence.(2) Far from being a "free" country, Canada used force from the very beginning of its months of preparation for the Summit. George W. Bush continued the usual imperialist refrain about "freedom," by saying: "'We seek freedom not only for people living within our borders, but also for commerce moving across our borders.'"(3) Bush also said, "'José Martí said it best,' Mr. Bush said, referring to the Havana-born dissident and writer who died battling for Cuban independence more than a century ago. 'La libertad no es negociable.'"(3) This is a good example of why MIM does not like to use the word "liberty" very much. For Bush it means the freedom to exploit and the freedom to talk about why other people should die so private property can continue in food, shelter and clothing. Without specifying liberty to do what, the word "liberty" is much too vague. Despite Bush's vague rhetoric designed to fool people to support private property, many anti-FTAA activists drew a connection between the wall built up around five square miles of territory where 5,000 people lived and the "Berlin Wall" that came down with the collapse of the Soviet bloc. In other words, many people saw right through the "freedom" rhetoric being thrown about lightly. MIM and all proletarian internationalists are all in favor of the freedom to cross borders and have economic cooperation across borders, but history and the lessons of Quebec City should show that this is not possible within the capitalist system. The people-- mostly middle-class people--rightly saw the wall of security as a provocation. A Canadian judge who ruled on the legality of the wall essentially admitted that he was suspending the Canadian Constitution and justified it by the size of the political delegations from 34 nations and urgency of the moment: "'The security measures place significant restrictions on two fundamental liberties guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly,' Justice Blanchet wrote."(4) When middle-class people believe they have a "deal" with their rulers and find out that the rulers do not respect that deal, they become disillusioned and rightly attack the imperialist state as in the case of Canada. Many of the "founding fathers" of the United $tates and perhaps Abraham Lincoln would have said the people would be right to overthrow such an unconstitutional government that interpreted the law the way that made the wall possible. There is nothing particularly new or advanced for MIM to say about that: bourgeois revolutionaries long ago understood what it meant if rulers had to employ such measures against their people. Outside the wall Probably thanks to the criticism of the "wall," Quebec City came through on its promises to more moderate protesters to leave them alone in several blocks roped off for parades and protests. Strategically it was probably also smart for the police not to provoke the more moderate demonstrators, and no police were in evidence on the parade blocks except for helicopters flying overhead. Nonetheless, even blocks from where the real battle of the streets occurred, the "legal" demonstrators complained to MIM about the tear gas which was wafting down from the wall of shame. One young womyn offered MIM her swimming goggles to protect against gas as she left the area. In the parade area, anarchists also set up shop with two white trucks, including one of 18 wheeler length. On top of the larger truck anarchists held their red and black banner and danced as in a party. With music and dance, the anarchists attempted to portray an attractive image of their movement. The sign on their trucks said "temporary autonomous zone." So it was true, because the government was not in control of the streets. Even the USA Today reported that protesters respected private property in the protest zones. MIM would add that businesses that stayed open did exceedingly brisk business. Two types of protesters As in Seattle in 1999, anarchists played a prominent part in the battle of the streets. Attention focussed on the so- called "Black bloc" but beyond the "Black bloc" MIM found numerous people who are anarchists, radical libertarians or people who do not realize they are pretty much anarchists. The radical protesters did much to make the whole event possible, because the police had to focus on them while attempting to mollify the moderate protesters. In particular, the radicals did succeed in intimidating the police and it is important for the moderate protesters to realize that this occurred, because it opened some space up. The anarchists succeeded in intimidating police in several ways, many of which included a willingness to use whatever tactics the police used. Police earlier in the week had sharpshooters on building rooftops. Anarchists had people on rooftops too. Police shot tear gas and rubber bullets. One demonstrator also brought tear gas to fire back and another shot paint balls. Police brought clubs and demonstrators brought clubs and shields and gas masks. Police used helicopters and demonstrators used satellite tracking and mobile phone and walkie-talkie technology to follow police movements. In addition, demonstrators had cameras and camcorders everywhere. In general in the important areas, each officer had three people covering them tactically. This limited the usual tendency of police to riot during demonstrations; although police still arrested at least 403 people according to CNN. The radicals were high-spirited and kept fighting while sustaining many more injuries than reported. It was not 60 people injured as in the April 22nd report of USA Today, but thousands suffered tear gas fired in large quantities. Two separate men showed MIM where they had been shot with tear gas canisters--between the legs. One man still had the tear gas canister as a souvenir. Both men were quick enough to avoid being seriously injured by the soda can sized tear gas cans. MIM repeatedly saw people injured and then return to the front lines, only to get water hosed or gassed again. Police also admitted that they left hundreds of people in buses surrounded in tear gas after arrests and then said they had to de-contaminate the arrested.(5) More moderate protesters broke into two camps, some complaining about the radicals as obscuring their message and others unwilling to criticize the radicals. In practice, MIM saw that many protesters liked to go the radical zones closer to the Wall of Shame and then back to the parade zones. The separation of the two zones was marked by the need to walk uphill, usually by steep staircases, to the radical zone. The New York Times reported that over 6,000 people were in the more radical zones. Anarchists gathered both in the parade zone and the unblockaded streets closer to the Wall of Shame. After parading in ridiculous costumes, one anarchist affinity group then went back to the radical zone. "We must be the dumbest affinity group there is because we are going right up to them," [the police] one costumed anarchist said through a bullhorn while marching through the radical zone on the way to the police. When he arrived, the anarchist told police through his bullhorn: "Attention, the situation is under control. We repeat, everything is under control. Your presence is no longer required." So it was that the anarchists told the police it was time to disperse and go home. MIM's disagreements with the anarchists shine through in this event, because the anarchists were highly organized and used the same kind of tools the police used. The use of organized force is a state or proto-state whether the anarchists recognize it or not, so only pacifists should be anarchists and the rest should be Maoists. Instead of criticizing the radicals, the moderates of the shadow government like the Sierra Club should build independent media to criticize the ruling class instead of endlessly believing in the possibility of using the bourgeois media to get out their message that they think is oh-so persuasive, persuasive enough to overrule the laws of capitalist economics. These anti-radical moderates need to study the media more to understand how little it is possible to communicate anything through the ruling class's media for anything. They should also buy independent media, stop criticizing it and not return to just reading the New York Times when they get home. In both the radical zone and the moderate zone, reception of MIM Notes was extremely good. Most people said "thank you" or "oh, great" when they received MIM Notes in both zones. Spirits were very high. People fleeing tear gas attacks seemed most likely to take MIM Notes. One persyn wearing a Che Guevara shirt in the radical zone took a stack of papers to hand out to his comrades closer to the front of police. The attack of the FTAA on Cuba made Castro and Che instant heroes. Second to anarchist influence was the influence of Che Guevara in the demonstrations, with his image appearing on t-shirts and other memorabilia. All of the literature claiming to be Marxist that MIM found also supported Castro and reprinted Radio Havana articles. MIM finds this unfortunate because of Castro's role in the restoration of capitalism. The article in the April 15th MIM Notes by Luis Arce Borja on Fujimorism did not go over well with two Peruvian wimmin who threw the newspaper on the ground. Another persyn used the paper as kleenex during the gas attacks, but otherwise, there were no negative reactions to MIM Notes, even though comrades handed it out to over 1000 people after they heard it was a "communist" paper. Many French-speaking people also learned about MIM's web page, as many were curious and asked for coverage in French. Victories by the middle-classes Although the media would not cover what they were saying very much, the middle-classes succeeded in organizing themselves and learning about the state. Many people who would have had illusions about what actually happens when police confront protesters saw first-hand. Perhaps now they will believe what prisoners are saying about conditions in Amerikkkan prisons, and this was by no means the most brutally repressed demonstration. Saturday afternoon, word spread that the use of tear gas was causing some of the Saturday and Sunday events to be cancelled. Marchers chanted, "you shut us up, but we shut you down!" There are some references that appear to validate the claim that the teargas of the police was actually causing some of the Summit of Americas events to be closed. From MIM's own observation, the winds and streets carried tear gas in very unpredictable directions. In addition, when the sun went down Saturday night, the police fired so much tear-gas that entire streets were white walls of gas. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell himself said he was used to tear-gas and did not feel it, but that implied that others did feel it.(6) CNN also reported that the convention center was "wreathed in tear gas." The police press release of Sunday April 22nd said, "We know there were times where the strategies we used inconvenienced a number of people, the media and the delegations included. Still, we felt that for the most part people understood we came to do our jobs and that public safety was our overriding concern."(7) Making a joke while posing with the Mexican president and Canadian Prime Minister Chretien, Bush corrected Chretien and said it was his job to make sure that the two leaders were "intact."(8) Bush had witnessed television coverage of the protests and made several references to protesters, but he never met with any despite his rhetoric of outreach. Notes: 1. Anthony DePalma, "In Quebec's Streets, Fervor, Fears and a Gamut of Issues," http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/world/22SCEN.html 2. Wall Street Journal, Christopher Chipelo, "Quebec Braces for Possible Violence at This Weekend's Trade Summit," 20April2001. CNN reported that the fence was actually four miles long. 3. New York Times 22April2001, "Bush Links Trade with Democracy at Quebec Talks," http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/22/world/22SUMM.html?pagewant ed=2 4. Associated Press in Wall Street Journal 19April2001. 5. Toronto Globe and Mail 23April2001, which by the way was very congratulatory of the police. 6. http://www.msnbc.com/msn/561742.asp 7. http://www.securitesommet.ca/pages/p_commu/p_com_e_k.html 8. Associated Press in Wall Street Journal 23April2001, "'The Three Amigos' of the Americas Work to End Disputes, Cement Ties."