The Prison Crisis

The prison population in the United States reached two million people in February, and it continues to expand rapidly, seemingly unrelated to and disconnected from any effective crime control goals. The US has the world\’s highest incarceration rate per capita and also has the largest prison population in absolute terms. With less than 5 percent of the world\’s population, the US now has one quarter of the world\’s prisoners.

The expansion of the US prison population is not due to violent offenders being locked up, although every politician justifies \”get tough on crime\” policies as a solution to the threat of random criminal violence. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the thousands of new people imprisoned each year are either drug offenders-dealers and even those busted for simple possession-or drug users committing property crimes to support their expensive habits. Approximately 85 percent of arrests in Baltimore, for instance, are either directly or indirectly attributable to drugs. Eighty-five percent of the increase in federal prisoners from 1985 to 1995 were drug offenders. Police arrest more than 1.5 million people per year for drug offences, including 700,000 per year for marijuana possession or sale. Mandatory sentencing laws have all contributed to the rise in incarceration.

Spiraling incarceration rates are disproportionately and unfairly targeting racial minority populations-almost one in three African-American males born today will be sent to prison. Although only fifteen percent of the nation\’s cocaine users are African-American, approximately proportional to the Black population in the US, African Americans comprise 40 percent of the people criminally charged with powdered cocaine violations, and 90 percent of those convicted on crack charges. 74 percent of those receiving prison sentences for drug-possession are non-white, although whites use far more drugs than minorities.

The War on Drugs has completely failed to stop drugs from being used and traded in the United States, despite enormous costs both in human lives and money wasted in prisons. According to Drug Enforcement Agency estimates, less than 10 percent of drugs are seized by government officials, despite $50 billion per year spent on the War on Drugs.

Despite the War on Drugs, illegal drugs are easier for kids to get than alcohol. Almost 90 percent of high school seniors, for instance, have consistently reported that marijuana was \”very easy\” or \”fairly easy\” to obtain in annual studies from 1975 to 1998.

And the War on Drugs hasn\’t even made drugs more expensive. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, heroin and cocaine prices have consistently dropped since 1980, as the Drug War has intensified. At the same time, drug purity, along with overdoses, injuries and death, have increased.

As the incarceration crisis intensifies, it\’s time to consider alternatives: getting rid of inflexible mandatory sentencing laws and implementing harm reduction to replace the War on Drugs. Harm reduction, including needle exchange programs, drug treatment, and alternatives to incarceration which breaks up families and communities, aims to deal with drug use and abuse by attacking the harms drug use causes, rather than attacking people who use drugs. A California Department of Health study found that for each dollar spent on treatment saves 7 dollars in other social costs. Yet despite this calculus, there isn\’t enough spending to give meaningful access to treatment programs. Drug addicts need access to treatment on demand, without waiting lists.

Hypocritical politicians want to continue locking up non-violent drug offenders for a long period of time hoping it will somehow accomplish what an 80 year war on drugs, with trillions of dollars spent and millions of people imprisoned, has failed to do. Does George Bush, widely reputed to have used cocaine and other drugs and a fierce advocate of the War on Drugs, really believe that he would have been better off if he had been thrown into prison a few years back when he was \”young and irresponsible\”?

When Rights Become Privileges

I\’ve written this article for many reasons, but the most important reason of all is to make contact with the outside world. I\’m incarcerated, therefore, I\’m being denied many of the liberties that you outside the place take for granted, specifically freedom and the right to uncensored communication with the outside world. People in this country continually tout the virtues of living in this, so called, \”free society,\” but they don\’t really understand what freedom is until it is taken away. Since freedom is one of the most important God given rights we have, I felt it necessary to write this article so that I can begin an uncensored dialogue with you on the outside.

Why this dialogue is necessary is because many people all over the world think that they are free from all the repressive actions that their governments take against those citizens that they incarcerate, particularly here in the United States of America, and just because the incarcerated persons are supposed to be what the government calls \”criminals,\” society thinks its okay whatever the government does to them. But those of you who feel that way better take a look at what is going on around you because what they do to those of us who are incarcerated, they will soon be doing to you. I\’d like to share both my personal experiences with being incarcerated as well as occasional soliloquies on what is happening in the world and how it parallels the repressive measures the politicians continue to impose both on its incarcerated and free citizens.

I know there will be many of you who feel that whatever happens to me I deserve because I\’m incarcerated, but if you feel that way, the you should, at the least, have the nerve to investigate my claims and find out for yourself what kind of person I am so that you can make your own determination of whether or not I\’m a \”fellow human being\” or a \”menace to society\” like the politicians try to make me and all other persons incarcerated out to be. Don\’t simply rely on a politician to tell you that I should be here, or that I shouldn\’t be treated like a \”human being\” wile I\’m here just because I\’m incarcerated. If you do just a little research on the last several political campaigns that you happen to hear about or participated in, you will find that the politicians always play on the fears of people about crime whether it was real or imagined simply to win an election. Most politicians use crime as a political issue because it is \”politically correct\” to do so. It is a win-win situation because all the candidates can chant the same mantra (get tough on crime) and have a winning issue. The politician will take one incident of a crime and make everyone in society think that crime is running rampant, but in reality it was only an isolated incident. Since society rewards politicians by electing and re-electing them because of the crime issue, then people like myself suffer because that politician then begins to implement more repressive measures. One thing society doesn\’t understand is that the more they reward politicians for making repressive laws, the more all free people\’s liberties will eventually be trampled on.

Here is one example of how the repressive laws that the politicians make for prisoners affect your liberty. When DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid or Genetic Fingerprinting) was found to be more unique than fingerprints to positively identify individual people, the politicians began to require all prisoners to have their genetic fingerprints placed on record so that if any prisoner\’s DNA was found at an old crime scene or future ones, then that prisoner can be charged with that crime, and that seemed like a good law, but son after that law was implemented many politicians began to examine how else that DNA fingerprinting could be used.

The mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, in the beginning of 1999 ordered his police force to start taking DNA samples from anyone who was arrested. This move certainly will open the doors soon enough for everyone to be tested because if a person who is just arrested can have DNA taken from them, then what will stop them from taking it from people that they just stop for minor traffic violations? Whatever happened to the person being arrested declared \”innocent until proven guilty?\” If the New York police department can get away with taking DNA from people they suspect of committing a crime, then how much longer will it be before they just take it under general traffic stops? Once society accepts people being DNA fingerprinted without even being convicted of a crime, then what will stop them from requiring it from everyone? Certainly these tactics could sound like something that could only have existed in Nazi Germany. However, this is going on in the United States of America right now!

Since society doesn\’t think DNA fingerprinting is a problem for people who haven\’t been convicted of a crime, then wouldn\’t it make sense to test everyone in the United States of America? Wouldn\’t that help to solve all the unsolved murders and rapes, or at least the guilty person or persons wouldn\’t be able to stay in this country because of the fear of being tested. Better yet, why don\’t the governments of the world test the whole world\’s population and then all unsolved murders and rapes would be solved. But don\’t think DNA fingerprinting use would stop there.

What about using it to detect genetic flaws so that parents could abort their \”genetically flawed children\” before they are born, or the knowledge can be used to cut medical care cost by detecting who will have expensive diseases at they age, then they can be charged accordingly while they are healthy enough to pay for it. Don\’t think these actions won\’t come about. The government doesn\’t have any problem implementing any of these scenarios if you sit back and allow them to do it. The things I\’ve mentioned may seem extreme or even far fetched, but the DNA fingerprinting Pandora\’s box has been opened, and it started with a law politicians introduced solely to affect prisoners, but now it is affecting society as a whole. The more politicians get rewarded (getting elected and re-elected) by society for making repressive laws, the more all free peoples\’ liberties will eventually be trampled on.

Freedom in this country and around the world is becoming less of a reality simply because the people are giving them up for the illusion of being safe from crime. This crime issue is a \”false issue\” created by politicians. The more they make society think crime is running rampant, the more of your freedoms are taken away. Since people are so willing to give up many of their personal freedoms just because of a politician claiming that that is what is necessary to prevent crime, then I have to do my best to sound the alarm because I know first hand that the politician is a liar and will do anything to get what he/she wants. This article was written in order to show you how what they do to me affects the rights you think you have as a free person in society. Since I\’m incarcerated, I can tell you how the repressive laws they create for me parallel the ones they are creating for you, but to stop them you must become actively involved with groups that oppose the politicians that are creating the repressive laws.

Feel free to correspond with me. Any correspondence will be appreciated and promptly answered.

Tyronne Glenn #AM-6697

Drawer – K

Dallas, Pennsylvania 18612-0286

Pay Attention!

Greetings from the bowels of a Federal Gulag where I am currently being held hostage with hundreds of thousands of others, all victims of Draconian Federal Drug Laws and the mandatory minimum sentences these injustices entail.

Unfortunately my story is typical of thousands of other. I stand convicted of the \”catch all\” conspiracy statute. The total evidence against me consisted of the testimony of two individuals purchased by the government with a promise of leniency. The fact that I had never even heard of most of my alleged co-conspirators, much less conspired with them was irrelevant. They seized my meager assets and ruined my credit. I chose to plead guilty because they had such an \”air tight\” case against me and promised to let my wife go free. (And of course my wife has since divorced me.)

When I first arrived here at F.C.I. Petersburg in the rolling hills of Virginia, I was actually somewhat disillusioned. I had visions of tennis courts, a golf course, and a state of the art health spa. \”Club Fed\” here I come! Never mind that I had spent the previous five months in a dungeon called the Alexandria Detention Center followed by thirty-seven days shackled hand and foot traveling the highways and byways of the good \’ole USA in order to be transported a mere one hundred and twenty five miles from where I started from. This should have been my first clue that my vision was nothing more than a \”necessary illusion.\”

But it wasn\’t. I had considered myself a well-informed American. After all, I did read the Washington Post religiously and caught the Nightly News with Tom Brokaw at least three nights a week. What more was there to know? Besides, my attorney assured me that he had everything under control and there was nothing to worry about. Wrong!

That was a little over three years ago and I have long since stopped looking for the tennis courts. My \”necessary illusion\” has been shattered by the reality of my nightmare. A nightmare supported by the fact that the United States has a larger percentage of it\’s population in prison than any other country on earth. More than two million human beings currently languish behind bars. One out of thirty five Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system and if the present rate of incarceration holds steady, one out of twenty Americans, one out of eleven men, and one out of four black men can expect to spend part of their life in prison. Upwards of sixty percent of these are incarcerated for drug offences. It makes me wonder what kind of \”message\” current drug policy advocates are trying to send when one out of nine school age children has one or both parents in prison. As this rate continues to climb, the government is sure to be successful in breeding an entire generation of embittered and disenfranchised drug war orphans.

And don\’t think for a moment that you and your family are immune because \”we don\’t do drugs\” or \”I only smoke pot\”. As the criminal justice juggernaut swells out of control, \”innocent until proven guilty\” has lost all meaning. You can be sucked into the prison industrial complex on little more than a whim and spend a lifetime seeking relief and you or your loved ones will be gone – locked up for ten years to life.

I was due to be released as early as April, 1999 but my request for halfway house placement was denied even though a lifelong friend and confidant offered to let me stay at her place for as long as it takes to get back on my feet. The Bureau of Prisons in it\’s infinite wisdom denied my release plan with no reasonable explanation. Yesterday, my \”case manager\” handed me a list of homeless shelters and offered to allow me a phone call in order to make the \”necessary arrangements.\” I told him thanks but no thanks, I no longer have the strength or courage needed to make that kind of call…

Editors note: The author has since been released from prison. He can be reached at:

Richard Geer

C/o 612 Green Street

Winchester, VA 22601

Tree-sitters Forced to Ground

Tree-sitters at the Minnehaha Free State near Minneapolis/St. Paul, where activists are occupying land to block a reroute of Highway 55, were forced to the ground after a nearly fatal 10 day showdown with police last fall. The tree-sitters were in trees slated for destruction by the highway project. Highway 55 is a major commuter highway; the contested reroute would shave 3 minutes off the trip from downtown to the Mall of the Americas and is largely opposed by taxpayers.

Reroute construction has already claimed over 300 trees in a 10-block area of Minnehaha Park, the first state park in the U.S., including 13 trees cut by the Minnesota Department of Transportation in self-proclaimed retaliation against 13 McAllister University students who locked themselves in the MnDOT office.

Additioanl areas slated for destruction include Coldwater Spring, the last clean spring in the entire Minneapolis/St. Paul area; a Mendota Dakota burial ground and ceremonial site; and four 250 year old Bur oaks planted in the four directions at the burial site.

LAPD Scandal Nothing New

As people who read the front pages of the corporate media may know, a \”scandal\” engulfing the Los Angeles Police\’s Ramparts Division and spilling over into other parts of the department has shown officers to lie, plant evidence, beat and even kill innocent people. This is not a scandal. This is normal police activity.

Interestingly, the wider the investigation spreads, the more police abuse and corruption it uncovers. Heads of the department are busy trying to contain and rationalize it by coming up with excuses such as the department has grown too quickly recently, or that officers have been overzealous in their desire to stamp out gangs and drugs.

In reality, the investigation could and should grow to include every police department in the country, if not the world, because such \”misconduct\” is really routine operating procedure for police. It is not a few bad apples or an isolated case of administrative oversight. Every cop, every cop brass, and anyone who truly knows the workings of the police knows this to be true. It is only the \’blue code of silence\’ that ever keeps it from becoming more widely known.

Let a thousand investigations bloom!

Battle of Seattle

How direct action shut down the WTO and freed our minds

In the city center of one of the nation\’s most prominent metropoli and the Northwest hub of free trade, an assortment of opposition forces to the World Trade Organization brought the system to its knees.

It was not a violent protest. In fact, the core of what shut down the conference, and brought to the Seattle Police Department a tactical defeat. Was the highly organized non-violent direct action strategy of the Direct Action Network. There were other factors to be sure. One was the participation of labor. Another was the broad display of mainstream and liberal organizations who came to town, swelling the size of the demonstrations, and providing a sense of safety to the more radical participants whose focus lay in the streets.

We were not passive. We locked down, we blockaded, we were mobile, and some of us damaged property. But most of all we were organized and we believed in physically challenging the powers that be, powers that included not just the WTO, but the whole system of global capitalism which it has come to represent.

There were a lot of us. We blended easily with the local population of youth and other people who were happy to join us at the barricades. And we weren\’t going to give up no matter how much tear gas was fired at us. We were determined.

The day\’s events started early, with at least two marches beginning that morning. The gathering point for the Direct Action Network (DAN) contingent was at 7 a.m., just up the hill from downtown in the hip, alternative-type neighborhood of Capitol Hill. It was still dark and there was a steady drizzle at the time the march took off.

Of course this was not the real beginning to the events that would later unfold. Hard working activists had come to Seattle early and had spent weeks and even months preparing for the big week, and in particular Tuesday, the big day. Tensions had been running high all week, people had hardly been sleeping, and by the time Tuesday morning rolled around many of the key organizers were, quite frankly, already fried. But it didn\’t matter now-the adrenaline had kicked in, filling the air with a curious, though anxious, elation.

As the march moved down the hill and towards the Convention Center, various clusters of protesters began to break off, making their way to different parts of the perimeter of the soon-to-be-besieged area. Organization for the day had been thorough, with the perimeter of the Convention Center divided up like a pie. Most groups or clusters of groups already knew which area they were going to and what they were going to do when they got there.

When the marchers arrived, various intersections and points of entry to the Convention Center had already been blocked by autonomous groups of non-violent protesters who employed any number of tactics to tie up space, snarl traffic, and seal off all points of entry for WTO delegates. Many delegates would spend the next few hours desperately trying to find a passage in. Demonstrators used lock-boxes, human chains, and sometimes chain link fencing borrowed from nearby construction sites to block their path and insure that the meeting would not go on as planned. It worked.

An elaborate and effective radio communication system between various clusters and locations proved invaluable for passing information between clusters and for deploying auxiliary groups of protesters to troubles pots as they arose. Radio communication became increasingly difficult throughout the day, however, as police-and possibly right wingers-began jamming the protester\’s frequencies.

Shut \’Em Down

Understaffed, inexperienced, and lacking political will from a city administration fearful of coming down too hard on protesters, the police were very ineffective. Having concentrated nearly all their forces on trying to defend the convention center and the WTO meeting inside, the surrounding streets, with few officers on hand, quickly became the domain of the protesters.

Around blockades and on surrounding blocks the number of demonstrators swelled as more and more people arrived. In addition to the area already closed by police, more streets were then shut down by protesters who erected impromptu blockades using relocated dumpsters, trashcans, and newspapers boxes. Traffic was gridlocked. Masked-up bands of roving anarchists were able to break many corporate and bank windows at this point, and quite a bit of political graffiti began to appear.

A de facto street party formed in the downtown shopping core bordering the convention center, and people more or less did what they wanted. The streets were ours. A sound system appeared in one intersection and people began dancing. Locals, especially youth, immediately joined the revelry and before long you got the impression that there was little to distinguish \’the people\’ from \’the protesters\’. Lines became blurred.

Lines were not blurred, however, at the blockades, where protesters faced off with police who started beefing up and militarizing their lines. They would periodically make incursions into an occupied intersection to allow delegates in, to break up a blockade, or to push back groups of protesters. Frustrated by the effectiveness of the blockades and not knowing how to deal with the growing numbers of people on the outside of their lines, the police early on resorted to tear gas and \”crowd-control\” munitions. From there, things escalated quickly.

Whose City?

By afternoon, terse standoffs were entrenched at numerous intersections and the focus of the day shifted from blockades of the WTO meeting to confrontations with the police. The police, now with full body riot gear and ominous black armored personnel carriers, by mid-day began to penetrate a wedge into the several block area of the perimeter which contained the largest mass of demonstrators numbering by this time in the thousands.

This incursion was a block by block push down Union St., one of the prominent streets of the downtown shopping district, now held by protesters. By exploding concussion grenades designed to scare people, then shooting tear gas canisters and sometimes rubber or wooden bullets, they moved slowly down the street, driving people off of one block, then holding the line. But this strategy proved too little too late, and by nightfall the authorities were forced to declare a state of emergency. They proceeded to gas the entire downtown area, sending thousands of people running in all directions to escape the tear gas. Martial law was declared, and that evening Big Bill Clinton rolled into town.

But the people would not back down. Despite the gassings and rubber bullets, crowds would continue to gather and regather in order to continue protesting. This went o into the night, with the police eventually pushing the demonstration up the hill into the Capitol Hill area, prompting young area residents to come out of their houses in support of the protests. The focus shifted again later that evening to angry residents demanding that the heavy-handed police leave their neighborhood.

Ultimately, the gassing strategy failed for the police. While it did succeed in clearing the streets, residents, shoppers, and workers got gassed right along with the protesters, making the disturbances bigger than they had initially been and setting a good number of Seattle locals against the police. The biggest costs to the city, it turns out, were not as a result of the much media-hyped vandalism to downtown storefronts, nor even the police overtime. The biggest costs by far were the lost revenue to downtown businesses caused by the absence of shoppers on the street during one of the busiest shopping weeks of the year, a situation brought on primarily by the police\’s overreaction.

Day Two

By day two the city had called a state of emergency under pressure from federal authorities, and the greater downtown area-about one square mile-was declared a
\”no protest zone.\” But by 7 a.m., hundreds of people had already entered the forbidden zone to protest. No sooner than they had arrived, they were descended upon by Seattle\’s finest, surrounded and arrested. Their crime: protesting while under martial law. Police targeted organizers and people with radio communications. From that point on, many of DAN\’s key players were in jail and the communications system was wiped out.

From the outskirts of the mass arrest site a larger crowd gathered. It and other groups formed sporadically throughout the day, including one that broke off from a steelworker\’s march, braving the foreboding streets of the no protest zone, often eliciting tear gas rounds from the occupation forces. But there was a defiant spirit in the streets amog the people as the sizable crowds demonstrated neither fear of the police, nor any inclanation of desire to see their right to protest stripped away.

On day two it seemed that nobody was in charge. The city could not control the demonstrations. The \”leadership\” of DAN, dominated by middle-class pacifists as it was, seemed increasingly cut off from the people in the streets. In fact, DAN\’s willingness to confront the WTO or police now seemed tempered by the previous day\’s \”violence.\” The people themselves, those who continued to go out of their homes and safe refuges, took the lead. They were now the forefront of the movement, and they were basically on their own.

Sell Out

After Tuesday, the leadership of DAN and the unions was unable or unwilling to lead the movement against the WTO. The demonstrations had been too hot and too effective and the bureaucrats and beneficiaries of groups across the board cowered in the face of further confrontation with power. With the exception of the dock worker\’s shutdown of the west coast ports on Tuesday, the other unions never actually led any direct action against the WTO in the first place, calling into question the basis of DAN\’s coalition with organized labor. DAN itself, after Tuesday, limited itself to only defensive actions, such as marching to the jail to demand the release of prisoners.

DAN and the unions did lead on subsequent days, but they led down a dead end, away from confrontation with the WTO, and to boring liberal rallies outside of the city center complete with reformist speakers and recuperationist politicians. They lead us back into the system. The more moderate groups who had come to Seattle such as the AFT-CIO and Global Exchange even went so far as to make amends and denounce the more militant actions of Fat Tuesday. Leaders of all stripes, left to right, were united by a desire to see things brought back under control.

Stolen Power

A historical rupture took place in Seattle. A paradigm shifted and a level of consciousness was broken through that all the people who were there experienced.

The system was overwhelmed. A revolutionary situation emerged, meaning all the normal checks and balances of the system had failed momentarily. It broke down under the weight of a critical mass of opposition that crystallized and could not be contained through the proper channels. Normalcy disappeared, the social glue that holds society together had gone away, nothing was for sure and everything was possible.

The people took their power. A good number of the protesters hadn\’t come to Seattle to ask the WTO to change; they came to shut it down. The demonstrations changed the WTO, and the political landscape around it, by force. People took power from the bottom up and the authorities were powerless to do anything but hand it over. The spin doctors in the corporate media couldn\’t work fast enough to keep up with the shift in consciousness that the rift in society, however brief, allowed. The insight into the workings of the system, the exposure of the lies that are everyday reality, the struggle of righteous truth against condemnable tyranny proved impossible to ignore.

The real emergency wasn\’t the small amount of vandalism that occurred, and the violence was mostly administered by the police. The state of emergency that occurred was that people were taking power into their own hands. The emergency was a crisis of legitimacy for the authorities who accustomed to ordinarily being the ones in power in society and calling the shots, all of a sudden found themselves being stripped of that role of no free will of their own and in a manner over which they had no say. That was the state of emergency in Seattle. That\’s why it was brought under martial law.

ABCs of the WTO

Global capitalism threatens democracy, workers and the planet; but the tide is finally turning…

Because of Seattle, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has become a household word, synonymous with \”undemocratic\”, \”secret\”, \”anti-worker\” and \”anti-environment.\” But the WTO is but a single institution in the web of economic globalization designed to ensure corporate domination based on \”free\” trade, the myth that economic growth can continue forever, in spite of the limits imposed by nature.

The WTO was created in 1995 with power to impose trade sanctions against any signatory country which \”maintains barriers to trade.\” These \”barriers\” can mean almost anything, including protective tariffs, which aim to protect local industries and farms from competing goods imported from countries where human rights and welfare standards are lower. Many other laws, including those which impose labor or environmental standards on industrial production, are also considered \”barriers.\” For instance US laws which prohibit the sale of shrimp caught in nets that endanger sea turtles are considered \”barriers to trade\” by the WTO.

Any member country can request that the WTO take action against another country which has laws which are allegedly \”barriers to trade.\” WTO trade experts, drawn from big business and not elected by any government, then meet in secret to decide if the challenged law is a \”barrier to trade.\” The WTO\’s decision is not subject to appeal and an \”offending\” nation must decide between repealing its law, which may have been democratically passed, or suffering crippling trade restrictions.

The WTO is the main multi-national body charged with promoting free trade, but the process of globalization also depends on actions taken by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and most importantly, a few hundred multi-national corporations which are rapidly transforming the lives of billions around the world.

\”Globalization\” is the process by which the entire world is being merged into one huge market, based on \”free trade\” economic rules favorable to \”growth,\” and the centralization of wealth and power into a few, massive transnational corporations. \”Free\” trade generally means freedom for huge corporations to produce and sell products without regard for the welfare of people or the environment. Under free trade, transnational corporations are free to find the cheapest labor available, and then move their factories to that area to exploit the cheap labor.

Labor is cheap in these countries because workers lack the freedom to organize independent unions and government structures are undemocratic and unresponsive to worker safety or environmental health. Labor is also cheap because hundreds of millions of people who formerly lived off subsistence agriculture have been forced into the employment market.

The IMF and World Bank have forced poor nations around the world to raise quick cash to make debt payments by exporting raw materials and agricultural products. Cattle ranching, clearcutting and plantations have replaced farming for local use. Free trade advocates argue that the poor masses in the third world want jobs at Nike, but only in the sense that workers everywhere, when stripped of any other way to get food, are forced to become wage slaves. There is no free choice between maintaining traditional, subsistence agriculture and becoming a part of the world economy.

The alleged goal of the globalization process is to foster \”development\” in the third world and economic growth in the developed nations. However, it is far from clear that either development or economic growth actually benefit the population of the world, although both are essential to keeping profits up for transnational corporations.

Market-based capitalism requires that the economy grow every year. Any company that doesn\’t grow is deserted by its stockholders (who seek short-term returns on their investments), bought up by its competitors, or forced out of business. Constant competition enforces the rule: grow or die. This process operates regardless of whether this growth benefits or hurts human beings or the environment.

For example, in \”developed\” countries, the use of oil and cars expands every year-an indicator of economic growth. But does this make life better? More time spent in traffic, more noise, more pollution. More people moving from place to place, to be sure, but does it help people live more fulfilling lives?

Continued growth means that people in developed countries have more and more stuff and services every year. Western culture assumes that no one ever has \”enough,\” and the media assumes that we never stop buying.

Continued growth is also not sustainable. The amount of resources consumed and the amount of waste produced by \”developed\” economies has already exceeded the ability of the earth to regenerate the resources and absorb the waste. Witness global climate change, ozone depletion, deforestation, topsoil loss, toxic waterways, depleted fishstocks, and mass extinctions in the natural world.

So even if economic growth makes life \”better,\” and even if one never has \”enough stuff,\” a system with no goal but growth is a doomed system.. At some point, the economy can\’t grow any more because of limits by nature. Again, transnational corporations and the capitalist system structurally have no ability to deal with this reality.

Because the \”developed\” world already uses most of the world\’s resources, developed economies need to considerably reduce their size, and reorganize around principles other than continued growth. Since almost all the benefits of economic growth go to the most wealthy tiny percentage of the population, it is likely that developed countries could stop growing and reduce resource use and still raise the poorer segments of the population out of poverty by redistributing the wealth.

Free trade agreements and policies probably do increase economic growth, but such growth is an inappropriate goal. It is clear that free trade policies strengthen the power and wealth of transnational corporations, which become better able to push even more growth. Simultaneously, free trade policies weaken each nation\’s ability to put any limits on transnational corporations, economic growth, or ecological destruction. Any local, state or national body that tries to impose standards can easily be abandoned by corporations, which can withdraw investment and jobs, but which will still be permitted to sell products-limiting opportunities for local production and autonomy. This is the essential coercive force of \”free\” trade.

What Is To Be Done

Given the powerful forces at work, and the complex web of problems with current economic, development and trade policies, it is extremely encouraging that the Battle of Seattle has finally spurred discussion within the US of economic issues in general, and the WTO in particular.

It is, however, far from clear how to harness the energy, courage and creativity displayed on the streets in Seattle. Corporate domination is all around us in every country, yet it is difficult to know how to effectively strike out against it. However, consider the following:

    International Alliances
    The most important aspect of Seattle is the possibility it suggests for an international labor/environmental/citizen coalition against corporate dominance, the dominance of growth over nature and the supremacy of profits over the lives of people. It was amazing to see thousands of people from all walks of life together in the streets in Seattle, bravely standing up to the WTO and its police.

    Labor leaders mobilized massive numbers of their constituency to participate in the protest. Despite the fact that they started backpedaling on November 30, realizing their own rank and file were getting beyond the reformism of the Democratic Party, sel
    l-out unions, the labor march \”monitors\” couldn\’t stop thousands of steelworkers, teamsters, longshoremen, and other workers from getting a radical education in the teargas-filled streets. Despite lifestyle differences, workers and environmentalists have common enemies and common goals.

    Even more significantly, Seattle propelled US workers and environmentalists into a global coalition against globalization with movements worldwide. Workers in Europe, Asia and Central and South America have been opposing what is often known as \”neo-liberalism\” for years, while amazingly, the topic was completely absent in US public discussion. No more. As corporations and government goes global, our resistance must also go global.

    The US government has been the main proponent of the WTO and free trade from the start. It must be clear now to domestic movements in countries around the world that there are splits within American society on globalization. The task of the international movement against globalization is now to crack those splits wide open. We must learn how to combine opposition to globalization from the \”South\”, \”developing\” nations who suffer from trans-national corporate colonialism, with movements in the north

    Reviving Localism
    The alternative to globalization is a return to the local. This means local control over politics, production and resources and a return to self-sufficiency on a local basis. This doesn\’t mean that there would be no trade, just that people in a particular region shouldn\’t have to \”compete\” with people around the world in every human enterprise from farming to factories. Workers and citizens around the world should cooperate to realize common goals: human happiness, meeting human needs for food, housing, health care, mobility, and creativity, and maintaining the natural environment on which we depend.

    Localism means valuing diversity. Cultures around the world have evolved beautiful and important differences in tastes, food, music, values, etc. which are quickly being destroyed through globalization. A city in Asia shouldn\’t have the same chainstores as one in California. The \”free\” trade economists assume that a peasant in Indonesia wants all of the clutter found in an American subdivision (TV, products, clocks). Advertising is beaming consumer culture around the world to ensure normalization of desire. For sure, there are many benefits to development, but there is no opportunity for societies to choose and reject the shape it will take.

    Localism means using appropriate technology and resources, eating food that can be produced locally, and using energy sources that can be locally produced and controlled (without exporting the waste). Modest alternatives like Community Supported Agriculture, local currencies and barter, should be encouraged.

    E-commerce, the media darling of the hour, is a terrible threat to local self-sufficiency. It centralizes commerce into a few powerful, distant corporations and completely removes commerce from local accountability. At the next riot, how about targeting a webvan.com truck?

    New Value System
    Underlying all of this, we must develop an \”ethic of resistance\” to global corporate domination of our lives. The economy long ago abandoned serving human needs, and took on an internally destructive \”logic\” of its own. Every day our jobs serve not ourselves or our neighbors and family, but a system which is enslaving us and destroying the earth. The time has arrived to resist the machine with every tool available to destroy it. Perhaps Seattle was the first sign of a new culture growing out of the ruins of the old.

We Win!

But don\’t thank mainstream environmentalists or unions

Beyond the wildest hopes of the street warriors, five days in Seattle brought us one victory after another. The protesters, initially shunned and denounced by the respectable \”inside strategists,\” scorned by the press, and gassed and bloodied by the cops and national guard; shut down the opening ceremony; prevented Clinton from addressing the WTO delegates at the Wednesday night gala; turned the corporate press from prim denunciations of \”mindless anarchy\” to bitter criticisms of police brutality; forced the WTO to cancel its closing ceremonies and to adjourn in disorder and confusion, without an agenda for the next round.

In the annals of popular protest in America, these were shining hours, achieved entirely outside the conventional arena of orderly protest and white paper activism and the timid bleats of the professional leadership of big labor and environmentalists. This truly was an insurgency from below in which all those who strove to moderate and deflect the turbulent flood of popular outrage managed to humiliate themselves. The contradiction between the demure agenda of the genteel element and the robust, tear-it-all-down approach of the street legions was already apparent by Tuesday.

All day long, Tuesday, November 30, the street warriors in downtown Seattle vindicated their pledge to shut down the first day of the WTO talks, in itself a rousing victory. Locked down EarthFirst!ers, Ruckus Society agitators, anarchists and other courageous troublemakers sustained baton charges, tear gas and rubber bullets, hopefully awaiting reinforcement from the big labor rally taking place around the space needle, some fifteen or twenty blocks from downtown. As the morning ticked away and the cops got rougher, the street warriors kept asking , \”Where are the labor marchers?\” expecting that at any moment thousand of longshoremen and teamsters would reinforce them in the desperate fray.

But the absent legions of labor never showed. Suppose they had. Suppose there had been 30,000 to 40,000 protesters around the convention center, vowing to keep it shut all week. Would the cops have charged such a force? Downtown could have been held all night, and perhaps President Bill would have been forced to make his welcoming address from SeaTac or from the sanctuary of his ardent campaign funder, the Boeing Company. That would have been a humiliation for imperial power of historic proportions, like the famous greeting the Wobblies organized to greet president Woodrow Wilson after the breaking of the Seattle general strike in 1919 when workers and their families lined the streets, block after block, standing in furious silence as the President\’s motorcade passed by. Wilson had his stroke not long thereafter.

This might-have-been is not posed out of churlishness, but to encourage a sense of realism about what is possible in the struggle against the trading arrangements now operative in the WTO.

Take organized labor, as embodied in the high command of the AFL-CIO. Are these people truly committed to the destruction of the WTO? Of course they aren\’t. It was back in February of this year that the message came down from AFL-CIO HQ that rallying in Seattle was fine, but the plan was not to shut down the WTO. Labor\’s plan was to work from inside. As far as any street action was concerned, the deals were cut long ago. Labor might huff and puff, but when it comes to the WTO, what labor wanted, in James Hoffa\’s phrase, was a seat at the table.

And what would this seat at the table turn out to have been? At Seattle, those labor chieftains were willing to settle for a truly threadbare bit of window dressing, in the shape of a working group which would, in the next round of WTO talks, be sensitive to labor\’s concerns. Here\’s the chronology. The present trade round would have pondered the working group\’s mission and composition and made recommendations for the next round of trade talks. Then, when the next round got under way, the working group would perhaps take form. Guess what? It\’s at least 2014 AD before the working group is up and running.

There are unions-the autoworkers, steelworkers, teamsters, machinists, UNITE-which have rank and file members passionately concerned about \”free trade\” when, as in the case of teamsters, it means Mexican truck drivers coming over the border at $2 an hour. But how many of these unions are truly ready to break ranks and holler \”Death to the WTO\”? For that matter, how many of them are prepared to think in world terms as the capitalists do? Take the steelworkers, the only labor group which, in the form of the Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment, took up positions in downtown that Tuesday morning (and later fought with the cops and endured teargas themselves). But on that same day, November 30, the Moscow Tribune ran a story reporting that the Clinton administration has effectively stopped all cold-rolled steel imports from Russia by imposing penalty duties of 178 per cent. Going into winter those Russian working families at Severstal, Novolipetsk, and Magnitogorsk are facing tougher times than ever. The Moscow Tribune\’s reporter, John Helmer, wasn\’t in doubt why: \”Gore must try to preserve steel company and steel worker support.\”

As the preceding item suggests, there\’s no such thing as \”free trade.\” The present argument is not about trade, for which (except for maybe a few bioregionalists in Ecotopia) all are in favor in some measure. The argument is about how trade is to be controlled, how wealth is to be made and distributed. The function of the WTO is to express in trade rules the present balance of economic power on the world held by the big corporations, which see the present WTO round as an opportunity to lock in their gains, to enlist formal backing in their ceaseless quest for cheap labor and places to dump their poisons.

So ours is a worldwide guerilla war, of publicity, harassment, obstructionism. It\’s nothing simple, like that \”Stop the War\” slogan of the 1960s. Capitalism could stop that war and move on. American capitalism can\’t stop trade and survive on any terms it cares for.

We truly don\’t want a seat at the table to \”reform\” trade rules, because if we get one, then sooner or later we\’ll be standing alongside Global Exchange\’s Medea Benjamin proclaiming that Nike, which pays workers less than 20 cents an hour, has made an \”astounding transformation,\” and in Seattle actually defending Nike\’s premises from well-merited attacks by street warriors. Capitalism only plays by the rules if it wrote those rules in the first place. The day the WTO stipulates the phase-in of a world minimum wage of $3 an hour is the day the corporations destroy it and move on. Publicity, harassment, obstructionism… Think always in terms of international solidarity. Find targets of opportunity. South Africa forces domestic licinsing at cheaper rates for AIDS drugs. Solidarity. The Europeans don\’t want bioengineered crops. Fight on that front. Challenge the system at the level of its pretentions. Make demands in favor of real free trade. Get rid of copyright and patent restrictions and fees imposed on developing nations.

A guerilla war, without illusions or respectable ambitions. Justice in world trade is by definition a revolutionary and utopian aim.

This article was lifted from the Anderson Valley Advertiser without permission. They\’re cool; drop them a line: 12451 Anderson Valley Way, Boonville, CA 95415

Workers, Activists Unite Despite Mainstream Union Capitulation

It\’s the biggest global victory for workers in decades, thirty thousand unionists and tens of thousands of students, environmentalists, and human rights activists stopped the WTO in its tracks and sent its 133 trade ministers home in utter defeat. The Battle of Seattle has made it almost impossible for the WTO to take major new steps in the next few years to further drive down wages, working conditions, and environmental standards throughout the world. Before the week of protests, most workers in the US and abroad had never even heard of the WTO, but now the capitalist governments that run it and their thieving corporate masters can no longer work quietly in the dark to undermine workers and farmers everywhere. Seattle may well be the first step for working people, a turning of the tide.

This was the first major political protest by workers in decades. Major unions such as the steelworkers and the ILWU mobilized thousands of their members. Over 3,000 workers from Canada and delegations from many countries around the world joined together to make their voices heard. West Coast ILWU longshoremen shut down the coast for 8 hours, and Seattle taxi drivers went on strike November 30.

The protest was the most important linking up of the environmental movement and human rights movement with labor since the 1960s civil rights movement. It was the power of this alliance that brought the WTO down, uniting labor\’s numbers and organization with the daring civil disobedience and broad-based support of students, environmentalists, and other activists. It is this newly forged alliance that will give workers the strength they need in every city in the country.

Most of the coalition that came to protest the WTO had a clear demand-get rid of it. But John Sweeney and the other top labor leaders had other ideas. They wanted a \”partnership,\” a seat at the table for union officials, in keeping with the support for Clinton and Gore these unions have.

Pursuing this strategy of not breaking with Clinton and Gore, but being pushed by tens of thousands of rank-and-filers to protest the WTO, Sweeney and company planned a tame protest, keeping tens of thousands of labor marchers away from the WTO meeting-place and the militant protest of most activists. But the rank and filers had other ideas.

While police were using gas on the demonstrators, unionists left their stadium and headed downtown. The march marshals sought to prevent the unionists from reaching the protesters. They physically blocked two intersections and sought to divert the marchers towards another hotel, where they said a sit-in would take place. They were primarily interested in preventing the linking up of the thousands of youth with the unionists in battle against the police and the WTO.

Many workers marched right past the marshals. The ILWU and other unionists went downtown to join the youth who were protesting. In one instance, police were chasing some youth and saw a delegation of longshoremen. The police quickly retreated. The steelworkers had brought hundreds of striking workers from Oregon Steel and Kaiser Aluminum to Seattle for the whole week, and they got a view of American justice that will never go away.

This was just the start of a tumultuous 4 day police riot. The police also attacked a steelworkers march a few days later with teargas.

Only the alliance of rank and file workers with students, environmentalists, and other activists made this victory possible. As many workers themselves noted, without the civil disobedience that tied the conference in knots, a polite labor rally would have just resulted in a few editorials. And without the presence and active participation of thousands of trade unionists in the militant demonstration in the center of Seattle, the police would have used mass arrests from the start to sweep \”a few crazies\” from the convention center. But with this alliance, the protesters could not be dismissed or massively repressed. We won this round. The WTO and the capitalists lost.

For the working class, this was an important and historical political action against multinationals and the US government. John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO as well as Hoffa, Jr. of the Teamsters and most of the leadership will seek to keep this mobilization contained. The political danger for them is that once millions of workers become engaged in this fight, they will undoubtedly begin to question how the trade unions can contribute to support the very politicians that support global robber-barons.

Debate on Tactics

In the wake of the breaking of a few windows in downtown Seattle during the WTO protests on November 30, everyone wants to debate the \”violence/non-violence\” or more aptly the \”property destruction/no-property destruction\” question. Rather than continuing this tired debate, we should be talking about how everyone-no matter where they fall in the debate-should be smarter and more strategic about using tactics to achieve identifiable goals.

In Seattle, the non-violent, civil disobedience tactic worked beyond anyone\’s wildest dreams, mostly because the Seattle police couldn\’t figure out that perhaps they should arrest, rather than shoot and torture, the peaceful crowd. But this tactic doesn\’t and won\’t always work, and adopting it like a religion, rather than as a sometimes effective tactic, is unfortunate.

Similarly, property destruction in one form or another can be and often is an extremely effective tactic. This tactic is not \”violence,\” and where practiced with discretion, should only affect faceless corporations. These corporations, along with governments are undoubtedly the most violent and destructive institutions in the world. How many forests, villages, neighborhoods, family farms, and individual lives have been crushed by corporations, compared with the number of humans that have been inconvenienced by a few broken windows? The folks who broke windows in Seattle generally chose excellent targets: Bank of America, US Bancorp, Key Bank, Washington Mutual Bank, Fidelity Investments, the Gap, McDonalds, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Niketown, Warner Brothers, Planet Hollywood, Starbucks… Only one store, a jewelry store, that had its windows broken was not a clearly chosen, corporate target.

The fact that they chose good targets deserving to have their windows broken, however, however does not mean that the window breaking was an effective tactic under the circumstance. In fact, as much as it was great to see Niketown boarded up, the window breaking was unfortunate. It was obvious by 9 or 10 in the morning that we had won the Battle of Seattle using completely non-destructive, non-violent, and generally non-controversial tactics, which could be embraced by the vast majority of the population.

I don\’t disagree with the decision to break windows, but I hope it was a conscious decision made after considering the political situation, the military situation, and with some goal and politics in mind. I fear that it was not. Keep in mind that at least at this stage, we can\’t hope to beat global corporate domination with hammers and rocks-it is simply too vast and too well defended. Property destruction has to be about manipulating symbols and making a political point.

While it is a mistake to think that the struggle against global capitalism is a popularity contest necessitating concern about the anarchist \”polling numbers\” so we can somehow win some mythical election of \”capitalism\” vs. \”cooperation\”, public opinion and sensibilities is not irrelevant. The most amazing thing about Seattle was the ability of many diverse sectors of society to unite around anti-corporate, and therefore, radical goals. Radicalizating these folks, building coalitions and going beyond the youth/punk/anarchist ghetto is crucial if we are serious about challenging corporate dominance.

The over 90 percent of the population who works for a wage and are therefore generally powerless over their lives are all potential radicals and allies. Don\’t forget it.