DASW Sep. 9 Anti-WTO & Anti-War actions

STAY HOME, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN RICHMOND. No one, repeat, no one asked you to bring your tired road show to our community. YOU ARE NOT WANTED.

so, EB resident - you're in Danville or something? Clearly you've never been to Richmond. I know a list of people in Richmond and live nearby, and the Chevron plant and the acidic hydrogen trisulfide that it tends to rain down on people are not appreciated. Chevron gives few jobs to Richmond residents. The last Richmond protest was lead by Richmond groups.

Is probably an Oakland po po

Sorry, Charlie, you're all full of water. I live in Richmond. Why would you assume Danville? Do you think only rich people are tired of wannabe revolutionaries wasting our time? The refinery was built in 1904, and has been there long before any housing for the poor. It also employs 4000 people and is responsible for over 25% of Richmond's tax base. We want it here, and we want YOU to go to take your act elsewhere.

I know nobody who is happy with the Chevron refinery, unfortunately we have just learned to ignore it so we can go on with our lives every day. I grew up in another refinery town, and it was the same deal then . We can't afford to keep fighting it everyday, we work. I'm glad that there is going to be a protest at it. It' s just too bad that people who would go to that protest wouldn't be caught dead in Richmond otherwise. We are suffering from environmental injustice everyday, not just when it involves a more "sexy" topic, i.e. the arrival of Iraqi oil. But all resistance is important, so I am very happy to see this protest happen.

So why not just replace it with a nuclear waste dump? Maybe that could take in more income to account for a larger tax base? I think they'd even pay the residents to convert it.

Think about it. More radioactivity, sure, but larger tax base. It might be worth it.

The need to protest the war is surely great, but at the ‘East Bay Resident’ states, the road show approach has less merit on the streets of Richmond that it does at a three-hour Food Not Bombs meeting. I notice on the flyer above that the usual protest subjects are gathered. However, Richmond has more long-term problems than just the refinery, and I see none of the groups that are working on various social and environmental causes listed in conjunction with this gate-blocking affair. When will the privilege of pop-politic protest meet with the local church and neighborhood groups and work together to move beyond the stand and shout approach to working on a clear agenda then working to meet those goals. The shrill of hysterical politics only goes so far or brings in so many people of a certain type, and fragmentation of interests ensures that it stays that way. The left needs to learn that getting some is more important than asking for it all.

I think that if some of the critics above bothered going to DASW meetings and helped organize these events they would have a better understanding of how closely DASW has worked with, or is a direct part of, local struggles in Richmond against the Chevron refinery. Many of the Anti-Chevron activists are from Richmond and have been working in their communities against toxic terror for many years now. Working with DASW has helped to bring activists from around the Bay to help with pre-existing struggles by Richmond residents and activists. Critics might have a different point of view if they were more directly involved in this organizing effort instead of speculating from a far.

DASW likes to fashion itself radical but NEVER names the system it ostensibly opposes.

according to this groovy flyer, DASW, like Pat Buchanan, opposes corporate globalization. are we to infer that it supports a nationally-constrained form of corporate rule?

is DASW anti-capitalist or isn't it?

I think Chris (above) has the right idea. I might add that most of the working people of Richmond are just a little tired from work and dealing with a couple of kids to have the time to go to three hour "organizing" meetings. As usual, the working poor are working and the self proclaimed activists are "protesting". You are completely out of touch with the real world.

Your right-wing argument about being a 'working' guy who's against the young white protestors is all full of water.

The young white protestors are our neighbors, our students, our storeowners, our churchgoers, our researchers, our garbage workers, our docks workers, our retired grandparents, our immigrants, our activists . . .

It sounds like you've never even *been* to a protest, since you think you can make a blanket statement about them.

Workers who can't take the time off are generally grateful that others CAN take the time off, or MAKE the time off, and risk brutal beating, spraying, and jailing by police to get the media's attention and raise people's awareness to the atrocities going on in our names.

You do not speak for the people. You speak for (some) police, corporations, and pro-war repugnacraps.

Oh cram it. I am 55 years old and was going to protests before most of you were born. You know nothing while pretending to be so wise. You need to grow up and take on battles that matter. This one does not.

is DASW anti-capitalist?

or are they just militant liberals?

Um, why do you suppose Richmond is the very poorest place in the whole bay area? The neighboring communities - Marin County, El Cerrito, Berkeley, and east contra costa (except other towns with refineries in Martinez etc.) are very upscale. If Chevron picked up and said they were moving to another country or to Northern nevada, the property values would skyrocket, and the tax base would go up, and renters would all get gentrified out of the area - like they have in all other parts of the Bay area. Do they benefit from Chevron? I guess the acid fall events are the only thing that makes the area horrible enough so wealthier people don't try to buy the land up.

And I suppose those battles are things like VOTING FOR A CORORATE PUPPET DEMOCRAP instead of a CORPORATE PUPPET REPUGNANT with a fraudulent 'voting card' being stuck into a rigged 'touch-screen' machine.

Is that the battle you're talking about?

Or are you talking about getting on your knees for JOBS CREATION by the fucking mega corporations who bought US 'democracy' for pennies on the dollar?

The entire Southern half of Iraq has cancer from Gulf War I, now the whole of Iraq will have cancer from the non-clean-up this time around. But there will be JOBS, right? Get it? You'll live just long enough to get a JOB, get your paycheck, and then when it's time to retire, you die of cancer.

The vertical axis shows average annual growth of income per head between 1980 and 2000; the horizontal axis shows the level of income per head in 1980. Note in passing that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa are distinguished from the others: they are clustered in the lower left-hand corner of the diagram, representing both very low incomes and very slow growth. The poor, on average, are catching up. And the main reason is that two of the poorest countries in the world—China and India—have both (a) enormous populations and (b) rapid growth in incomes per head in the years in question.

In the last 20 years of the 20th century, globalisation, however you measure it, was advancing rapidly. Globalisation, according to its advocates, helps poor countries to catch up. Is it just a coincidence that India and China, both of them rapid globalisers, did so well, whereas the countries of sub-Saharan Africa (in particular) combined severely limited economic integration with dismal economic performance?

America and the European Union both maintain trade restrictions that hurt the developing countries. They have been promising reform for years, but the world is still waiting. But governments of the poorest countries themselves bear much of the responsibility. Many of the world's highest trade barriers are those imposed by poor-country governments on trade with other poor countries—to say nothing of the failure to provide security or stability, or of the enormous sums (including money received as aid) squandered on vanity public projects or luxuries for the ruling circles and their chums. For countries with governments like this, globalisation is always going to be difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, it cannot hurt to understand that the problem is not too much globalisation, but too little.

Well, then how come the asian (or previously third world) countries that have improved the most over the 20th century are S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan - which took a tactically protectionist approach. The countries that took the IMF suggested fully open-trade policy, such as Thailand, Indonesia etc. are the poorest. It benefits a country to be protectionist for certain industries, and to aggressively push exports for other industries once they have risen to the level where they can be competitive - for example electronics and autos with Japan and Korea, while they protect farmers and have tariffs on some other items.

S. Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan all heavily participated in globalization. The Asian countries that did not participate in globalization are all of the countries that did not experience much growth. Simple as that.

You're right, however, in that the countries you list have protectionist import policies. That benefits some workers, but penalizes the entire population -- as they all have to pay more for goods and services. Just like the US protectionist policies on food imports means we all have to pay more for food than we need to. Simple as that.

that would explain his stupid little arguments. ihave met prison guards who used to "protest in the 60s". people get more cynical as they get older. chevron is anothe r rockefeller controlled oil company for whom us troops are dying and being forced to kill thousands of iraqi men , women and children. with over 1.5 million dead from US war and sanctions this represents the largest anti semitic genocide by caucasians since the holocaust. Anyone who thinks this is a side issue has their head irretrievaby lodged in their rectum. Chevron and Exxon are also responsible for blocking the Greenhouse gas treaty and causng massive cancer causing polution to the air and water. The Rockefeller family must be named as the criminals, rather than just their corporate aliases "chevron", "exxon", "Chase", "citigroup", etc. The rockefellers control Kissinger , the Bushes, ets and are documented Nazi collaborators. They need to be personally exposed and all of their businesses boycotted, only then will their empire collapse. for the last 100 years they have been americas' de-facto ruling family, and there will not be a real revolution until they are brought down.

Thailand enjoyed the world's highest growth rate from 1985 to 1995 - averaging almost 9% annually. Until the weaknesses in the financial system (nothing to do with globalization) contributed to the Asian Currency Crisis of 1997. Thailand then entered a recovery stage, expanding by 4.2% in 1999 and 4.4% in 2000. The bank problems have held it back recently.

You mention Indonesia. That is not a good example of a country that has embraced globalization, as their secessionist movements and the low level of security in the regions, the lack of reliable legal recourse in contract disputes, corruption, and weaknesses in the banking system make it a country unattractive to foreign investors. Hopefully, in the future, they can solve the above-mentioned problems and join the countries that have benefited from globalization.

One of the chief features of what's called "globalization" has been the globalization of finance and an insane upsurge in currency speculation and quick-action capital flows. Suffice to say, it's ridiculous to claim the Asian Currency Crisis was unrelated to "globalization".

"Economist" thinks flashing some bubbles on a graph vindicates his preferred form of capitalism. An economy's rate of growth says nothing about how that growth is distributed. Nor does it tell us anything about the social, cultural, or ecological impact that said growth has wrought. China (one of the most protected economies in the world, by the way) has seen high rates of growth, but concomitant with this growth has been a huge increase in discontent--including riots, strikes, and sabotoge--particularly in the interior of the country. China's newly-privatized mines have truly massive fatality rates as mine owners (many stalinist state-capitalists turned private-capitalists) face almost no regulation and grant workers practically no safety precautions in their pursuit of making a profit. It is estimated that in a decade their will be 150,000,000 migrants in China as more and more are pushed off the land and out of state-owned factories. That's a reserve army of labor that makes capital cream in its collective Gucci's.

Mexico, which signed NAFTA in 1994 with the help of a president who came to power in an election that was rigged, has seen living standards plummet in the last decade. The maquiladora assembly facilities that boomed after the signing of NAFTA and were pointed to as an example of globalization's great benefits by folks like "Economist" have undergone a reduction of 250,000 jobs in the past couple years as capital has decided that countries like China offer a better, more profitable investment opportunity. Four dollars a day for labor is just a bit too much to pay apparently.

"Globalization" is capitalism pulling out all the stops in a global race to the bottom, whatever ideologues like "Economist" have to say about "comparative advantage" or some other learned sounding formulation.

Does "Economist" want to tell us abou the great deal El Salvadoran and Nicaraguan workers are getting these days? Or how about a short exegesis on Argentines wonderously successful globalization project? Or maybe he could tell how redemptive it is for Bolivians to be hit with a 200% increase in the price of water after globalized capital takes control? Or how about a meditation on the massive debt payments that sub-Saharan workers fork over to western banks?

One last question for his ruminating pleasure: Did American manufacturers develop into a power-house with or without the assistance of trade barriers and protections? You know the answer to that question, "Economist", don't you?

Aaron,
Your points are weak and lack understanding of the issues. Because I'm feeling generous tonight, I'll take the time to teach you something. I'll address your point about Mexico.

As the Mexican economy improved with its closer ties to the US economy throughout the 1990s, it suffers now because of the recent US economic downturn. The real problem, however, is the leadership of Mexico has not moved the economy up the value chain (look at Taiwan, they used to be the Mexico of Japan. Now they invest billions to manufacture their products in China). They are still trying to compete on low cost. And they can't compete with China. Labour costs in China, converted at the country's artificially low exchange rate, are about a quarter of their level in Mexico. The result: about 300 manufacturing plants have moved from Mexico to China in the past two years.

The real problem is that Mexico has done nothing to offset the erosion of its competitive advantages by attacking its disadvantages. Because of a state monopoly, energy costs are at least 20% higher than in competing countries. Because of the private near-monopoly of Telmex, telecoms costs are much higher too. Mexico's transport network remains so bad that estimates indicate that proximity to the United States now yields an advantage over China of no more than five cents for every dollar of product. Complicated labor laws also add to costs.

With an income per head of around $6,000, Mexico is no longer a poor country, and it is not surprising that low-wage jobs should move elsewhere. The problem is that because of the lack of skills of its workers, Mexico is ill-placed to replace them with better jobs. Because of its lack of investment in education, Mexico now combines high costs with relatively low skills.

In any event, singling out Mexico as a country that has failed inspite of globalization shows your lack of understanding of globalization. In the lastest AT Kearney Globalization Index, Mexico ranks only 49 (between Argentina and Pakistan). Curious you would choose to highlight Mexico. And the other four countries in your rant all rank behind Mexico in the index. The problem, as usual with poor countries, is bad government.

I like how the neoliberals are now doing exactly what they used to accuse Socialists of doing. When a country follows neoliberal economic policy and fails, the problem HAS TO BE that they didnt go far enough rather than that the theory itself was wrong. When Japan did well economists claimed it was due to its "free market" economic system, now that the economy is faltering its because it's too regulated; it could just as easily be argued that Japan did well when its economy was highly regulated and now is doing poorly as a result of the trend away from Socialism that started in the 1980s (afterall when Japan did well the government had a much larger role in the economy than it does today and it started doing well back in the 1860s when the government started to take a very active role in economic planning).

Was the California energy crises a problem with over regulation or deregulation? Well it happened after deregulation but economists will jump in and say the deregulation wasnt done right (like Communists talking about the Soviet economy, it CANT be the theory and MUST be that that it was done wrong)

Mexico is a similar. Its economy has had ups and downs and conservative economists always point to the free market when its doing well and point to the regulations hurting free competition when its not doing well. Unfortunately enough other factors have helped and hurt the Mexican economy there is little correlation.

Personally I think Mexico has done worse in recent years due to the PRI and now PANs expirements with a more free market style system. But for people to quote economics texts (or the Economist which is just PR for failed a libertarian ideology mixed in with real and rather good news coverage) is just silly. Economics pretends to be a science and people love to use models that were almost designed to prove the benefits of certain social policies, but just because one can construct a abstract model to prove oneself right doesnt mean anything (since other models can also be designed to prove the opposite).

An economist noticed two people playing chess and one person was having problems. Instead of advising them on how to play, the economist realized the problem was the regulations (ie rules) and the real solution was just to let the players decide the winner baised off payoffs.

The first idea was to have each player calculate the ultility they would gain from winning and the utility they would lose by paying the other player. The optimal solution is when the player who gains more by paying pays off the other player and they both agree that the game was "won". But this doesnt quite work since each player gets utility from playing chess.

So the better solution is to handycap one player based off a payoff just enough to make the expected utility for both players maximal based off both game play and winnings. If people care more about saying they won than actually playing, its far better utility wise to just pay each other and tell ones friends a lie. But, if one actually likes to play the game for the sake of playing it, deregulation is a bad idea and its better to engage in sidepayments after the game and just lie about who won (if the person who lost cares more about reputation than the cost of convincing the other player to lie) .

Now thats a philosophy one can run a country on.

"The problem, as usual with poor countries, is bad government. "

The IMC folks don't criticize governments, other than the governments of USA and Israel.

Name one country that significantly improved its standard of living using a method other than increased trade.

Then name one country that significantly harmed its standard of living because of increased trade.

"Name one country that significantly improved its standard of living using a method other than increased trade.

Then name one country that significantly harmed its standard of living because of increased trade.
"

Ok, the USSR under Stalin had a fast growing economy without a lot of trade. I hate Stalin but the economy grew amazingly fast. There are also some examples of faster growth in Latin America during the Second World war when countries could focus more on structuring their economies and nurturing domestic business and didnt have to compete with the major powers.

Saudi Arabia is a great example of a country that is focusing too much on trade (ie oil) at the expense of economic diversity. In my opinion, Japan is currently suffering from a similar problem (since it focused too much on growth based off trade and focused too little on domestic consumption in the 1980s)

"Free Trade" doesnt really exist but dropping barriers can sometimes cause problems (like the CA energy crisis, the collapse of the peso in Mexico, the recent crisis in Argentina etc...)

In some cases "free trade" is obviously bad. Nobody would want a free trade in WMD and few would want free trade in body parts, children, or anything else that has extreme value.

The world is too complicated to fit into some crazed theory like neoliberalism. These days the Left usually argues against neoliberalism from a values standpoint and support for the ideas of Keynes has died out, but that seems to be just a change in fashion at universities rather than a real change in ideas. Even if all that mattered was money, neoliberalism or any other ideology wouldnt cover real world situations in all or even most cases. While first year economic courses now love to tell students that rent control is bad, a quick look at SF in the late 90s showsthat a net benefit would have occured for both tenents and landlords if all those evictions had not taken place (ie rent control would have smoothed out the bubble).

The sad part is that the people who came up with the eocnomic ideas people now follow (like Adam Smith or Ricardo) would never support the dogma of the current proponents of the ideas. Smith was arguing against expenses that went to the royals and had little benefit to the public and made statements in support of investment in infrastructure by governments. He only mentioned that horrible quote about "the invisible hand" on one page in a 600+ page book. A country can gain a net benefit by trading in commodities even if they dont have an absolute advantage in terms of producing those commodities. Thats true, but says little about what a country should do if it wants to do well in the long term.

Economic planning became a necessity a long time ago, companies have grown to a level where its hard to distinguish a government choice on how to allocate a resource from that of a middle manager at a large company (do you buy the cheapest best made widget or that made by another division of the company; most companies give internal discounts so it hardly looks like a free market) Ive seen much more worry about spending and "the bottom line" (internal audits, etc...) in government jobs than Ive seen in the private sector where decisions about promotions of managers seems to depend more on a few drinks after work than profit. Companies and governments and economies are complicated and often simple solutions based off economic abstractions make little sense. Should a company not give itself internal discounts on products it needs but also produces? Is that any different than free trade when it comes to countries? Neoliberals are like management consultants in Dilbert who always run around with crazy new paradigms that are supposed to fix everything. Telling a company that the solution is to cut expenses and bring in more income is rather silly but its equivalent to what neoliberals go around saying in response to every economic problem. Going to a neoliberal for economic advise would be like going to teh doctor and have them tell you to not get sick and eat healthy (perhaps good advise in the abstract but hardly a solution if you broke your arm or contracted a curable disease)

We live in a complicated world where simple minded economic ideas can often cause a lot of harm when pushed by ideologes. Neoliberals used to always accuse supporters of Keynes of the same thing. Perhaps they were right in some cases too; anyone who runs around with the same solution for all problems is bound to be wrong most of the time .

>"The problem, as usual with poor countries, is bad government. "

>The IMC folks don't criticize governments, other than the governments of USA and Israel.



These statements contradict. Reality Check IS one of the "IMC folks." He himself just criticized governments that weren't those of the USA or Israel.

Reality Check should read this before he posts again:

http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/longview/ctac/corenotes.htm

This whole argument about the refinery is bogus. Richmond, north and east of the refinery is full of new houses, and they are not cheap. They are selling quickly. The area that is within the "wind path" of the refiney is also north and east, with the majority of it going over Pinole, Hercules, etc. Those cities are also growing rapidly. Oddly, it seems to be mostly people in public housing who bitch the most about the refinery. I suppose they would like it if they would close the refinery so it's 4000 workers and their families could also move into public housing when they become unemployed. If people are so upset about the refinery, which has been there since 1904, they could put in for a transfer to another "project". In the meantime, 4000 people have a job, pay taxes etc.

According to the City of Richmond Information Desk, the Chevron refinery employs 1,646 people.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Non-Flash/Information/

It is well known that a small share of Chevron refinery jobs are held by Richmond residents.

The fact that people are incurring big debt-loads to buy houses in Richmond hardly supports--let alone proves--your assertion that the Chevron refinery isn't producing huge amounts of unsafe emissions. It can more properly be seen as evidence of the insanity of the Bay Area's real estate market.

Well, guys, no matter how much you try to paint me as some kind of rich hill dweller, the truty shall make you free. I am not, and your ranting be damned. You are NOT welcome in Richmond. Please do our communtiy a favor and have your little protest in SF where you belong. People in this community are sick and tired of having privileged white self proclaimed "activists" coming into our communtiy to run things. We don't want you here and we do NOT support your efforts. You can call me names all you want, but the truth is you are badly out of touch with reality and this community. STAY HOME AND LEAVE RICHMOND ALONE.

I didn't call you any names, I simply refuted your "argument."

I guess it's easier to play the victim than it is to engage in real debate.

Nice try though.

if I actually went to the spokescouncil for this, I would just be trying to guess who the fbi agent is.

Someone the tone of local newspapers recently has been taking a worrying direction - do you see how in this article
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/06/MN258847.DTL
they are basically taking the actions of one dumb guy who drove up to Chiron with unconcealed license plate and left a bomb, and then branding all 'protesters' in general as sharing the same motivations and behavior, even though animal rights has very little to do with anti-foreign intervention protesters and anti-WTO protesters. This is clear in the paragraph where they have Rod Coronado describing the aspirations of all protesters (as a blanket) and linking the shootings with rubber bullets at the Oakland docks with the Chiron event.
quote"Some of the more strident environmentalists and animal rights advocates complain that it has become difficult to conduct peaceful demonstrations in the post-Sept. 11 era. When they demonstrate peacefully, they say, they're pelted with rubber bullets, doused with pepper spray, videotaped and generally harassed by police. Furthermore, they're tired of not getting results.
end quote
"
The burning of the SUVs in San Diego was probably the responsibility of two people. So the one Chiron bomber with the dodge van, plus these two people in San Diego make a trend that describes what is happening among millions of leftists?

Well, it's pretty clear that that is how the thought process goes among law enforcement, because the newspaper isn't even challenging this idea.

Anyway, take note of how the CATIC California Antiterrorism information center focuses with a beam upon 1. Direct Action to Stop the War (which is cosponsoring the Richmond protest along with some Richmond toxics groups) 2. ALF and it's spokespeople 3. various Berkeley wingnut groups like critical mass. CATIC is ignoring probably hundreds of organized crime groups out there.

Also, remember how the last Chevron protest went when the Richmond police flipped out over two kids drawing with markers on the freeway underpass:
http://www.indybay.org/archives/cache/2001_11_18.php?theme=1

All leftists think exactly alike. That why they all wear the same uniform.

Oh wait, those aren't leftists.

Nevermind.

I would never think of putting Chevron in my car. I fill it up with Shell.

We should take the next step and organize a gas-car boycott. When we show them that we are serious about alternative energy, something WILL change, i.e. they will lose a major motivation ($) for their war.
Personally, I have been carless since 2001, its sometimes a pain in the ass (litterally my ass hurts from walking sometimes), especially when they increase bus fares, or when I feel like my life is being risked by careless drivers, but at least its one less car running on thier bloody oil.
Peace and vegetable grease,
Bunny

We should take the next step and organize a gas-car boycott. When we show them that we are serious about alternative energy, something WILL change, i.e. they will lose a major motivation ($) for their war.
Personally, I have been carless since 2001, its sometimes a pain in the ass (litterally my ass hurts from walking sometimes), especially when they increase bus fares, or when I feel like my life is being risked by careless drivers, but at least its one less car running on thier bloody oil.
Peace and vegetable grease,
Bunny