-Caveat Lector- [radtimes] # 167 An informally produced compendium of vital irregularities. "We're living in rad times!" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How to assist RadTimes--> (See ** at end.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents: --Biotech Firms Examine Legal/Ethical Implications --Prepare for bioterrorism attack, military doctor warns --Next stop for anti-globalization march: Hawaii --The Golden Age Of Surveillance --U.N. report makes dire predictions on climate change --Revolutionary Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement =================================================================== Biotech Firms Examine Legal/Ethical Implications http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/stories/2001/02/19/focus10.html Atlanta Business Chronicle by Nancy Groves 16 February 2001 The process of deciphering the human genome is leading to legal and regulatory changes as well as ethical dilemmas, and there's plenty of activity in this unique intersection of science, law, and business, according to local attorneys in the biotechnology sector. "It's a huge can of worms," said David Perryman, an attorney with Needle & Rosenberg. "There's a ton of stuff going on." The biotech industry is studying the potential impact of changes enacted earlier this year by state and federal agencies, said David Huizenga with Needle & Rosenberg. Issues that may affect biotech companies include several related to discoveries in genetics, such as the patentability of genetic information, the conduct of clinical trials involving gene therapy, the approval process for new drugs developed from genes, proteins and other biological components and cloning. Other issues include tissue engineering, fetal tissue research, confidentiality of patient health information, bioengineered food, conflict of interest disclosure requirements for researchers and the transferability of tax credits for research and development. Changes in the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reviews patent applications could translate into good news for biotech companies and investors. Early this year, the patent office issued finalized guidelines that are more specific on the way in which the "utility," or value, of the application is evaluated, said Bill Warren, a biotech patent attorney with Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. "It provides more certainty for companies to know what is patentable and what is not," Warren said. A company seeking, for example, to patent a fragment of genetic material would have to provide more proof of the utility of that fragment, such as its potential role in the treatment of a particular disease. The fragment could not be patented simply because scientists had been able to isolate it and believed it could be useful in some as-yet-undetermined way, Warren said. This change will affect university research centers and scientific organizations and could encourage the spinoff of companies designed to bring products resulting from genetic discoveries to market, Warren said. Because a patent will signify that the discovery has proven utility, investors are more likely to take a chance on funding companies that have secured patent office approval. The patent office also has new guidelines on the publication of patent application claims. Damages for infringement can now be collected dating from the time of publication of the claims, rather than from the date the patent itself was issued, Perryman said. At the federal and state levels, changes in the current method of issuing research and development tax credits have been discussed, said Phil Moise of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. Federal legislation authorizing tax credits has been in existence for several decades, but only as a measure that must be periodically renewed, Moise said. An effort has begun to make the R&D tax credit a part of the permanent tax code. The state of Georgia also rewards organizations for investing in R&D, and there may be legislative action to allow the transfer of tax credits, Moise said. The goal would be to allow organizations that don't generate enough profits to benefit from their credits to transfer them to companies that could use them, he said. Flood of applications The Food and Drug Administration regulates biotechnology developments such as those stemming from the Human Genome Project. This massive scientific effort could give rise to an unprecedented number of "blockbuster drugs" aimed at specific diseases, said William Kitchens, managing partner with Arnall Golden Gregory LLP and head of the firm's food and drug law division. The FDA will need to be prepared for the balancing act of ensuring the safety and effectiveness of the volume of new drugs submitted to it for approval while getting them into the market without undue delays, Kitchens said. Fast-track approval processes are already in place for certain "breakthrough drugs," he said, and the FDA's ability to keep up with the expected flood of applications may depend on higher levels of funding from Congress. The FDA also is involved in the regulation of tissue engineering, which involves the development of bioengineered products to replace diseased or damaged tissues. Tissue engineering raises a number of legal, ethical, and social issues revolving around subjects such as the use of stem cells from human embryos or fetal tissue. "Tissue engineering is a much more politicized issue than drug development," Kitchens said. The National Institutes of Health has developed guidelines on stem cell research, and the FDA recently issued regulations that require companies that manufacture human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products to register and list their products with the agency, Kitchens said. The goal is to improve the agency's oversight of these companies, similar to its role with companies developing new drugs, he said. Keeping patients informed The FDA has also issued proposed guidelines involving the disclosure of information in gene therapy trials, so patients are better informed of the risks of these trials, said Eve Goldstein, an attorney with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. Efforts to strengthen regulations protecting the safety of human research subjects have arisen in part from the death of an 18-year-old man who received gene therapy at the University of Pennsylvania in 1999, Goldstein said. The proposed new rule would significantly increase the amount of information the agency would make public about gene therapy, an experimental technique in which patients are given new genes in an attempt to cure a disease. The new rule would also apply to xenotransplantation, an experimental field in which cells or organs from animals are transplanted into people. Stiffer regulations are also likely for the disclosure of conflicts of interest among scientists conducting research, Goldstein said. There is concern that scientists who have invested in companies that could benefit from the results of their research could influence the outcome in the companies' favor, she said. Another focus of attention in the medical and biotech arena is the confidentiality of patient information, including genetic information, Goldstein said. While measures to ensure confidentiality of medical records have long been in place, the issue is getting fresh attention in the age of electronic communication and electronic information storage, she said. The Department of Health and Human Services released final regulations on patient record privacy standards in December. In January, the FDA issued proposed rules for food developed through biotechnology. ---- Nancy Groves is a contributing writer for Atlanta Business Chronicle. Reach her at [EMAIL PROTECTED] =================================================================== Prepare for bioterrorism attack, military doctor warns http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20010219/478925.html Readiness questioned By Margaret Munro National Post February 19, 2001 SAN FRANCISCO - A U.S. Army expert in biological warfare is urging Washington to prepare for a bioterrorism attack that he says is inevitable and could unleash a silent killer such as smallpox, anthrax or the plague on an unsuspecting public. "We need more of a sense of urgency about this," said Colonel Edward Eitzen, a doctor and bio-weapons specialist at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Biological warfare is the "ultimate weapon" since the first sign of attack would likely be sick or dying people showing up at doctors' offices and hospital emergency rooms, he told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He said the pathogens that would be released in a bioterrorism attack are relatively cheap, accessible and easy to conceal. Col. Eitzen said terrorists could even willingly infect themselves with smallpox and walk around a city, knowingly infecting people for 14 days before symptoms developed. Public health staff and medical doctors need to be educated about the threat, warned Dr. Margaret Hamburg, who recently stepped down as a bio-weapons advisor to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. One big concern is that a disease such as smallpox or anthrax could spread for days before the epidemic is noticed. Most emergency rooms and physicians, Dr. Hamburg said, have never seen a case of smallpox or anthrax and some of the deadly diseases have flu-like symptoms in the early stages. While U.S. government agencies are working with researchers to devise a response, the doctors urge scientists to impress on politicians the need to take the threat more seriously. They also want to see disease surveillance and testing systems expanded so more labs can identify suspicious microbes within hours. Col. Eitzen said the U.S. Centers for Disease Control recently ordered production of new smallpox vaccine, but it will take four years to produce. When the vaccine becomes available, he said, governments might want to renew discussions about who should be vaccinated, as military personnel and doctors are no longer routinely required to get the shots. He also said the military medical staff has been cut significantly in recent years and is hard-pressed to keep up with its workload. Meanwhile, bioweapons may also be used to attack the brain. "Biotechnology will give us the capability to manipulate all of the life processes including cognition," said Dr. Matthew Meselson, a geneticist at Harvard University. "It's different from previous technologies in that it has the potential of changing people, not just destroying them." The threat is still theoretical, he said, but "profound advances in biology" such as deciphering the human genome that spells out some of the biological controls of life could make it possible. "Over time surely we will be able to manipulate all life processes, including cognition, emotions, reproduction, heredity and development," he said. =================================================================== Next stop for anti-globalization march: Hawaii By Gumisai Mutume Washington, DC, Feb. 7 (IPS)-- Non-governmental organizations are mobilizing for their next stand against the forces of globalization, and this time they will face up to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which holds its annual meetings in Hawaii in May. The protests will focus the spotlight on the little known financial institution, which has been meeting annually behind closed doors over the last 35 years, making decisions that have affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in Asia and the Pacific. They will also focus attention on a territory that was once an independent kingdom, but which is now controlled by the United States as one of 50 states. In Hawaii, minorities continue to fight for their rights. "Our attempt is not to shut down the ADB meetings,'' says Cha Smith of KAHEA, a Hawaiian environmental and cultural alliance. "We know where we live, this is not the US -- technically it is -- but we are an occupied colony.'' "We want to draw parallels with what the ADB does in Asia to what is going on here, the people have been displaced off their land, sometimes to make way for golf courses.'' The ADB is a multilateral sister of the World Bank and it holds its annual board meetings in Honolulu, Hawaii from May 9-11. NGO parallel activities begin May 5. Like the World Bank, the ADB has been faulted for pushing neo-liberal macro-economic policies through structural adjustment programs and huge infrastructure projects such as roads and dams that have displaced people and harmed the environment. Anti-debt movements also point out that more than 10 percent of the 800 billion dollars in external debt owed by Asia Pacific nations is owed to the ADB. Since it came into operation in 1966 it has poured 112 billion dollars into the region. The ADB Watch - a broad coalition of groups working for economic justice in Hawaii has put out an international alert to progressive movements across the world to "join in and create non-violent activities and events challenging globalisation and the ADB's record of imposing destructive and oppressive policies and projects on communities throughout Asia and the Pacific." ADB Watch, which is made up of non-governmental organizations in Hawaii, students, human rights activists and unions, hopes the proposed activities will "keep the pressure on" financial institutions "that perpetuate economic terrorism." ADB Watch hopes to educate the public on specific ways that the ADB and globalization increases the gulf between the rich and poor and to unravel the "corporate myth'' of Hawaii as a paradise. "Hawaii is occupied by the US military, colonized politically and economically and we face serious pollution problems,'' notes ADB Watch in a document calling for support from progressive movements. "The rights of the Kanaka Maoli (native Hawaiians) are under serious and increasing attack by the US and state governments and now by organized right wingers such as the Campaign for a 'Colorblind America,' a conservative, racist, anti-affirmative action organization.'' The annual meetings of the ADB had originally been scheduled for Seattle, but that city burst out in protests at the end of 1999 when thousands of anti-globalization demonstrators targeted a World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting. With that in mind, ADB officials opted for what is generally perceived as a tourist mecca -- Hawaii. Hawaii had incidentally campaigned to host the 1999 WTO meetings. "ADB officials privately concede that they picked Honolulu because it is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean surrounded by large military bases which should keep away protesters such as the 5,000 'beneficiaries' of their projects who appeared at their last annual meeting in Thailand,'' says Stephanie Fried of Environmental Defense Hawaii. =================================================================== The Golden Age Of Surveillance <http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0%2C1597%2C272897-412%2C00.shtml> NEW YORK, Feb. 18, 2001 (CBS) The debate over ever-more sophisticated ways of snooping on the public at home, at work, and at play is beginning to move onto the desks of lawyers and lawmakers. The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear this week a case on whether police violated the constitutional rights of an Oregon man who was arrested after authorities using heat-detection equipment to secretly monitor his house found the pattern that led them to believe he was growing marijuana indoors. Lawmakers are also feeling the heat, from a new group called the Privacy Coalition, which is an alliance of groups from all over the political spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center to the United Auto Workers union and the conservative group Eagle Forum. The Coalition is challenging state and national lawmakers to sign a pledge to work to restrict surveillance technologies such as those used for locational tracking, video surveillance, electronic profiling, and workplace monitoring and work to promote privacy-enhancing technologies that limit the collection of personal information. In most cases, that would mean new laws, and even some of the minds behind the new "search, watch and identify" technologies agree that some legal protections might be in order. At least 19 bills seeking to address privacy issues have been introduced in the new Congress, at least 74 privacy bills are under consideration by state lawmakers in California, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, and privacy issues are being studied by a number of government agencies. Much of the controversy has focused on biometrics - the science of using physical measurements to identify individuals - such as the Facefinder video surveillance tool tested at this year's Super Bowl in Tampa. The technology is based on the theory that every person's face is a slight spatial deviation on 128 facial types, each of which is represented in a numerical code that can be quickly compared with the faces in a database of thousands. Law enforcement officials argue that the comparison of the surveillance photos taken of the 100,000 fans at the Super Bowl to mugshots on file was no more intrusive than the routine video surveillance Americans encounter each day in stores, banks, office buildings and apartment buildings. Critics disagree, saying the biometric face-recognition system essentially puts everyone in a police lineup. "When the government does it, they ought to be doing it under the basis of reasonable suspicion that some crime is taking place," argues ACLU associate director Barry Steinhardt, in an interview with CBS News Correspondent John Roberts. Bob Buckhorn, Tampa City Councilman, says they did have a good reason. He says the Super Bowl clearly was "an easy target for somebody, if they were inclined to commit a terrorist act. I think that supercedes the arguments the ACLU has made." Advocates of biometrics also argue that its technology is actually less invasive than others used by governments and law enforcement, because there is no need to provide vast amounts of financial and other personal data. "With our system, we do a quick match, which lasts about a second, and then it's (the data) is completely dropped," explains Tom Colatosti, of Viisage Technology, the maker of the biometric surveillance system used at the Super Bowl. "We think it's very passive…It's certainly less intrusive than going to an airport and having someone check your luggage." Facefinder was developed by Viisage in partnership with Raytheon Co. and Graphco Technologies. Graphco's vice president for marketing, Barry Hodge, acknowledges that there is a need for caution. "There needs to be a really open, positive public forum…as to what extent we as individuals are willing to compromise our personal privacy for public safety," says Hodge. "It's like any other tool, some of which are very, very positive and some of which could be very damaging if misused." Biometric systems are now being tested at airports and are being studied for use on driver's licenses and government employee ID cards, on the theory that they would be less prone to fraud. It's also been suggested that they should be used at the polls, to prevent the voter irregularities that made so many headlines this past fall. In Yemen, Biometric ID cards using fingerprint templates are now being phased in, with some 3,000 cards issued last fall, and the expectation of millions of cards being in use within the next few years. While law enforcement use of video scrutiny is controversial, private industry has been using it for years. One such use is the network of 700 cameras used to search for suspicious characters at the Trump Marina Casino in Atlantic City, zooming in on individual faces and then comparing them to pictures of specific individuals already on file. "This system can scan about 10 thousand images in about 1.5 seconds," says Charles Guenther, the casino's director of surveillance. "We think the technology is here and it's here to stay. It's only going to get better." Other private industry uses of biometrics include scans of the iris for personal identification and a plan by BMW to use fingerprint sensor technology as a security lock in addition to car keys. The fingerprint sensor would also be able to deliver the driver's preferences on things such as seat height, mirror adjustments, and even choice of radio station. =================================================================== February 20, 2001 U.N. report makes dire predictions on climate change By JONATHAN FOWLER Associated Press Writer GENEVA (AP) _ Tropical diseases spreading into the United States, deserts expanding across Africa and glaciers melting in Europe _ the world will likely be a much nastier place in 2100, according to a United Nations report released Monday. ``Most of the earth's people will be on the losing side,'' said Harvard University environmental scientist Dr. James J. McCarthy, who co-chaired the panel that produced the hardest-hitting U.N. study to date on the forecast of ``global warming.'' The 19-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summarized 1,000 pages of research by about 700 scientists. Despite its political sensitivity _ the report was subject to line-by-line scrutiny by government representatives during weeklong discussions _ the report is more precise than any of its U.N. predecessors about global warming. More severe droughts in the Great Plains of the United States and extreme hurricanes in Florida are forecast in ``Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.'' But the report said poor countries would suffer most. ``Those with the fewest resources have the least capacity to adapt and are the most vulnerable,'' McCarthy told reporters. The impact will include: _ Mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever spreading farther into North America. _ Glaciers melting in northern Europe, with drought plaguing the southern part of the continent. _ Deserts eating farther into farmland across Africa. _ Tropical cyclones forcing tens of millions of people to flee low-lying parts of Asia. The Geneva report followed one released by the panel last month in Shanghai, China. That predicted that global temperatures could rise by as much as 5.8 degrees C (10.5 degrees F) over the next century. It said the increase was much higher than expected and there was clear evidence that industrial pollution, including emissions from cars, was to blame. ``The greater the rate of change, the more adverse the effect,'' World Bank chief scientist and panel chair Dr. Robert Watson said on Monday. ``Change threatens basic human needs like food and water.'' A third volume of the U.N. report, on solutions, will be released in March. But effective international action remains elusive, in part because of the reluctance of the United States to commit to firm targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and the push in developing countries such as China toward economic progress. Greenhouse gases _ primarily carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels like coal and oil _ trap heat in the atmosphere, according to the theory. ``Most warming in the last 50 years is due to human activities,'' said Watson. ``We need to decarbonize our energy sources over the next 50 years.'' International environmental campaigners have given the report a cautious welcome. ``Governments have accepted that global warming is already happening, it is getting worse and nature is bearing the brunt of it,'' said Jennifer Morgan of the World Wide Fund for Nature. She called on ministers from major industrial countries who will who meet in two weeks in Trieste, Italy, to accept the conclusions of the U.N. report. Frances Maguire, of the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, said European governments should ``stand firm and force (U.S.) President George W. Bush to agree (to) an effective international deal on cutting emissions.'' U.N. environment talks in the Netherlands collapsed last November, with the U.S. and Europe failing to agree on terms for cutting emissions. The talks are due to resume in July. The negotiations are aimed at crafting rules to implement the climate accord reached in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. ---- On the Net: http://www.ipcc.ch =================================================================== Revolutionary Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement by Lucien van der Walt (Bikisha Media Collective) [originally printed in The Northeastern Anarchist #1] Seattle And All That Riot police battling youth. Armed forces locking down a major American city. Tens of thousands under anti-capitalist banners. Western youth and workers physically battling the WTO and imperialism. These potent images of the "battle of Seattle," November 30, 1999, were seared into the minds of militants the world over, inspiring millions upon millions fighting against the class war from above that some call "globalization." Followed by further mass protests in Washington and Davos, and two massive international coordinated actions on May1, 2000 and September 26, 2000, Seattle marked, by any measure, an important turning point for the global working class and peasantry. "The Idea That Refuses To Die" And anarchists were in the thick of these protests and solidarity actions, whether in Rio, Johannesburg, Prague, Istanbul, New York or Dublin, demonstrating an impressive organizational ability, growing credibility, and rising popular appeal. In the bourgeois media, anarchists have assumed a prominence unknown since the 1960s, amazingly receiving even more credit than was our due for our role in the new "anti-globalization" movement. Anarchism was, the New York Times exclaimed, "the idea that refuses to die." The authoritarian left, shocked at being so outflanked and outmaneuvered by the anarchists, suddenly found it necessary to write vicious, and often grossly dishonest, polemics against anarchism. It is ironic, then, that the anarchist movement remains wracked with disagreement about how it should orientate itself towards the "anti-globalization" movement. Orientating To The Movement While the Platformist tradition of anarchism, and many anarcho-syndicalists have strongly identified with the new movement, many other comrades seem reluctant to become more involved in the new movement. Some are rightly concerned about the presence of reformist and middle-class elements such as NGOs in the movement; others point to the unexpected support of far right groups such as fascists and Islamic fundamentalists for "anti-globalization"; for others, there are suspicions about the role of right-wing trade union leaders in the movement. These concerns are valid. But they should not be used as reasons not to be involved in the "anti-globalization" movement. The new movement represents an important development for the international working class and a massive opportunity for the anarchist movement at dawn of the twenty-first century. Seizing the moment, being involved, shaping the movement... this is the best opportunity available today to implanting anarchism within the working class and clawing our way back to our rightful place as a movement of millions, a movement that can help dig capitalism's grave. Anti-Capitalist, Not Just "Anti-Globalization" When we enter the "ant-globalization" movement, though, we must enter as conscious anti-capitalists. "Anti-globalization" is a vague term that opens the resistance to capitalism to all sorts of pitfalls. Many aspects of globalization - if by this we mean the creation of an increasingly integrated world economic, political and social system- should be welcomed by anarchists. The breaking down of closed national cultures, greater international contact, a consciousness of being "citizens of the world," concern for developments halfway around the world... all are positive developments. We should not line up with those who, under the banner of "sovereignty" and "nationality" call for the enforcement of national culture, national foods, closing of the borders to "foreign" influences and so forth. This outlook - even if dressed up in "anti-imperialist" clothing - is xenophobic and directly implies support for local nation-states. We must support the possibilities for the development of a cosmopolitan international culture, the globalization of labor and the labor movement that are emerging with globalization. We must totally oppose the religious fundamentalists, nationalists and fascists whose problem with globalization is that it opens people to new ideas that challenge backward prejudices and cultural practices. Culture is not static. It is changed and reshaped through struggle, and we anarchists should only defend those elements of national cultures that are progressive and pro-working class. What anarchists oppose are the neo-liberal, capitalist, aspects of globalization. We oppose attacks on wages, working conditions and welfare, because these hurt the working class and because they are in the interests of capitalists. These capitalist aspects of globalization are an international class war rooted in capitalism, and its current crisis of profitability. Notwithstanding the hype about the "new economy" and the "new prosperity," capitalism has been in crisis since around 1973. Average growth rates in the West in the 1950s were around 5% per year; by the 1970s, they fell to 2%; by the 1980s, the figure was closer to 1%. And so, big business has been trying to restructure itself for survival and renewed profit through the implementation of neo-liberalism: casualization, privatization, subcontracting, welfare cutbacks, regressive tax reform, and the deregulation of trade and money movements. All of these policies are in the interest of the dominant sections of the capitalist class- the giant transnational corporations. Outside And Against The State The capitalist nation state is not the victim of capitalist globalization, as some suggest - usually from a nationalist, state-capitalist, or reformist perspective- when they argue that the development of large companies and large multi-lateral institutions like the IMF and WTO leads to a loss of "sovereignty" by a supposedly innocent nation state, which is then "forced" to adapt to the "new reality" of "globalization." These sorts of argument have some serious political implications. They divert attention away from the role of the nation state in driving neo-liberal restructuring. They also tends to suggest that the nation state - "our" nation state - is an innocent victim that "we" must ally with and defend against a "foreign" globalization. On the contrary, anarchists recognise that the nation state is one of the main authors of globalization, and, in particular, the capitalist aspects of globalization. The IMF, World Bank, and WTO are organizations made up of member nation states, as is the United Nations. It is the nation state that has implemented neo-liberal attacks on the working class the world over. It is the nation state that has allowed giant corporations to operate globally, by dismantling the closed national economies of the 1945-1973 period, which were characterised by the thinking that "what's good for Ford is good for America." It is neo-liberal restructuring, implemented and enforced by the nation state, which has made it possible for international labor markets, international capital movements, and international production chains to emerge on the scale that has taken place (I include many Third World nation states here, including "my" own, South Africa: witness the fact that the South African capitalist class government is reducing tariffs faster than the WTO requires. When the WTO asked South Africa to open up its textile industry over 12 years, our rulers volunteered to do the job in just eight! So capitalist globalization is not something simply imposed on "us" by the global system, imperialism, etc., although these play a role). The nation state is part of the problem. One is as bad as another in this respect. Therefore anarchists do not agree with people like Ralph Nader who argued, roughly, "Vote me, so I can save our democracy from the big companies," because anarchists know that the role of the State is to serve those companies: this is what the State does! This is where we part ways with those who think the state is an ally of labor and the poor in the fight against capitalist globalization. As such, anarchists cannot agree with idea of a right/ left anti-globalization coalition, or the liberal myth that we have now moved "beyond left and right." (Witness the Seattle protests: the liberals gave semi-fascist Pat Buchanan a platform, but whined when the anarchists attacked Niketown). Against National Protectionism We fight outside and against the State, trying to organize internationally. True, cheap imported goods do threaten jobs "at home." But the solution is not to call on the state to ban these goods: it is to organize workers in all the sweatshops around the world. We fight for international labor unity, an international minimum wage, international labor standards, and never national protectionism and trade bans. Anarchists want self-managed, class-confrontational struggle, rather than "engaging" the system. Anarchists want to build self-managed forms of struggle and action, rather than placing our faith in technocracy, elections, or "our" governments. In this picture, the use of violence is a tactical question, not a principle: lock down or burn down are choices to be made according to the situation. This is precisely what the liberals and pacifists refuse to see. Into The Anti-Globalization Movement We must enter the new anti-globalization movement. True, it is full of reformists and middle class elements. But this is precisely why we must be involved! To stand back is to surrender the new movement, with its immense revolutionary potential, to the reformists and middle class. It is to abdicate our revolutionary duty to merge revolutionary anarchism with the struggles of the working class, to prevent the revolt of the slaves being used to hoist another elite into power. It is not a question of whether we should be involved. It is an issue of how. The aims of anarchist involvement are surely: 1) To promote the self-management of struggle: at every point, anarchists must fight for organizational forms, protest forms, and decision-making forms that rest upon the active involvement of the working class and provide an opportunity for the class to self-manage the struggle, win confidence, and fight from below. This means: - Occupations, rather than elite sabotage - Marches and protests and riots, rather than policy advocacy - Action committees operating through mandates and accountability through assemblies and summits, rather than the delegation of all responsibility to a small coterie of leaders - Decentralised coalitions which allow the maximum initiative from below - Building the capacity of organizations through promoting horizontal linkages between groups, and by ensuring the widest dissemination of information to the "base" members of the structures - Fights and demands that promote class polarization and expose the class basis of neo-liberalism. We can raise "reformist" demands with a class war bite. (For example, take a company in a financial crisis. The bosses will say let's save money by outsourcing workers and slashing jobs. Anarchist militants can instead raise the apparently "reformist" demand that the company can be saved by slashing management salaries by 80%. This will expose the unfair nature of the system, the class wage gap, and the refusal of bosses to really consider alternatives - because they sure won't consider this one - all of which will deepen class polarisation!) 2) Fighting the government: anarchists must be there arguing against national protectionism, against arguments to "engage" the local state, against calls for the state to "stand up" to capital, against multi-class coalitions and calls for nationalization. Instead, our focus must be on promoting the self-emancipation of the working class through its own struggles, organizations, and efforts, on the need to mobilize outside and against the state, and on class struggle anti-capitalism). This means: - Fighting for practical international solidarity with workers in sweatshops and in subcontracting companies through campaigns, actions etc., informed by the overall perspective of winning international labor standards (a global minimum wage, global basic conditions of employment, etc.) and global trade unionism of the base. This is the real working class basis for opposing cheap imports: better wages for all, rather than a race to the bottom where we see who can earn the least, or chauvinist protectionism. - Labor-based regulation of working conditions, through practical solidarity action, rather than appeals to the WTO etc. to enforce labour standards through a social clause in free trade agreements etc. - Exposure of the class basis of neo-liberalism as an attempt to drive down wages and working conditions, and open up the economy for privatization and speculation, and hence, of the need for a class response that has no illusions in the capitalist state - Opposing privatization because it harms the working class through job loss and worsening social services, and not because we think nationalization is some sort of step towards socialism and workers' control. Instead of calling for more nationalization as an alternative to privatization- which won't happen and in any event won't empower the working class- anarchists should raise demands for worker and community self-management of social services and infrastructure, and stress the right of the working class to a decent life. Aims And Objectives The aim of these tactics and demands is simple. These points are put forward as means to develop a powerful, democratic, and internationalist working class coalition centred on unions, but also involving communities, tenants, students etc. Further, these points are also meant to help develop a libertarian and anti-capitalist consciousness of the international nature of the class struggle, the opposition between the working class, on the one hand, and the state and capital on the other, and a generalised confidence and belief in the desirability, necessity and possibility of self-managed stateless socialism (i.e. anarchy). Many in the "anti-globalization" movement will not accept these aims. But this is precisely why our intervention in the anti-globalization movement as militants with clear ideas and tactics is so vital. And this is also why we need anarchist political organizations with theoretical and tactical unity and collective responsibility, groups of the type advocated by Nestor Makhno and Peter Arshinov in the Organizational Platform of the Libertarian Communists in 1926. Unity, clarity, dedication are our indispensable revolutionary weapons against an enormously powerful and confident capitalist enemy. We can win. Lucien van der Walt Bikisha Media Collective email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- The Northeastern Anarchist c/o Sabate Anarchist Collective PO Box 230685 Boston, MA 02123 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] website: http://www.nefac.org =================================================================== "Anarchy doesn't mean out of control. It means out of 'their' control." -Jim Dodge ====================================================== "Communications without intelligence is noise; intelligence without communications is irrelevant." -Gen. Alfred. M. Gray, USMC ====================================================== "It is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society." -J. Krishnamurti ====================================================== "The world is my country, all mankind my brethren, and to do good is my religion." -Thomas Paine ______________________________________________________________ To subscribe/unsubscribe or for a sample copy or a list of back issues, send appropriate email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. ______________________________________________________________ **How to assist RadTimes: An account is available at <www.paypal.com> which enables direct donations. If you are a current PayPal user, use this email address: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, to contribute. If you are not a current user, use this link: <https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=resist%40best.com> to sign up and contribute. The only information passed on to me via this process is your email address and the amount you transfer. Thanks! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
