G20 summit in London

[scieck]

The 2nd of April 2009 in London the “leaders” of the 20 most powerful countries in the World are meeting to tackle the current economic downturn.

At the same time greens and environmentalists are organizing a large scale protest (28th of March, streets of London) to trying to influence politicians into giving priorities to issues such as climate change, investing into sustainable and renewable energy. Essentially asking politicians to put the people and the well being of our planet first (avaaz.org/en/london_citizens_march_28).

My point is that I don't think the protest will affect G20 leaders decisions whatsoever, of course they are expecting a protest to take place. I believe that each of the leaders will act according to their own agenda with or without a protest taking place.

When it comes to small matters protests might have the power to influence politicians decisions however when economic decision have to be taken protests are absolutely useless (see huge world-wide protest against war on Iraq).
I believe that when it comes to economic decisions politicians are not in charge any more, who is pulling the strings are multinationals, or in other words the hand full of super rich and powerful people that control this planet.

While I am absolutely against any form of violence I believe the protesting in the traditional way (street marching with pathetic hot head breaking a glass window or two and with final sad and pathetic media coverage focusing on all the wrong possible angles besides the actual important points of the protest) is in today society not only old fashion but totally useless against major issues.

I would like to know your thoughts on the above and if you believe that a prolonged national and/or international strike (as in not going to work), when properly planned and when done by the majority of people could be feasible and more effective than the traditional protest, or if you can propose a more effective (non violent) form of protesting.

[Malamis]

At the same time greens and environmentalists are organizing a large scale protest (28th of March, streets of London) to trying to influence politicians into giving priorities to issues such as climate change, investing into sustainable and renewable energy. Essentially asking politicians to put the people and the well being of our planet first (avaaz.org/en/london_citizens_march_28).

Like they have for what... the past six years? Every time I remember the term "G# summit"being mentioned, there is an enviro-protest attached to it.

My point is that I don't think the protest will affect G20 leaders decisions whatsoever, of course they are expecting a protest to take place. I believe that each of the leaders will act according to their own agenda with or without a protest taking place.

I certainly hope they have at least some plans or agendas lined up pre-attendance that are robust enough to survive British populist actions. If not, we're ( Britain at least) more screwed than I thought.

I believe that when it comes to economic decisions politicians are not in charge any more, who is pulling the strings are multinationals, or in other words the hand full of super rich and powerful people that control this planet.

They're called banks oddly enough. If ye've aught else better to do, i'd recommend Money As Debt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8) for when you want to debate it with the less interested, and at least want to have a good position to lampoon them from.

While I am absolutely against any form of violence I believe the protesting in the traditional way (street marching with pathetic hot head breaking a glass window or two and with final sad and pathetic media coverage focusing on all the wrong possible angles besides the actual important points of the protest) is in today society not only old fashion but totally useless against major issues.

The alternative ( e.g. hacktivism) is still illegal, albeit for more practical as opposed to moral reasons. Although on that note, there are significant rumblings from the tech-brethren of London's financial industries concerning a co-ordinated attack on the banking infrastructure as part of the protest. Quite frankly this is more worrying as it would have further reaching financial and societal consequences than, say, another July 7th bombing.

Just about the only "legal" thing that could work in the shock and awe realm nowadays, would be a public protest in the form of mass suicide.
I really doubt there is anyone devoted to any of these issues to do it though. That and it would probably not be media'd (incitement to vulnerable individuals, think of the children etc etc etc), or suppressed as "intent to bodily harm" or some such.

I would like to know your thoughts on the above and if you believe that a prolonged national and/or international strike (as in not going to work), when properly planned and when done by the majority of people could be feasible and more effective than the traditional protest, or if you can propose a more effective (non violent) form of protesting.
Secede.
Mass migrations.
But admittedly that just relocates the problem.
As for international strike, that would probably mean that India, China and Saracenstan would be put in a very beneficial position to profit in even more non-generic industries, possibly to a degree that would be considered "unfair".Not to mention there are a number of businesses which would vanish very quickly and quite permanently if something like that happened.