[pp.int.general] General Strikes

[Francisco George]

General Strikes, a strike directed to protest against *government rules*,
are not that common in the US, in fact I think General Strikes never occured
in the US. Tell me if I'm wrong. If we except the strike in Boston against
the British empire that wanted to increase the taxes on TEA, if I do
remember well that protest turns in the Idenpendancy war against UK war that
would set the spark of the French revolution a few years later.


But here, in Europe, they are quite common and are part o the history of any
Sindicate movement.

Best regards

Francisco George

2010/11/22 <pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net>

> Send pp.international.general mailing list submissions to
>        pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        pp.international.general-request at lists.pirateweb.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        pp.international.general-owner at lists.pirateweb.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of pp.international.general digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Kenneth Peiruza)
>   2. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Marcus Kesler)
>   3. Re: Terminology: P2P (John Fanning)
>   4. Re: Terminology: P2P (Marcus Kesler)
>   5. Re: Terminology: P2P (Maxime Rouquet)
>   6. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Richard Stallman)
>   7. Re: PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback (Choms)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:03:49 +0100
> From: Kenneth Peiruza <kenneth at contralaguerra.org>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
>        <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <4CEA7845.6060801 at contralaguerra.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> IMHO, what Anonymous did is neither illegal nor immoral. At least where
> I am.
>
> As explained before, it is the net-equivalent to a street protest.
> Remember that street protests were illegal, immoral, forbidden and
> prosecuted for centuries. Nowadays everyone allows them on "the free
> world", and they are still prosecuted in dictatorial regimes. It took
> more than a century to achieve this right, don't start splitting it
> between the net and outside it.
>
> I expected Pirate Parties to fight for right-equivalence inside and
> outside the net, but this discussion shows how some pirates believe in
> apartheid between these two words.
>
> We are fighting because we have less freedom on the net than outside it,
> then, are we against strikes? Are we against our right to strike? are we
> accepting the lobby's crafted vocabulary?
>
> Remember what do the companies say about the protesters: they damage the
> economy, they don't let the people to go to work and so on: bullshit,
> it's a worker's right. Destroying stuff is a different thing, that is a
> sabotage, and sabotage should be illegal.
>
> A netstrike is not a sabotage, it's a strike, as when it ends,
> everything keeps running as expected, so:
>
> 1) it is not an attack: this is just using their words, crafted to make
> us look like criminals. This is as mislead as talking about Intellectual
> Property, when debating about Copyright, trademarks or Patents.
> 2) it is not illegal here (and it shouldn't be illegal to reload a
> website, we should fight for this right worldwide)
> 3) shouldn't be forbidden if it is announced and it's not forever, as a
> strike.
> 4) moral values are bullshit, as they differ from culture to culture and
> from time to time. It wasn't morally unacceptable to kill your child in
> the Roman empire, neither IS unlawful to kill a traitor in a war,
> neither killing a white guy who had sex with a non-white in the British
> colonies 200 years ago, so, moralists stay at home, please, as moral
> expires and law is made by the lobbies.
> 5) Traditional strikes do also cause a Denial of Service, and nobody
> says it is a DoS, people names it Strike.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
>
> Al 22/11/10 09:50, En/na Justus R?meth ha escrit:
> > I disagree here. You don't 'punish' unlawful/immoral actions by other
> > unlawful/immoral actions.
> >
> > On 22.11.10 09:34, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >> Shutting down publishers' web sites is a nasty thing to do, but the
> >> publishers have done much nastier things to people.  For instance,
> >> setting up technological products to restrict their users,
> >> and imprisoning people who make technology to break those restrictions.
> >>
> >> When anyone objects to the former, we should respond by pointing out
> >> the latter.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:00:24 -0600
> From: Marcus Kesler <marcus at d-usa.info>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
>        <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID:
>        <AANLkTi=4DGqzz1ius1q-dPB0OeGurgG7BCDi1EYqF-Q_ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Howdy, I am sorry if part of my response is due to a loss in
> translation. I realize that we are having this discussion in English
> and that many of the participants are form multiple countries.
>
> If you want to compare the DoS with real world examples, then I think
> we need to make some distinctions clear:
>
> DoS vs. Strike: A DoS is not the same as a strike. A strike is
> initiated by the employees that are refusing to work to lobby for a
> change. It is an action between employees and employer, not anything
> close to Anon vs. RIAA et al.
>
> DoS v. Street protest: In my opinion, a DoS is also very different
> from a street protest. The real world equivalent would not be marching
> on the street, it would be sitting inside the doorway of the business
> and physically preventing customers who want to enter the store from
> doing so. You are not on public property anymore, you are actually
> entering the building. The requests have to reach the physical servers
> hosting the information, they do not only affect the connection (ie:
> street). Even in jurisdictions where protest are legal, even if a
> permit is required, you can still be charged with interfering with a
> business. And even if you protests are legal, if you enter a business
> to prevent customers from entering you can still be charged with
> breaking the law due to trespassing.
>
> On the issue of "civil disobedience":
>
> The United States Pirate Party, as well as the Pirate Party of
> Oklahoma, simply cannot condone any unlawful actions, even if we think
> that the laws are completely and utterly wrong. For the Pirate Party
> (in the US) to even appear to endorse these actions would mean the end
> of the Pirate Party (in the US). There is a reason why the Green Party
> in the US is not calling for a great "Smoke In", because it would mean
> the end of the Green Party. We can have a month long philosophical
> discussion about "is Anon right or not", but if it is illegal then the
> Pirate Party (in the United States) cannot condone these actions.
>
> For me as the administrator of the Pirate Party of Oklahoma I fully
> support the letter asking Anon to stop, if for no other reason as to
> make it very clear that the PPOK will make sure that our activities
> are fully within the scope of the law.
>
> For me it is not an action against Anon, it is an action to protect
> the Pirate Party in Oklahoma.
>
> Marcus Kesler
> Administrator
> Pirate Party of Oklahoma
>
> On 11/22/10, Kenneth Peiruza <kenneth at contralaguerra.org> wrote:
> > IMHO, what Anonymous did is neither illegal nor immoral. At least where
> > I am.
> >
> > As explained before, it is the net-equivalent to a street protest.
> > Remember that street protests were illegal, immoral, forbidden and
> > prosecuted for centuries. Nowadays everyone allows them on "the free
> > world", and they are still prosecuted in dictatorial regimes. It took
> > more than a century to achieve this right, don't start splitting it
> > between the net and outside it.
> >
> > I expected Pirate Parties to fight for right-equivalence inside and
> > outside the net, but this discussion shows how some pirates believe in
> > apartheid between these two words.
> >
> > We are fighting because we have less freedom on the net than outside it,
> > then, are we against strikes? Are we against our right to strike? are we
> > accepting the lobby's crafted vocabulary?
> >
> > Remember what do the companies say about the protesters: they damage the
> > economy, they don't let the people to go to work and so on: bullshit,
> > it's a worker's right. Destroying stuff is a different thing, that is a
> > sabotage, and sabotage should be illegal.
> >
> > A netstrike is not a sabotage, it's a strike, as when it ends,
> > everything keeps running as expected, so:
> >
> > 1) it is not an attack: this is just using their words, crafted to make
> > us look like criminals. This is as mislead as talking about Intellectual
> > Property, when debating about Copyright, trademarks or Patents.
> > 2) it is not illegal here (and it shouldn't be illegal to reload a
> > website, we should fight for this right worldwide)
> > 3) shouldn't be forbidden if it is announced and it's not forever, as a
> > strike.
> > 4) moral values are bullshit, as they differ from culture to culture and
> > from time to time. It wasn't morally unacceptable to kill your child in
> > the Roman empire, neither IS unlawful to kill a traitor in a war,
> > neither killing a white guy who had sex with a non-white in the British
> > colonies 200 years ago, so, moralists stay at home, please, as moral
> > expires and law is made by the lobbies.
> > 5) Traditional strikes do also cause a Denial of Service, and nobody
> > says it is a DoS, people names it Strike.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kenneth
> >
> >
> > Al 22/11/10 09:50, En/na Justus R?meth ha escrit:
> >> I disagree here. You don't 'punish' unlawful/immoral actions by other
> >> unlawful/immoral actions.
> >>
> >> On 22.11.10 09:34, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >>> Shutting down publishers' web sites is a nasty thing to do, but the
> >>> publishers have done much nastier things to people.  For instance,
> >>> setting up technological products to restrict their users,
> >>> and imprisoning people who make technology to break those restrictions.
> >>>
> >>> When anyone objects to the former, we should respond by pointing out
> >>> the latter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________
> >> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> >> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> >> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 10:22:25 -0500
> From: "John Fanning" <john at netcapital.com>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> To: "'Pirate Parties International -- General Talk'"
>        <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <06f001cb8a59$18413480$48c39d80$@com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> It is moronic. The internet itself runs p2p.
>
> john
>
> - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P itself is
> illegal.
>
> John W Fanning
> Chairman Netcapital
> john at netcapital.com
> facebook.com/gninnaf
> twitter.com/john_fanning
> 781-925-1600 Direct
> 650-814-8800 Cell
>
>
> CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
> INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Unless otherwise specified, all ideas,
> creative concepts and opinions, including?
> any attachments, as well as the selection, assembly and arrangement
> thereof,
> are the sole property of Netcapital.com LLC
>  ? 2010, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The content of this email is the property of
> Netcapital.com LLC and is?
> protected by U.S. and international copyright and other intellectual
> property laws. You may view, download, print and?
> retain a copy of pages of this email only for your own personal use. Except
> as expressly provided above, you may not?
> use, download, upload, copy, print, display, perform, reproduce, republish,
> modify, license, post, transmit or distribute any?
> information from this email in whole or in part without our prior written
> permission. If you wish to obtain permission to?
> reprint or reproduce any materials appearing here contact the sender. All
> rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net
> [mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net] On Behalf Of
> Justus R?meth
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:42 AM
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Subject: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
>
> Just a quick thing that I read multiple times, and would like to get
> accross:
>
> - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P itself is
> illegal. I for one enjoy downloading stuff like Ubuntu via torrents, for
> example. Now sharing copyrighted material, on the other hand, is illegal
> in a few countries, may that be P2P or by other means. I think it is
> important to distinguish between the two, as it is legally (!) not the
> same thing. If we don't distinguish between the two, how can we expect
> lawmakers from traditional parties to do that?
>
> Thx for reading this.
> -J
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:40:03 -0600
> From: Marcus Kesler <marcus at d-usa.info>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
>        <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <4CEA8ED3.4070101 at d-usa.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> But most of the special interest groups are moronic enough to pretend
> that it is only used for criminal purposes.
>
> On 11/22/2010 9:22 AM, John Fanning wrote:
> > It is moronic. The internet itself runs p2p.
> >
> > john
> >
> > - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P itself is
> > illegal.
> >
> > John W Fanning
> > Chairman Netcapital
> > john at netcapital.com
> > facebook.com/gninnaf
> > twitter.com/john_fanning
> > 781-925-1600 Direct
> > 650-814-8800 Cell
> >
> >
> > CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
> > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: Unless otherwise specified, all ideas,
> > creative concepts and opinions, including
> > any attachments, as well as the selection, assembly and arrangement
> thereof,
> > are the sole property of Netcapital.com LLC
> >  ? 2010, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The content of this email is the property
> of
> > Netcapital.com LLC and is
> > protected by U.S. and international copyright and other intellectual
> > property laws. You may view, download, print and
> > retain a copy of pages of this email only for your own personal use.
> Except
> > as expressly provided above, you may not
> > use, download, upload, copy, print, display, perform, reproduce,
> republish,
> > modify, license, post, transmit or distribute any
> > information from this email in whole or in part without our prior written
> > permission. If you wish to obtain permission to
> > reprint or reproduce any materials appearing here contact the sender. All
> > rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net
> > [mailto:pp.international.general-bounces at lists.pirateweb.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > Justus R?meth
> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 5:42 AM
> > To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > Subject: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> >
> > Just a quick thing that I read multiple times, and would like to get
> > accross:
> >
> > - I don't think a country would be monoric to actually say P2P itself is
> > illegal. I for one enjoy downloading stuff like Ubuntu via torrents, for
> > example. Now sharing copyrighted material, on the other hand, is illegal
> > in a few countries, may that be P2P or by other means. I think it is
> > important to distinguish between the two, as it is legally (!) not the
> > same thing. If we don't distinguish between the two, how can we expect
> > lawmakers from traditional parties to do that?
> >
> > Thx for reading this.
> > -J
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> >
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:53:30 +0100
> From: Maxime Rouquet <maxime.rouquet at partipirate.org>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Terminology: P2P
> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Message-ID: <4CEA91FA.3020000 at partipirate.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/22/2010 01:16 PM, Brendan Molloy wrote:
> > It is basically illogical to ban an entire concept, because copyright
> > infringement is rampant using the client/server model (RapidShare et
> > al), peer-to-peer (DC++, Gnutella, ED2K, BitTorrent) and the
> > sneakernet.
>
> That is not completely illogical. Our enemies are mostly intermediaries
> in music or movies distribution that are afraid because there are
> becoming useless.
>
> P2P is a greater enemy to them than direct download or streaming,
> because it makes people understand we do not need centralized
> distribution with such intermediaries anymore.
>
> Direct download and streaming sites make money, they can be more easily
> taken down, taken control of, or heavily taxed in the benefit of these
> obsolete intermediaries. P2P is free and decentralized, which is in
> complete contradiction with their way of doing. So if they can have it
> disappear, they will.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:36:12 -0500
> From: Richard Stallman <rms at gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Justus R?meth <squig at dfpx.de>
> Cc: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> Message-ID: <E1PKZNE-0004FW-O1 at fencepost.gnu.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>
>    I disagree here. You don't 'punish' unlawful/immoral actions by other
>    unlawful/immoral actions.
>
> I think we are not talking about the same issue.  You seem to be
> talking about whether Operation Payback is right or wrong.  I am
> saying that question is a distraction from the real issue, and we
> should not be distracted.
>
> If our adversaries are citing the actions of Operation Payback to
> paint themselves as victims and win support for their oppressive
> plans, that is a fallacious argument.  How should we refute it?
>
> It is a common practice for those with power to deflect attention from
> their big wrongs by focusing condemnation on the smaller wrongs of
> people opposed to them.  The "moderate" opposition, fearing being
> associated with this criticism, often bends over backwards to condemn
> those smaller wrongs.  By doing so, it supports the distraction
> campaign.
>
> Whatever we say about Operation Payback's DDOS attacks, we should not
> make them the focus our attention.  Instead, we should put that issue
> in perspective by showing that the publishers are doing far nastier
> things.  Society should put a stop to them.  Then it can look at
> smaller issues such as DDOS attacks (if they continue).
>
> --
> Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:14:45 +0100
> From: Choms <choms at botmania.net>
> Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] PPi ask Anonymous to stop Payback
> To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk
>        <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> Message-ID: <7104D1AF-83CD-4D8F-BF3F-1D95D09FE5C7 at botmania.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> El 22/11/2010, a las 16:00, Marcus Kesler escribi?:
>
> > Howdy, I am sorry if part of my response is due to a loss in
> > translation. I realize that we are having this discussion in English
> > and that many of the participants are form multiple countries.
> >
> > If you want to compare the DoS with real world examples, then I think
> > we need to make some distinctions clear:
> >
> > DoS vs. Strike: A DoS is not the same as a strike. A strike is
> > initiated by the employees that are refusing to work to lobby for a
> > change. It is an action between employees and employer, not anything
> > close to Anon vs. RIAA et al.
>
> As long as I know, a General Strike is against state, not employees against
> their companies, so... what's the difference between a General Strike and a
> DDoS who protest against some laws (state) and companies (part of the power
> of the state)?
>
> >
> > DoS v. Street protest: In my opinion, a DoS is also very different
> > from a street protest. The real world equivalent would not be marching
> > on the street, it would be sitting inside the doorway of the business
> > and physically preventing customers who want to enter the store from
> > doing so. You are not on public property anymore, you are actually
> > entering the building. The requests have to reach the physical servers
> > hosting the information, they do not only affect the connection (ie:
> > street). Even in jurisdictions where protest are legal, even if a
> > permit is required, you can still be charged with interfering with a
> > business. And even if you protests are legal, if you enter a business
> > to prevent customers from entering you can still be charged with
> > breaking the law due to trespassing.
>
> Inside the building? that, refereed to computers, it's called cracking...
> go inside a system and broke it from inside, ant yes, that is illegal...
> Make petitions from Outside to a server is more like ringing the bell for a
> lot of people at same time... so the people inside the building doesn't know
> if open the door or not... like the demonstration in front of MCU :P
>
> So is erroneous your statement, is not private property (unless you think
> your internet line is private property of your ISP). Also, in a normal
> strike people also prevents workers and customers to enter the shop.
>
> >
> > On the issue of "civil disobedience":
> >
> > The United States Pirate Party, as well as the Pirate Party of
> > Oklahoma, simply cannot condone any unlawful actions, even if we think
> > that the laws are completely and utterly wrong. For the Pirate Party
> > (in the US) to even appear to endorse these actions would mean the end
> > of the Pirate Party (in the US). There is a reason why the Green Party
> > in the US is not calling for a great "Smoke In", because it would mean
> > the end of the Green Party. We can have a month long philosophical
> > discussion about "is Anon right or not", but if it is illegal then the
> > Pirate Party (in the United States) cannot condone these actions.
>
> I agree with this part, but I refer to Stallman's mail... It's simply a
> distraction method... Payback is unrelated to any Pirate Party, why are you
> making a relationship between both groups sending a open letter about it? If
> is not our problem, why we have to intervene?
>
> >
> > For me as the administrator of the Pirate Party of Oklahoma I fully
> > support the letter asking Anon to stop, if for no other reason as to
> > make it very clear that the PPOK will make sure that our activities
> > are fully within the scope of the law.
> >
> > For me it is not an action against Anon, it is an action to protect
> > the Pirate Party in Oklahoma.
>
> Really I understand you want to protect your PP, but you have to admit that
> the letter was unnecessary and offensive for that group. There's another
> ways (in the case that, after this conversation you still think that the
> letter was necessary) to say the same thing without offending people.
>
> Salu2
>
> >
> > Marcus Kesler
> > Administrator
> > Pirate Party of Oklahoma
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> pp.international.general mailing list
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
> End of pp.international.general Digest, Vol 45, Issue 47
> ********************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20101122/9525d2a7/attachment-0001.htm>