quote:

How middle-class of you.

quote:

You know, if it weren't for demonstrations and barricades, the world wouldn't be what it is today. There comes a time when people have to demonstrate in order to show their lords and masters the sheer force of their disapproval. Quietly bringing some meals on wheels to an old lady just won't have the same impact, if you're trying to make a political point.

quote:

Besides... you're not in London, so I really don't see what you're whining about.

quote:

A hypothetical situation:

You have several rural families living near you that are poor and are having a hard time affording groceries.

Response number one: You and others pool your money and buy seeds and then teach these people how to plant home gardens and grow their own vegetables.

Response number two: Prance around in the street like a drunken idiot smashing windows and hurling invective at people you don’t even know.

Now, which of these two responses do you think is more likely to feed a hungry person?

quote:

Yes, cooperation would be the ideal way to bring about change. I'm not aware of any monumental social change that ever came about that way, though. It certainly can't be said that cooperation is the only way to bring about change.

Just as one example, in the US, the poor whites and blacks in the south never did get together and calmly solve the problems. And I'm sure most of them, on either side of the racial divide, couldn't have really articulated the complex social/economic underpinnings of the problem. No, people finally acted from feelings of anger -- and clashed!  And change did come about (some change, anyway.)

quote:

Yes, you're my reason for being, Marc. I follow you around waiting for you to post nonsense. 

quote:

Why are they wasting their time?

quote:

Actually you're wrong. Yesterday there was the larger protest and demonstration in Trafalgar Square which was very peaceful with hardly any arrests.

And yes I have heard of a strike, but to be able to organize a strike you actually need a trade union but unfortunately Thatcher and Murdoch put the kibosh on unions back in the 1980's. There's a whole load of Sun reader mentality types who idolize right wing media heroes such as Jon Gaunt and Richard Littlejohn who think the cause of all the problems is the 'underclass' such as the long term unemployed, homeless, asylum seekers, and so on and so on. If anyone dares to organize the strike they will have the power of the media working against them, especially in the tabloid press.

All this increased productivity and growth tosh is starting to wear thin and the actual real source of the problems isn't among the people but up there at the top in the City in the corporate boardrooms. Can anyone here actually name ten top British CEO's? Probably not because we lead the world in the number of greedy, grasping, incompetent corporations who are much more concerned with profits and bonuses than investment and real business and just like in Eastern Europe as in Iraq more recently they are not competitive and are losing out to the more competitive companies and corporations from the States, Japan, Germany and elsewhere. This is nothing but delusions of grandeur.

Britain isn't getting it on a plate any more but like everyone else in the world we have to roll up our sleeves and graft and it's about time that those in the boardrooms in the City started giving something back instead of trying to screw people and shaft people right left and centre irrespective of whether it's the jobless, the working population, small businesses.

This is where we have a choice - do we actually try to come together and show some solidarity and overcome the divisions or are we going to continue to pretend that it's not happening, to leave it to something or someone else to make things better and end up with more anger, hatred, civil unrest and class

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Besides, I did make a prediction to myself that you would respond to my posts on this thread – and it came true! 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Have any of these protests ever resulted in nuclear disarmament or health care for everybody or whatever the cause is?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Have any of these protests ever resulted in nuclear disarmament or health care for everybody or whatever the cause is?  

quote:

Again, your emotions are taking over Marc. You come across as really angry, and yet these protests should trike a chord with you: they're against the bailout  .

The majority of the people that are out on the streets are peaceful. A minority makes all the noise, and that's what the media and people like yourself seize upon. I'm surprised you are so easily manipulated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
I have to live somewhere in order to express an opinion on it?

quote:

Over the short term, the hungry person should be fed of course. But that's treating the effect, and not the cause.

How about:

Response number 3:   You peacefully work with others to correct the imbalance of 1% of the population possessing 40-50% of the wealth while tens of thousands of people on this planet die of starvation every day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Have any of these protests ever resulted in nuclear disarmament or health care for everybody or whatever the cause is?  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Okay, maybe the use of the word “nothing” doesn’t fit. It is an absolute, after all and I try to avoid absolutes. I don’t always succeed but habits die hard. Still it can not be denied that violence is a part of this and similar protest and as I noted above, it counter productive. It is not likely to make people come together and overcome divisions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kidwithknife
The poll tax riots got rid of the poll tax and brought down Thatcher.
It wasn't the violence that brought about that change, but the sheer volume of prostestors.

On the other hand, that's difficult, because it does suggest that violence is more effective as a form of political protest, not less.
It suggests no such thing, other than as a tactic to gain more media attention - do you seriously think that couldn't be achievable using other methods?

Serious question.  If these demonstrations had been purely peaceful do you think they'd have got anywhere near the coverage?
Yes. You underestimate the power of people when they work together effectively to achieve a goal. Imagine a body of people ten thousand strong converging on central London in strategically placed locations to ensure maximum obstruction. A resolute sit down, 10,000 persons of dead weight to move. The met couldn't cope with the physical removal of that number of people. The eyes of the media upon the establishment and its handling of the situaiton. Who will initiate a violent response? It won't be the protestors unless as an act of self defence, and what will be reported if the police began mistreating the protestors who offered no resistance other than to remain seated?  Let's go back to the days of the poll tax riots. a well organised campaign of UK citizens opposed including a date set for thousands of people to again converge for a mass sit down protest coupled with refusal to pay their taxes - where would the hardship be given that many of those protesting would already be in financial difficulty and unable to pay - and what happened to putting pressure on local MPs, people in crisis tend to forget that they have an MP to represent them to the govt.. Sometimes it takes a bit more hardship in the short-term to bring about a positive change in the long-term. Local govts would not be able to cope with such a huge deluge of admin work to process all non paying householders, then there's the prosecution/incarceration of the many thousands. It's all about mathematics.
 
Edited to add I have stood for my principles regardless of the threat to my own personal liberty.

quote:

I keep hearing in the news, over and over, about one idiot who said, "Abolish money!!" -- as if there was nothing intelligent said by any of the tens of thousand of people who protested. This is an obvious spin by the mainstream press.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

A hypothetical situation:

You have several rural families living near you that are poor and are having a hard time affording groceries.

Response number one: You and others pool your money and buy seeds and then teach these people how to plant home gardens and grow their own vegetables.

Response number two: Prance around in the street like a drunken idiot smashing windows and hurling invective at people you don’t even know.

Now, which of these two responses do you think is more likely to feed a hungry person?

Over the short term, the hungry person should be fed of course. But that's treating the effect, and not the cause.

How about:

Response number 3:   You peacefully work with others to correct the imbalance of 1% of the population possessing 40-50% of the wealth while tens of thousands of people on this planet die of starvation every day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

A hypothetical situation:

You have several rural families living near you that are poor and are having a hard time affording groceries.

Response number one: You and others pool your money and buy seeds and then teach these people how to plant home gardens and grow their own vegetables.

Response number two: Prance around in the street like a drunken idiot smashing windows and hurling invective at people you don’t even know.

Now, which of these two responses do you think is more likely to feed a hungry person?

Over the short term, the hungry person should be fed of course. But that's treating the effect, and not the cause.

How about:

Response number 3:   You peacefully work with others to correct the imbalance of 1% of the population possessing 40-50% of the wealth while tens of thousands of people on this planet die of starvation every day.

That has nothing to do with imbalance of wealth, it is the despotic governments that steal what is given to them to feed their people.

quote:

No.  But then it helps if the opinion is correct.

Of course, all the police wore their riot gear.  And had their battons out.  And their shields like they did in the 80's with their sensless beatings and hidden agendas.  Don't forget all the bomb threats we had yesterday.... and the thousands .... no .... hundreds..... oh, ok... less that 100 arrests made ... ok strike that... less than 90 out of the thousands of people there.*dramtic hand waving*

Oh... the inconvenience of road closure!  All those stations shut and boarded up with no rail network or buses (just like when it snowed).

Don't forget the tear gas and the water canons.  They were all out in force too.

quote:

I already metioned the suffragettes, but two other examples off the top of my head.

The poll tax riots got rid of the poll tax and brought down Thatcher.

The neofascists no longer try aggressive street activities in the UK after they got smashed in the late 80's/early 90's.  That wasn't demonstrations as such, but quite honestly, the violence at these demonstrations pales in comparison.

On the other hand, that's difficult, because it does suggest that violence is more effective as a form of political protest, not less.

Serious question.  If these demonstrations had been purely peaceful do you think they'd have got anywhere near the coverage?