Aren't demonstrations a bit last century?

[TeaFan]

I hear Iran's lovely at this time of year Andy.

[wednesday1]

seems to happen EVERYTIME the tories get in

 

 

Hmmm wonder why!

[andygardener]

I hear Iran's lovely at this time of year Andy.

 

Given your sig I'd rather hope you may have had something positive to contribute to a thread about the relative merits of the vast gamut of free speech available to us and waving a placard for a bit before hitting a copper with it then setting it on fire.

[Cavegirl]

I've voted that they must always be allowed.

 

These are my reasons:

 

What is the state? The state holds the monopoly on the legal use of violence in society. It can tax you by force, imprison you, surveil you, prevent you from leaving its borders, force you to fight in its army, take away all of your posessions and take away (at any time) the civil liberties that it provided you in the first place. It is also the main source of propaganda in society.

In return it provides national services such as the NHS and electricity grid (privatised in 1990), gas (privatised in 1986) and water (privatised in 1989) boards. It provides laws and a police force to protect private property and citizens.

 

What is the citizen? The citizen is the worker, the technologist, the producer of goods and services and the consumer. The powers the citizen has over the state is the ability (in democratic systems) to vote in a government, the ability to create a political party and the right to peaceful protest when they feel the government is treating them unfairly.

 

Sometimes peaceful means of protesting a government's plans are not enough. The UK state was actually the first to argue this when we aggressively invaded Iraq to remove Saddam- when we had an issue with his means of government. It seems a little hypocritical to me to suggest that it's ok when a state does it, but not when citizens do it. I believe therefore that fellow citizens have a right to condemn violent protests as long as they recognise that the violence came from minorities on both sides, but the state has already lost its moral authority and has no moral right to condemn its own citizens.

 

The state is also often, if possible, expansionist because it relies on economic growth. The story of the rise and fall of empires is well known:

 

At the start certain liberties are granted to citizens

As a result, technological and economic efficiencies increase wealth

Increased wealth results in increased taxation

Increased taxation then results in increased tyranny and corruption

Increased tyranny and corruption eventually destroys economic progress.

 

(taken from - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aHEHfYwOAE&feature=related)

 

I believe we're in the backwash of the decline of the US empire because our economy is tied to the dollar. People need every means necessary to withstand the tyranny that has ensued and is still ongoing.

[TeaFan]

Given your sig I'd rather hope you may have had something positive to contribute to a thread about the relative merits of the vast gamut of free speech available to us and waving a placard for a bit before hitting a copper with it then setting it on fire.

 

Ho ho! It is certainly interesting that we now have online protest, and the attacks on the Mastercard and Visa sites possibly herald a new form of effective protest. But I don't think the point of a protest is to 'get your voice heard', it's to get something changed. As things stand, anti-tax avoidance protesters closing down a branch of Top Shop is far more likely to effect change than just complaining about it on the internet. Although UK Uncut use Twitter very effectively to mount the protests and grew very quickly through it. That's what I'm excited about, the way new media is being used to bypass the people who used to control protest - it's suddenly all got a bit 'rank and file', to use oldspeak.

 

As per my sig, I think Stop The War marked a sea change. All those people, so easily ignored. Large numbers of people marching is pretty much dead as a form of effective protest, and I think that's because politicians are so far removed from us now. These days if you want to effect change then direct action of some sort will be necessary. I really like the UK Uncut model, the other option is civil disturbance of some sort, which I think can also be fine.

[andygardener]

Ho ho! It is certainly interesting that we now have online protest, and the attacks on the Mastercard and Visa sites possibly herald a new form of effective protest. But I don't think the point of a protest is to 'get your voice heard', it's to get something changed. As things stand, anti-tax avoidance protesters closing down a branch of Top Shop is far more likely to effect change than just complaining about it on the internet. Although UK Uncut use Twitter very effectively to mount the protests and grew very quickly through it. That's what I'm excited about, the way new media is being used to bypass the people who used to control protest - it's suddenly all got a bit 'rank and file', to use oldspeak.

 

As per my sig, I think Stop The War marked a sea change. All those people, so easily ignored. Large numbers of people marching is pretty much dead as a form of effective protest, and I think that's because politicians are so far removed from us now. These days if you want to effect change then direct action of some sort will be necessary. I really like the UK Uncut model, the other option is civil disturbance of some sort, which I think can also be fine.

 

Told ya you could add a very possitive contribution and thanks for it.

 

We're in agreement that for those who wish to debate the issues and make their views heard there are 101 ways other than demos to do this and also that debate will not always get the result you want because that's the nature of democratic debate. For those who have made their mind up on the issue and don't mind breaking the law there is direct action which depending on the cause, level of support for that cause and tactics used can be effective.

 

If those engaging in legal discourse support those engaged in direct action then change is entirely possible.

 

Which leaves us with the expensive white elephant in the middle of debate and direct action- the legal licenced policed placard waving demonstration this thread is about.

 

What purpose does it serve? You summed it up very well when you said "Large numbers of people marching is pretty much dead as a form of effective protest".

 

So we do agree after all.

[HeadingNorth]

I wonder why...

 

 

There's very little wondrous about it. Labour supporters are quick to take to the streets with violence if they are not in power; Tory supporters tend to favour the rule of law, and are not.

[dell12]

There's very little wondrous about it. Labour supporters are quick to take to the streets with violence if they are not in power; Tory supporters tend to favour the rule of law, and are not.

 

Seeing as we're making massive generalisations:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3656524.stm

 

On a more serious note, I wonder if there is a link between political persuasion and criminal offending rate?

[Guest]

There's very little wondrous about it. Labour supporters are quick to take to the streets with violence if they are not in power; Tory supporters tend to favour the rule of law, and are not.

 

 

As in hunting perhaps?

Tories favour the law when it suits them.

[hard2miss]

I think some of these kids have real spirit and just because this is a new century and we haven't seen many demo's in the 10 years since the last century, it doesn't mean they have gone away or they are a thing of the past, if anything they are here to stay if this is anything to go by.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U_gHUiL4P8&feature=player_embedded