Can Peaceful Protest get results?

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Following on from all of today's incidents so far......

I thought Id put this up for discussion.

I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks on this subject.



So;

Can you get results from Peaceful Protest?

Or Is violence the only way to get attention?


It seems to me, that this whole 'Controlled' Protest sort defeats the whole point of protesting in the first place. Do politicians even listen/ pay attention if there is no threat to them?

On the news reports today, people have texted in saying "Violence never solves anything" & "you give everyone else a bad name", but I'm wondering if that's true.

Don't get me wrong...I don't condone the smashing of the windows, but if the police have complete control all the time, does that not give the Politicians the impression that there is nothing to worry about, and that the protest can be ignored?!


Your thoughts

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 1st April 18:50

[Sheets Tabuer]

I think protesting went out the window when maggie sent in the police against the miners.

Protesting has meant jack st since then.

[Jasandjules]

I don't know.. Shall we ask Ghandi?

[Don]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Can you get results from Peaceful Protest?

No. It is almost completely without point.

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Or Is violence the only way to get attention?

No. Violence is how to dominate a situation and enforce your will upon an unhappy population. We do it with armies and the police. Don't do as we say? We fk you up: badly.

Rioters believe they are making a point. But all that's happening is that they are doing criminal damage and bringing down upon their heads the imminent violence of the State. They've been CCTV'd to death and will be found.

To get attention?

You go to a polling booth on polling day and put an X next to someone else's name.

Now THAT gets a politician's attention. Because votes mean a job, expenses, a nice lifestyle and a pleasant career. No votes = NEED A NEW JOB!

So get down there and DO IT!

[Westy Pre-Lit]

A protest ain't a protest without a good riot.

Just watched them on the news smashing a few windows, that'll show em. They then reported how somebody "TRIED TO BURN THE BANK OF ENGLAND DOWN !!!!!!!!"........using a fag lighter.

Pffft kids of today huh not a clue.

[londonbabe]

If violence didn't work Sinn Fein would not be in power right now.

[tinman0]

The problem is that protestors can't be trusted. Whilst the vast majority of people are peaceful, it only takes a minority to start a riot.

Ask yourself the other question. Lets say you own a business, you work 10 hours a day for 6 days a week with a small cafe on the protestors route - and it gets trashed. How would you feel? You'll be out of business for days, your takings and the business you've built up will be out of action for a few weeks and will be going to other businesses, your insurance will eventually pay out, but your insurance premium goes up for the following year. And whilst that is happening you still have to pay wages and salaries, and your mortgage company still wants paying, and you still have to pay rent on the property - and the can SURE that the council will still want their rates.

And you wonder why people are tired of "peaceful protest" that 9 times out of 10 ends up in a riot.

[cyberface]

Well from today's incidents, as an 'impartial observer' - whose cause would you take more seriously? The climate change guys on Bishopsgate who are peaceful and mostly causing noise pollution with their 'carnival' atmosphere, or the fking s smashing st up around Bank?

If you want quick results, the use of weapons is probably your game. History is written by the guys who win the wars. But assuming you want to live in a democracy, you need to work the media to get popular support for your cause. Having some degree of credibility and gravitas is rather necessary - the silent majority aren't impressed by thugs smashing stuff up.

I'm quite aware of the frustration felt by those who feel disenfranchised by the 'system' and feel direct action is the only way to get results, but even with big issues like Northern Ireland, history shows that winning hearts and minds works better than blowing stuff up.

[Fittster]

Jasandjules said:

I don't know.. Shall we ask Ghandi?

Mass civil disobedience is fine then?

Peaceful protest, such as marches, petitions, etc is a complete waste of time.

[Fittster]

cyberface said:

I'm quite aware of the frustration felt by those who feel disenfranchised by the 'system' and feel direct action is the only way to get results, but even with big issues like Northern Ireland, history shows that winning hearts and minds works better than blowing stuff up.

Kill first to show your serious then enter talks with the powers that me. Worked in N.I. and South Arfica. The state won't do business unless the stakes are high.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Don said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Can you get results from Peaceful Protest?

No. It is almost completely without point.

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Or Is violence the only way to get attention?

No. Violence is how to dominate a situation and enforce your will upon an unhappy population. We do it with armies and the police. Don't do as we say? We fk you up: badly.

Rioters believe they are making a point. But all that's happening is that they are doing criminal damage and bringing down upon their heads the imminent violence of the State. They've been CCTV'd to death and will be found.

To get attention?

You go to a polling booth on polling day and put an X next to someone else's name.

Now THAT gets a politician's attention. Because votes mean a job, expenses, a nice lifestyle and a pleasant career. No votes = NEED A NEW JOB!

So get down there and DO IT!

You make good points Don. Post like these is what this thread is about!

So you vote at elections....but what if you can't wait for elections? What if things were getting so bad that you couldn't wait 6 months to a year!?

The way the police controlled the protest says to me there wasn't any point protesting! It comes across (to me) that even the protesters are push-overs, and that no matter how displeased they are with the situation, they are still going to take everything that comes.
If I was a politician and I saw a protest like the one today then I'd be inclined to say "fk 'em, we'll carry on doing what we want, and if they protest again....we'll just ship them to the same area and be done with them"!

Peaceful protest used to get results, but in more recent times Im struggling to see when a peaceful protest has got the intended result.

[Fittster]

tinman0 said:

Ask yourself the other question. Lets say you own a business, you work 10 hours a day for 6 days a week with a small cafe on the protestors route - and it gets trashed. How would you feel? You'll be out of business for days, your takings and the business you've built up will be out of action for a few weeks and will be going to other businesses, your insurance will eventually pay out, but your insurance premium goes up for the following year. And whilst that is happening you still have to pay wages and salaries, and your mortgage company still wants paying, and you still have to pay rent on the property - and the can SURE that the council will still want their rates.

And you wonder why people are tired of "peaceful protest" that 9 times out of 10 ends up in a riot.

So the protestors should have burnt the cafe to the ground and killed the staff. You'd have been more likely to do a deal with them if they were a threat not an inconvience.

The problem anti-capitalism protestors have is that they don't have a clear objective. If it was something simple (e.g. no investment banks in the UK) they could probably achieve it.

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

The problem anti-capitalism protestors have is that they don't have a clear objective. If it was something simple (e.g. no investment banks in the UK) they could probably achieve it.

And they are idiots. Lets not forget that.

The problem with most anti-capitalists is that they haven't seen poverty. They have a romantic view of poverty, like the oriental in a paddy field, with the simple life. But they don't see the harsh reality of that picture - the person who bends over for 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, nearly every single day of the year, a fluctuating value of the rice, the beating sun, and the horrid horrid paddy field you have to stand in.

But they are unable to correlate that what they want will result in poverty, and "a simple life" is not an easy life.

[digger_R]

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

I don't know.. Shall we ask Ghandi?

Mass civil disobedience is fine then?

Peaceful protest, such as marches, petitions, etc is a complete waste of time.

IMO pretty much the only way it will work is if many people are willing to lay down their lives for the cause. You can garuntee that the officers of the government will clamp down on civil disobedience in the same way as the the ruling class did in India.

Being of Indian heritage (from close to where Ghandi drew salt from the sea) I studied his life as a kid and was fascinated by the humility of the man.
The principal behind civil disobedience then was to show the rulers that their actions clearly could not take the moral high ground by by resistance WITHOUT violence or taking up arms.
I'm of the opinion that the current bunch have less respect for Joe public than the empire builders ever had for the locals they ruled over.

[Fittster]

tinman0 said:

Fittster said:

The problem anti-capitalism protestors have is that they don't have a clear objective. If it was something simple (e.g. no investment banks in the UK) they could probably achieve it.

And they are idiots. Lets not forget that.

The problem with most anti-capitalists is that they haven't seen poverty. They have a romantic view of poverty, like the oriental in a paddy field, with the simple life. But they don't see the harsh reality of that picture - the person who bends over for 10-12 hours a day, 7 days a week, nearly every single day of the year, a fluctuating value of the rice, the beating sun, and the horrid horrid paddy field you have to stand in.

But they are unable to correlate that what they want will result in poverty, and "a simple life" is not an easy life.

Well I never said I agreed with the cause.

If they want to destory the banks they should be demanding more capitalism and the free market. 1000 crusties can't destory RBS but if it was left to fend for itself without taxpayer support it would be gone by the weekend.

So to be successful:

1. Clear objectives.
2. Be killing to kill and die for your cause.

Then you might have a chance of changing the system. Islamic terrorists have the will but the objective is to wishy/washy, what exactly do they want?

[digger_R]

It would take a hell of a lot of this

(from the movie Ghandi)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XarpddX1BI to have an impact.

[Fittster]

digger_R said:

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

I don't know.. Shall we ask Ghandi?

Mass civil disobedience is fine then?

Peaceful protest, such as marches, petitions, etc is a complete waste of time.

IMO pretty much the only way it will work is if many people are willing to lay down their lives for the cause. You can garuntee that the officers of the government will clamp down on civil disobedience in the same way as the the ruling class did in India.

Being of Indian heritage (from close to where Ghandi drew salt from the sea) I studied his life as a kid and was fascinated by the humility of the man.
The principal behind civil disobedience then was to show the rulers that their actions clearly could not take the moral high ground by by resistance WITHOUT violence or taking up arms.
I'm of the opinion that the current bunch have less respect for Joe public than the empire builders ever had for the locals they ruled over.

But civil disobedience is likely to cause harm indirectly, for example if climate change protestors shutdown oil and coal fired power stations resulting in the failure of traffic signals, which in turn leads to a fatal crash, the protestors are the root cause.

It's hard to think of a mass civil disobedience that doesn't have the potential to cause harm to another individual. The only thing I can think of would be to remove numberplates from cars to resit the congestion charge. Difficult to have a significant impact on the state without putting non-participants in danger.

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

Then you might have a chance of changing the system. Islamic terrorists have the will but the objective is to wishy/washy, what exactly do they want?

I think the general problem is that we have a Govt that doesn't listen, has lied in its manifestos, has been quite abysmal, has put through legislation it had no right on putting through, and has done it best to dismantle democracy in the UK, and people do feel totally disenfranchised.

But, we are British at the end of the day so we don't do coups. We can also see a General Election in the not too distant future and people are simply planning for that.

[Twincam16]

digger_R said:

Fittster said:

Jasandjules said:

I don't know.. Shall we ask Ghandi?

Mass civil disobedience is fine then?

Peaceful protest, such as marches, petitions, etc is a complete waste of time.

IMO pretty much the only way it will work is if many people are willing to lay down their lives for the cause. You can garuntee that the officers of the government will clamp down on civil disobedience in the same way as the the ruling class did in India.

I suppose translating civil disobedience to the banks protest would involve withdrawing all your money, putting it in a box under your bed, and refusing to pay any taxes or fines.

Problem is, you can't mobilise large numbers of people these days who have the bottle to do this. As a result, the few that do are sitting ducks and the government gets more and more authoritarian in order to 'deal' with them.

The ban on protests in Parliament Square is a prime example - people just weren't disobedient and vociferous enough, so they just let these infringements happen.

[digger_R]

Fittster said:

But civil disobedience is likely to cause harm indirectly, for example if climate change protestors shutdown oil and coal fired power stations resulting in the failure of traffic signals, which in turn leads to a fatal crash, the protestors are the root cause.

It's hard to think of a mass civil disobedience that doesn't have the potential to cause harm to another individual. The only thing I can think of would be to remove numberplates from cars to resit the congestion charge. Difficult to have a significant impact on the state without putting non-participants in danger.

Sure we (collectively) couldn't necessarily continue exactly as we do everyday but it would be interesting to see the effects of carefully thought out movement.
Ghandi's most successful/publicised campaigns eg. burning Id papers in South Africa + drawing salt from the sea, had a greater resonance wrt what they symbolised as oppose to the direct impact of drawing a few grams of salt from the sea.
The difference may be in that case, the movement was trying to draw international pressure on the Empire for it's actions at the time.

There are legitimate causes for concern, I think that much is obvious to (nearly) everyone - finding a coherent strategy for expressing those is the hard part. It's very easy for the few 'reasonable' voices to get lost in the media frenzy of 24hr news and incestuous blogging (whatever that is)

Edited by digger_R on Wednesday 1st April 19:39