BS: The future of protest.

Subject: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 05:24 PM

By way of a postscript to the Animal rights thread,....by Michael Evans defence editor of The Times.

EXTREMIST ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS POSE MAIN THREAT TO ECONOMY.

Michael Evans' article in todays Times, reinforces my opinion given in the recent "Animal rights" thread, about the future of protest in the UK.



"Animal rights terrorists in the UK, could do as much harm as a single Al Qaeda terrorist attack".
"At stake is an annual investment of £16 billion in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology research and development industries.
Three large companies investing in Britian, have already revealed their fears about " persistant intimidation".

"I suppose a terrorist attack in London might cause damage of up to £16 billion, but with animal rights extremism, were talking of losing £16 billion of investment every year"
The report indicated that Animal rights "extremism" was going to become a growing threat over the next 12 months.
Single issue terrorism and animal rights extremism will grow, with more ambitious and strategic targets......and there are fascinating parallels between the economic agenda of Al Qaeda, and Animal rights extremist networks".


As I have said before, the gloves are off at last on the "War on Capitalism".....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 05:50 PM

Wow. Somebody is feeling threatened! Do they think they are referring primarily to the potential discontinuation of using animals in medical experiments?

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 05:55 PM

No Ebbie ...What frightens them is the effectivness of the tactics used by the animal rights people, and the realisation that other left wing groups could start using "brain instead of brawn"...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Peace
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 06:04 PM

It has always been in the best interests of the establishment to allow protest that's done in a prescribed manner (no pun intended). It lets those who have to control the protestors know where the protestors are. Step outside the 'box', and then it becomes a new ballgame. However, when that happens, the rules will change very quickly--on both sides of the fence. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 06:16 PM

Wise words Bruce, but these matters develope their own momentum and the roots concern the sham that we call democracy...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 06:19 PM

Just about everything can be tolerated up until the time it starts shows signs of being effective. At that point the rules change.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 06:54 PM

Protest as it was known in the '60s died in a hail of gunfire at Kent State.

Brawn will no longer do it as "The Establishment" is quite ready and willing to respond with even greater brawn -- and "God is on the side of the big battalions."

The problem with protest is that it quickly loses its focus. The Civil Right Movement in the US was successful because it kept its eyes on the prize. The women's suffrage movement of the mid-19th century, the ERA movement of the 20th, and manifold others failed because they became too diverse, their energies too diffused.

For example, the women's suffrage movement was intended to obtain votes for women. It embraced an end to slavery and temperance and birth control and other issues, diluting its original purpose. As a result, women in the US did not get the right to vote until the 1920s.
Likewise the ERA movement embraced gay and other rights instead of focusing on getting one thing done, then getting the next done, and so forth.

Yes, gay rights, the abilition of slavery, and the rest of the agenda were and are extremely important. But everything isn't going to happen at once -- society is, at root, not just conservative but reactionary. Do one thing, then do the next.

To people who are hungry or suffering injustice or ill "animal rights" becomes the toy issue of the privileged classes, of those who who have full bellies and adequate health care, a red herring of little or no importance to the downtrodden. And no, this perception is NOT helped by a bunch of movie and TV stars and starlets stating how awful it is to wear fur.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 07:09 PM

Interesting .R.    But I feel you miss the point. Its is the tactics ,not the issue which worries the Capitalist establishment.

IMO the tactics used will become a model for all protest in the future.
No more pitched battles with police, but a relatively bloodless and much more effective campaign...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 07:13 PM

One of the bizarre double-speak phrases is the use of the 'Free Speech Zone' near tbe public appearances of public figures. What happened to the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..."

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Dec 04 - 09:29 PM

No, I speak to the point and that is the same as yours, Ake. Direct confrontation is outdated and useless. New methods are necessary and must be found.

But I also have expanded upon the theme.

Those who would cause change MUST MUST MUST stay focused upon the end and not be diverted with other (perhaps equally valid) issues. And it is not necessary to win every battle -- pick the big ones and win them, you can then go back and mop up the little ones.

Storming the streets makes good video, but bad publicity.

Look at the recent election: the rule of "divide and conquer" was used extensively against Kerry (Nader was marginal and marginalized from the start). "Divide and conquer" was used against Dean. Whenever a politician can make a statement which distracts his opponent from his message, the politician wins.

Example: "We should feed the hungry!" "Who's going to pay for that?" A valid question, but not the point of the first statement. In response, you get bogged down in details that have little to do with your assertion that we should feed the hungry.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: GUEST,Barry Finn
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 06:55 AM

IMHO there hasn't been an effective protest or march that's been able to attain it's goal since the 60's. Some points have already been made, "Free Speach Zones", "divide & conquer", being able to stay focused, "toy issues", groups not being able to come together for a main cause. Look at our last 2 elections & compare us to the storm brewing overseas protesting election fraud. Who deceided that "free speach zones" for protesters was to be the proper mode for voicing a decenting opinion & who of the desenters deceided that this would a policy that they could live with. As to costing a corporation or a government money or to paint them in an evil image is to protest against their policies & practices, it's not terrorism. Terrorism like war, one is akin to the other, is the last form of desent that should ever be considered. But then there is no real protesting here, not even a peep about boycotts. It's a cosy life when you only have to give lip service to the wrongs done in our name rather than having to actually put yourself in front of path of what might eventually be a tank. We deal with those in power as if we've sat down to hammer out some sort of agreeable rules where protesters can't take off the white kid's gloves & we're to do as directed by those that actually represent or are agents of those that the protesters are in an actual "direct confrontation" with. Kind of like asking the fox how we chickens should behave once we've opened the coop door to let him in. We are fighting on the fox's turf when the confrontation should be made outside of the established box or coop long before the fox sit's down to direct the proper way all matters of protest should be handled. Lastly, since when does the investment of 3 large companies or for that matter any sort of financial gain becomes a gauge to measure what's the right thing to do or not. "The future of protest" what's a protest mommy? What's a protester, an activist, an extremist & a terrorist all have in common? A desenting voice or action all devoted towards a some form of change, only the means & method vary in degrees.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 11:39 AM

Exactly, Barry.

Dissenters appear to have always had trouble telling strategy from tactics, while those established have not. Winning a confrontation is not winning the war, being ahead in a poll is not winning the election. It doesn't happen overnight, but only after years of planning, working, and possibly dodging and dying. At the end, you might have to compromise to get the best deal for the most people.

The Ukraine right now makes the US and the UK look sick.

Here's a scenario.

The WTO announces that it's gonna meet in, oh, say, Denver. Immediately the Denver PD, the Secret Service, the FBI and all the rest start making plans to "contain" the protests. This is their job (never forget that!), and they are very, very good at it. The dissenters also make their plans...via personal visits, via snail mail if necessary, but NOT by landline phone or cell phone or email or fax as these can all be intercepted.

But the dissenters plans have already been laid -- they only have to be activated and tweaked for the city.

The protestors and the cops start to arrive. The area around the meeting place is closed off, businesses are closed, cops everywhere....

And on the day of the WTO meeting, battalions of police are in place. And nothing happens. I mean nothing. No crowds of protestors, no giants puppets, nothing on the streets except cops and the occassional scrap of paper. An announcement is sent to the media from the dissenters, stating their case against the WTO, and that's it. No interviews with the "protestors" are given, only with the cops.

So what's gained?

First, you've cost the Man tons of money. They can't send the cops back, they have to keep them ready, because they work on what might happen (and all the dissenters have very quietly gone home). Second, you've hit the financial community in pocketbook for (in their view) no reason. Third, playing this game at the next WTO meeting will make the cops less ready. And then you actually do something.

Thinking outside the box....

That's tactics, and that's used to win a battle.

Dismantling the WTO is the objective. How to do this via what battles is strategy. What's needed to win the battles is logistics (how to get all the protestors out of Denver without the cops noticing, in the above example, or feeding and housing them).

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 03:20 PM

I agree that the future of protest is changing and, in fact, must change. When the govt., police, riot squads, etc. are all waiting for you, whats the point? 'Dissenters' are outgunned. How many people are going to risk that?

I think boycotts and general strikes coupled with written statements to the media, are probably the most effective way to get the attention of those who are in a position to change policy. What we need is to put our energy into an umbrella group which represents the many voices who want change. In unity there is strength.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: GUEST,Barry Finn
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 05:23 PM

I'd agree with dianavan that boycotts & general strikes are just a few of the powerfull tools in a protester's arsenal but when was the last time you can name an effective boycott & have we, in the US ever staged a general nation wide strike. Who could've stopped the massive protests against civil rights & the Viet Nam war? These days there just doesn't seem to be enough of the spirit, stomach or willingness to rise up to the task. Motivating people, IMHO is the 1st major step that we can't get past.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 05:34 PM

Barry - Who could have stopped the massive strikes? Remember Kent State and the people others who died for civil rights? I don't think we can overlook the fact that many have been deterred by riot squads, etc. I know that when I was young, it didn't stop me but once I had children, I had to think twice.

The young people today are more concerned about attaining an education and/or employment than they are with marching and protesting. I do believe there are enough people (maybe 50% or more) who can protest in ways that do not jeopardize the security of their families. Looking at how the animal rights people have done it may be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 05:56 PM

The animal rights people are the periphery -- the issue does not touch very many people. Animal rights folks are either laughed at or thought silly. When they turn loose a bunch of minks, for instance, they are thought criminals who are taking the livelihood from the mink farmer. And for a bunch of movie stars, who haven't missed a meal and don't worry about their heating bill, to say "don't eat meat" or "don't wear fur" to those who...well, you get the idea.

Look for real issues, and stay focused on one or two of them. The environment in this area, how the Administration's logging policies are going to affect you, for instance. Remember that all politics is local, and if it doesn't affect me,/i>, buddy, I don't give a damn.

And put your money AND LIFE where your mouth is. "...The khaki coats are hung in the closet/Near the furs" says it all, condemning the pseudos on both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 06:38 PM

Of course, animal rights people are the periphery. They have, however, been extremely effective and are a threat to the existing economy. Lets learn from them.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Dec 04 - 06:49 PM

I disagree, dianavan. They are not a threat to the economy as a whole; they are a potential threat to a very small segment of the economy, and I suspect that the FBI could round the whole bunch up in a very short time if it was necessary to do so.

Instead, they let them go so that they can keep an eye on them -- and so that they don't get involved in more serious stuff that might be harder to deal with.

Consider what would happen if a serious threat to, oh, the automotive industry evolved. Or to the food distribution industry. The thought of a hungry middle class should frighten the upper classes, if they've thought about it.

Real revolution would happen if the bread and circuses went away. And I'm not talking about some intellectual exercise -- I mean blood-in-the-streets burning-bodies revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 11:20 AM

Rap...The simplicity of the tactics employed by the animal rights people, would suggest that any "blood on the streets" would be from reaction, not revolution.

As with Al Qaeda, very small numbers of operatives can cause great financial damage, and the reaction would take the form of even more of our rights and freedoms being suppressed.
Identity cards,limitation on travel,internment without trial,ect ect ect....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 01:00 PM

Long live capitalism.

I just love making good money.

People who seem to complain the most just don't seem to make it.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 03:40 PM

Ake, there have been no bloodless revolutions. Even the Czech Revolution of the 1990s was paid with blood in 1968. Nor did I ever say that the blood wouldn't be shed as a reaction to the dissent. What I am saying is that if you truly want a revolution in a country you'd better be willing to suffer and die for it.

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 04:05 PM

Well Martin your right again, I dont make a lot of money ,but there again I find I dont need a lot. Having sussed the con, I live very simply and relatively cheaply.

I know your takin the piss, but seriously I would like everyone to have a decent standard of living,but Im sorry to say that in the UK for every one whos making good money, there's another three on the breadline.
Anyway , Im still laughing at the wisecracks so things cant be so bad..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 04:36 PM

Rap...The point is, the tactic of "economic terrorism" at last gives the weak a chance to affect how the powerful rule.
Our democracy is so unfair and weighted against the weak,that there has been no alternative but to devise a new strategy.
Capitalism doesn't react to starving children or envirenmental damage, or wrecked communities, but vfor its existence it does depend on financial stability and confidence.

As the 9:11 attack and various other scares have shown, the monolith is not impregnable, and consistent actions against business interests will widen the cracks.

For the first time in my life ,I believe the left have a real chance to retaliate against our masters.

As you say, the right will never give up power without drawing blood, but what is the alternative? Is it to be as Martin says "a future of whinging and pissing" by the psuedo intellectuals,....or on to the barricades?.....I know what side I would like to be on....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Once Famous
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 05:54 PM

That's cool, Ake.

Just watch the commie socialist stuff, OK?

It's not a crime to get a good education and get a good paying job, you know. We here call it "The American Dream."

Subject: RE: BS: The future of protest.
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Dec 04 - 06:13 PM

Yep, Martin. Like I did, going through college on a combination of student loans* and my pay from the Illinois National Guard, working setting tombstones or in the college library, doing inventory for stores right after the Christmas holidays. And paying (partly) for grad school at Case Western Reserve University by the GI Bill and full-time work.

But because I had the doors open to me, I'd like to see them open to others who might want to follow. Too many are now closed.






*Paid every dime back, too, with interest -- as did everyone I know.