Tie-die and slogans don't equal effective protest. But the argument is usually: wear a suit, get elected, then we'll take you seriously. But the syndicalists made the point that engagement with the system of established values blunts the legitimate objection to the system. Sometimes, violence is legitimate. Not the kind of pathetic protest we saw today, but the kind of serious, sustained resistance which the Tolpuddle martyrs, the Diggers, the Fifth Monarchists, the Peasants Revolt, the Monmouth Revolt, the '45, the Rebecca Riots, the Luddites, the Victorians who made early Peelers wear leather collars, the suffragists (just to cite British examples because it would be too easy to mention Irish and other ones) indulged in. One of the things I really respect about the English, Welsh, Scots etc. is that the people used to know how to resist. You cut Charles II's head off and ran plenty of other despots out of town, then forgot about it. Stop accepting that protest has to be 'legitimate': what does that mean? Who defines legitimacy? The American revolutionaries saw themselves as British patriots resisting illegitimate state control, and the police force nothing more than the armed wing of the upper classes for a couple of centuries ( and again during the miners' strike).
Slogans, witty placards and a few smashed windows won't bring about the revolution: it will delay it because it lets off steam. Serious, organised and sustained violence will, as it did in Kenya, Ireland, the 13 colonies, Poland, France, Italy, Cuba and many other countries. The problem with Britain is that the people were trained to legitimise the state because its power was trained on others (marginal groups, foreigners) to the extent that the British (or English, Welsh and Scots) forgot that power resides with them. Goverments rule by assumed consent - time to withdraw it. Today's protests were schoolyard histrionics - the lessons from history are that serious weaponry and strategic plans are required if you want to achieve serious change. Unless, of course, people just want a softer version of the status quo.
1 comment:
But do we need a revolution? Or does the system just need tweaking. The Scandinavian models of democracy have provided arguably the highest quality of life seen by a whole population in the history of the world. There are horrible inequalities within and because of Britain but could these not be largely solved by a fairer tax system and a (if necessary, legally enforced)ethical trade system.
As for the environment, if population levels are to remain constant (and barring some pandemic they are) then although the problems have been caused largely by the excesses of capitalism the solutions must come from the system too. For example, and again staying in Britain, how much got recycled before councils started providing seperate bins?
I know the recycling facilities in this country are still laughable but I'm talking here more about at the level of the household - I know for a fact that everyone in my street recycles their glass because the recycling bins go out on a friday. How many used to make a weekly trip to the bottle bank? An elected Green Party would ensure that glass was effectively recycled.
Very little that needs achieving as far as the environment goes can be achieved without some form of central organisation. Again in Britain: The RSPB and National Trust both protect huge expanses of natural landscape, but they do not protect the environment by protest alone. They have memberships that far outstrip those of any political party in this country (1 million for the RSPB, 3.5 million for the National Trust) Those memberships give them political and economic clout that gives them the power to protect land. Neither organisation is perfect but they do achieve a lot by playing the system.
Violence can be legitimate, obvious examples being South Africa and any colony trying to overthrow it's ruler (although Gandhi's non-cooperation is perhaps a better model). Violence was legitimate in the American civil rights movement but people like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers were, and still are, inspirational to millions because of their non-violent protests.
But violence against the British government today? Is that really necessary? Most of your historic British examples were fighting for their own rights when surely today most people in Europe are protesting for the rights of others.
Public opinion can change things: McDonalds use the fat from their fryers to fuel their delivery vans, they use organic milk and free range eggs, their coffee is rainforest alliance. They do this because of public opinion. Simply put it is good for business. If people stopped buying nescafe because it wasn't fair trade then nescafe would have to trade fairly or close down. The real problem is how do you educate people? Flippant as it sounds perhaps what Britain needs is a left-wing tabloid?
The systems in place can provide help to the 'developing' world by trading fairly with them, recognising their autonomy etc, they could provide money to clean energy research and environmental protection. The key is to control the systems not to destroy them.
I love our little discussions. Do you think we should go on tour? Roll up! Roll up! Come see the liberals slightly disagreeing with each other.
Post a Comment