|
|
Post by chris on Nov 3, 2007 17:12:53 GMT 10
Hi, I was just wondering what the general consensus was out there of like alternative protesting. Do you guys think its ok if a protest gets a little out of hand? Is it a good thing or does it give the general public a bad idea of what Anarchism is all about? I personally have mixed feelings. I'm against violence but i think violence sometimes has a use.
The reason I'm asking is a few days ago i was watching some youtube clips of Greek Anarchists. Man those guys make the rest of us look like pussies.
|
|
|
|
Post by agentsaboteur on Nov 4, 2007 21:17:38 GMT 10
By alternative im assuming you mean civil disobediance/violent protest? depends in what context. You'll usually find that any sort of protesting is often met with police violence first as opposed to protesters attacking the police first. In the case of any major demonstration, i suggest being mindful of the fact that the police will target anarchists wether there in Black Bloc gear or not. On that note if you choose to take part in violent protest make sure you have comrades that agree that thats the best course of action to be undertaken. This could be prior or during the protest as police will co-ordinated there actions according to how the protesters are behaving and vise-versa. Attention is both good and bad concerning the general public. the corporate media will obviously show the protest in a negative context because they sell papers and news stories that condemn violence. It works both ways as some people of the public may be inspired by these attempts to disrupt a summit that obviously is run to only benefit the ruling class, then again it might also alienate people from joining the cause because they dont want to be affiliated with a group that throws rocks at police officers. It all depends what action is taken to achieve what goal. I think violence is extremely useful in fighting against police oppression at summits that are held to benefit the ruling class. But you need to make sure you know what your doing and have a close tight nicked affinity group in order to take out such actions and will help you avoid ending up in the lengthy court process that will more often or not land you in prison. if your reffering to the video where the greeks protest against condelezza rice then yes thats a good example. you'll see that the police shoot gas and pepper spray at protesters as soon as they meet the police lines, hence why the cocktails are thrown very early on  good video |
|
|
|
Post by LiteraryPiano on Nov 7, 2007 16:59:43 GMT 10
Hi, I was just wondering what the general consensus was out there of like alternative protesting. Just for clarities sake, there isn't "a" form of protesting, nor is there an "alternate" form, there is just protesting, or resisting, and different techniques and tactics. It depends on the context. In no way is it good if people get hurt or beaten by the police, which is so common anyway. But do "we" disagree with it? Well, I won't speak for Alarm, or anyone else but myself here, but I'd say I don't, and say, that sometimes it's necessary to use "alternate" - i.e. non-peaceful forms - of protest; essentially, taking the situation from "protest" to "Resistance". In times of repression, and police violence, we should defend ourselves, and resist. Honestly, we could plant a fucking vegetable garden to feed the homeless, and the poor, and do a whole lot of other good things, but never are anarchists going to be portrayed as good people for being anarchists, or are there ideas going to be respected by the Media or the government (for very obvious reasons). Though, these tactics can, in some circumstances, give them a little more ammunition, due to the power of liberals and conservatives in the media. I'd agree. Indeed! haha |
|
|
|
Post by blackpurpleredpink on Nov 14, 2007 1:31:47 GMT 10
Can someone fix my quote tags? I can't see where i've gone wrong  That sounds like a contradiction? You're against violence but you think it can be useful? I mean, to support violent revolution you don't have to be 'pro-violence' - i don't think violence is desirable - but necessary. But some pussies are beautiful? Besides, i don't think all of those greek anarchists are 'guys' anyway- well at least i hope not... macho posturing = fail. Of course. I mean, at present oz is not a hub of revolutionary activity. Most people are happy finding meaning in their possessions, they're not happy at their jobs - but as long as their standard of living keeps rising (and for majority it probably will) they could care less about what the government or the police are doing... or about 'capitalism' (a word that oddly enough, is not in most peoples vernacular) or the wage system. Happiness is what you buy, or how long you can spend away from your job getting pissed. In this context, the social revolution is not exactly blossoming - most people see no reason to be angry with the social order - even if they are unhappy at work they fear unemployment - and even less view the police or the state as a legitimate target for this anger. That said, people DO deserve to be angry - and if they want to fight back, well they have my support. To be honest, orderly protests often border on the religious - in terms of ritual, procession etc. Sure, i think people fighting back is a good thing. But more important than any violence that may occur is the very fact that are people who are willing to confront the state; people that think that it's legitimate and something they want to be a part of. The world needs more people like that. Unless violent protest becomes a recurring thing, i really don't think there will be enough going on for people to form any hard and fast opinions on much of anything. 'Public opinion' is merely the opinion the media presents to the public; it's not what people actually think. And as far as the media is concerned anarchists are 'bad' - all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by LiteraryPiano on Nov 14, 2007 14:57:45 GMT 10
BPRP, I dont think you can put the member title in the quote. I think you'll have to do it without it |
|
|
|
Post by spikeyred on Nov 14, 2007 14:59:39 GMT 10
Unless violent protest becomes a recurring thing, i really don't think there will be enough going on for people to form any hard and fast opinions on much of anything.
At the same time, there is such a thing as a 'primacy effect' in sterotyping and prejudice etc. Here's a definition from my psych text book... "the initial impression we receive of someone\something is more influential than any information we receive later". Therefore, the way the media labels and manipulates violent protest can be important in the way that large sections of the 'general public' view various left movements. |
|
|
|
Post by blackpurpleredpink on Nov 14, 2007 15:16:41 GMT 10
Fortunately the media is not usually interested in making ideological labels (well correct ones at least) for protesters... usually they just use terms like 'violent protesters' etc. So i don't think the primacy effect has much of an influence on peoples opinions of anarchism; and besides the important thing is not that people 'like' anarchism or anarchists or whatever, but that they are receptive to our ideas - regardless of whether they view them as being 'anarchist' ideas or not. To be honest, the terms anarchist/anarchism have little social currency; they're essentially archaic... Anyway, I'm not really interested in building an 'anarchist' movement as much as i am in seeing people develop a critical consciousness and a drive to transform reality along revolutionary lines... regardless of the ideological label (well anti-capitalist of course ), but you get my drift. |
|
|
|
Post by spikeyred on Nov 14, 2007 21:03:01 GMT 10
Haha, thats fine, I'm a marxist.
But I still do think that Primacy effect is an important point in labels because if the media does, and sometimes they do, use a correct or related label it has a certain effect on the ability of those identified with said label to even get a person to let them have idea's explained, let alone have idea's be explained.
However, this is not an incredibly important debate too be had. And TBH I can't be bothered thrashing out over whether the primacy effect has anything to do with the effect of violent protesting on the wider publics perceptions, it's not a major concern for me at present :-P
|
|
|
|
Post by fuckjudas on Nov 20, 2007 16:16:51 GMT 10
I disagree. The other day my dad walked in whilst I was reading an essay on www.anarchistblackcross.com and said to me "Jack, what are you doing looking at Nazi websites". The reason that he associated Anarchism with Fascism is because the only exposure he has to it is during the violent protests he sees on TV. In my opinion if anarchism is going to gain any sense of legitimacy it is much more important to educate the public on it's true meaning than violent protesting, until then, we will be considered little more than thugs by the majority. |
|
