Quote:
Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:
Either things need changing or they don't. If they do then I fail to see why you would turn away from one instrument of change just because another is available - why not use both?
|
Because there are only so many hours in a day. Only so many days in a life. Effectiveness would seem to me to be paramount. It's fine if you're a single student. What happens if you're married and have three kids, and you get home and the kids are crying because they're hungry, and you have no food because you weren't working, you were protesting?
Or, you have no food because students protesting removed your ability to feed your children.
Effectiveness, winning people to you are everything. In a democracy policies change in the "court of public opinion". You talk about a handful of people taking pamphlets. Does that influence Israels decision? Do they care about the protests of a few English?
Votes in Israel is what they care about. Income. Ability to buy weapons. These things are what would change Israeli policy.
You wrote a good post and made fair point. However I was not citing proof of people being turned away. I used mysefl - an existing sympathiser being turned away, and asked the rhetorical question "How many more". For my proof I merely need to present the number of policy decisions that are/were still in place despite protests being made. They don't work. Protests don't make people buy organic (non Battery) eggs. Presenting a cheap tasty organic egg and marketing it in the media makes people buy organic eggs, which force battery farms out of existence. I have seen activists in tears saying "people will not pay a little more to save a hen". And that is something as simple as eggs.
"The will of the people" and economics. Money and votes. That's where it's at.
=======
edit:
As for Lenin, I stand by what he said. His time and circumstances were totally different to what exists in the democratic west. Light years apart. You have to view his words in the context they were made. The history of oppression, the lack of democratic tradition or faith in democracy, the perceived powerlessness of the serfs, all make for a totally different scenario. In a totalitarian monarchy/dictatorship whatever, there is no vehicle to express discontent. A protest is then, yes, I viable way to go. In a democracy, the people are the ones making the decisions, whether they know it or not. Successful politicians are POPULISTS. The only exception I have seen in recent times in Tony Blair, who did what he believed was right, despite going against populist sentiment - and he's being rewarded with extreme derision and potential job loss. The exeption makes the rule.
In a democracy, when you protest, you're protesting against yourself.
If you're protesting the actions of another country, the same applies. Influence you country first, which then places diplomatic and economic pressure on the culpable country.
Otherwise, I'm sorry Barry, but I firmly believe it's a waste of time and energy: which in my world are vital things I don't have a lot of.
[ 09-03-2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]