1100 arrested in NY re Repub convention

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: [QB] I've been on a lot of protests and in my experience they are an extremely effective method of disseminating your ideas and persuading people who were previously on the fence or procrastinating on the issue.

Do you have any figures that show this or are you just going on a "gut feeling"? What have you protested what has changed?

They don't persuade people who're dead set against you, but then again reasonable debate rarely does either (as any regular of these boards should know...).

Actually I have found reasonable debate on this board has changed opinions, including mine. I have also seen election results shift because of live debates. Nixon vs Kennedy being a huge case in point.

[John D Harris]

Nay, it just goes to show Republicans and conservatives have better manners.

[Barry the Sprout]

Yorick, did you have to answer that in three different posts? It makes it hard to quote and respond to.

You allude that I have no figures to support my claim that protests persuade people, yet you then categorically state that "many more" people are turned away? Do you have any figures to support that claim yourself or are you, like me, using personal experience. I started by pointing out I was talking from personal experience, therefore unashamedly not using supporting figures. To criticise me on this ground therefore seems peculiarly irrelevant. You can say that you have a different experience of protests than me, which it sounds like you do, but its hypocritical to criticise me for making statements without supporting evidence and then do the same yourself.

Secondly, in response to the blocking ambulances thing I once again refer to my point about there being a right way and a wrong way to do things. Because I think protests can be effective doesn't mean I think all protests are always effective. Far from it. If a protest blocks an ambulance then you are right, they don't do themselves any favours. But to condemn all protests on that grounds is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. To give an example of a protest changing peoples opinions I can cite a regular protest me and the Trot organisation I'm a member of do at the Isreali embassy. We protest fortnightly outside the embassy because of the imprisonment of the Refuseniks - approx 15 of us with a megaphone, some placards and some leaflets. We regularly get passers by stopping and talking to us, sometimes even joining in (and this is in Kensington...). People join our mailing lists, sign our petitions, go to follow up meetings and turn up at the next protest, even if only for a few minutes it allows us to disseminate our ideas and persuade people to our way of thinking.

Finally I'd like to answer your response to the Lenin quote. You say that Lenin was writing in a time when he had recourse to fewer alternatives than protest. For a start you need to take the quote in the abstract, as ironically Lenin is actually refferring to electoral participation. My use of the quote was to basically support my idea that if you feel strongly about something then you should try everything to change it, however distastful that may seem to you (as participation in the Russian electoral system seemed to Lenin). Secondly I feel your response that things were different doesn't really answer the point. 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? I have no objections to using the "democratic" process, I just don't see why we shouldn't try everything else as well. This objection of yours seems at odds with your other points. Here you imply that protesting is a weapon, but other, better, ones are available. Elsewhere you imply that protesting is only a weapon if it is the equivalent of the Cursed Sword of Beserking +3, as harmful to yourself as your enemy. It can't be both - which is your real reason for rejecting it.

[Timber Loftis]

There were protestors who interrupted the President's speech last night. Sad.

Anyway, I dislike protestors and protesting. It's the lazy man's solution to how to effect social change. Anyone can stand around and bitch about things.

[Yorick]

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 ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: There were protestors who interrupted the President's speech last night. Sad. Anyway, I dislike protestors and protesting. It's the lazy man's solution to how to effect social change. Anyone can stand around and bitch about things.

PREACH IT!! BROTHER T.L. preach it! [img]smile.gif[/img]