1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

protesting about war

Discussion in 'war on terror' started by bezzer, Oct 12, 2001.

  1. bezzer

    bezzer !i!iCommodore 64!i!i

    Looking at some of the resent anti war protests on the TV lately (not that their was a lot) of news about them, but what I have seen, seems more or less to be conveying the same slogans using the same anti war symbols. Would it not be better if the protests had a greater depth and breadth? Instead of using the same pacifist slogans, demonstrating dissent form war, would it not be better to present multiple reasons, why the bombings are a bad idea.

    Would it be more productive for people like the CND, not just to simply protest about “no war” thus raising polarised counter argument for pro war. But instead make a more emotional argument like protesting against the right wing, manipulating the events of September the 11th to push forward their own agenda.

    If you are going to any of these events, do you simply go because you don’t want the war to continue? Or does it have something to do with, the economic sanctions against Iraq or the military funding of Israel (putting resent gesture politics aside) or perhaps the bombings in the Balkans? Is it not just a little bit more complex than Afghanistan?

    Yes it is the most immediate problem and one that hopefully does not become the worst humanitarian conflict crises of this millennium so far. But it interconnects with so many different issues. Maybe I have a problem understanding what protest is, I know it is important to show an opperset opinion of descent, to Anglo-American aggression, but… is there a better way of articulating this anti aggression? From a three-line statement with symbols into a full blown argument?

    When the protests are seen on TV, is it productive for the general public (that agree with the war to see simple placards) and I dare say (SWP placards) vaguely outlining the anti war sentiment. Would it be better to argue against everything, which is wrong? Would that not make it harder for people to simply dismiss and stick in a pigeonhole labelled “ ignore “.

    Everything, which has happened with in the last month, is culmination of a lot of different issues and issues which, have been long argued about in the anti-capitalist movement. And now all of a sudden in this present climate, the population has never been more in formed by international politics, so maybe that’s why now (with these anti war protests) we should be talking out loud about every thing else...from kayto earth summit to asylum.

    It would not only be better to put a more comprehensive message across, but also in a lot of the main stream media , (and when I say that I mean the liberal left as well) has commented in the last few weeks that the events of September the 11th have knocked the anti capitalist movement ((and I do hate those words)) for nine. Maybe they are wrong?, maybe they are right?, but none the less, would it help to cement are many different opinions? It interests me to think what an anti capitalist protest on the size of last mayday would do right now.

    But on the flip side, would it better to keep a distance?
  2. Cautious Fred

    Cautious Fred commie troublemaker

    Much of the anti-capitalist movement has, quite rightly, transformed itself into an anti-war movement.

    With the bombings in Afganistan, it's become increasingly clear that NATO, the US military, the UN Security Council etc are simply the armed wing of globalisation.

    In opposing this war, which is a symptom of capitalism, we're also opposing capitalism itself.
  3. nomoney

    nomoney worldsocialism.org/spgb

    Bez
    Unfortunately all political groups/anti-capitalist movement exist only from one campaign to another.

    They are more and more single issue organisations, without much more vision of the future than tomorrow.

    They are not politically educated so they are happy to rely only on implementing small local reforms.
    When the reform is granted by the government campaigners pack up their toys and coming bach into non-existance.

    Issue of class never appears in their literature, because it would only spoil "flow of the argument against this war".
    Here we are. Let them be as they are.
  4. Termite Man

    Termite Man zombie flesh eater

    The single issue of stopping war now is more important now than , once war has ceased then it's time to examine what caused the war and how , in the future we may stop it , there are people losing their lives as we speak , this must end !
  5. nomoney

    nomoney worldsocialism.org/spgb

    and 100k humans die every day from the malnutrition, war or not war
    it has been going for some 50 years now

    this war will last for some 20 years, it's a war for the controll over the oil
  6. Pauly

    Pauly Guest

    Much of the anti-capitalist movement has, quite rightly, transformed itself into an anti-war movement because fundamentally it defines itself as an anti-anything movement.
  7. William of Walworth

    William of Walworth Festographer

    Bezzer. I agree there should be a broader and more imaginative and colourful range of slogans and flags. For fux sake don't rely on identikit monolithically designed off the shelf typography and slogans from the SWP/GR to up the innovatoryness though!

    Sorry to be sectarian, but its true. There are too many of those arse-dull banners at every protest.

    I wasn't even on the march so I have limited room to comment but from the admittedly limited coverage, for every one colourful/individual flag there seemed to be six from Standard Slogan and Design Brand issue.

    Or perhaps it was more varied if you were actually there.

    W of W
  8. Nemo

    Nemo Last in x 15

    Pauly, the anti-capitalist movement per se does not exist. It is a meaningless term introduced by the media to prevent the spread of 'alternative' political ideologies such as communism and anarchism. Neither of these are 'anti-' very much but they are described as such by cynical media manipulation.

    PEACE TO ALL!

    [ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
  9. ICB

    ICB now then

    Nemo, anarchy is anti-archy (archy=rule or government) and communism is anti-property.

    Perhaps the media bundle various movements up into the category "anti-capitalist" because they need a convenient way of dismissing those who align themselves with defunct ideologies.

    It amazes me that there are still people happy to consider communism or anarchy as reasonable alternatives to some form of representative democracy.
  10. ttaM

    ttaM New Member

    Epi_cure_us?

    Squeese me, baking powder?

    There is world of difference between a democracy and a polyarchy. As there is between opposition to the globial capitalist elite's selfserving agenda and some kind of comparison to communism or indeed anarchism.

    Twat. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
  11. inflatable jesus

    inflatable jesus I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders

    bez.

    I agree wholeheartedly with what youre saying, however maybe we should remember that it's still early days and this war could potentially last for a lot longer.

    In intresting parralell might be with the anti-vietnam movement in the states. Despite what the media likes to believe, it was not all about hippies, acid and love. The protest movement also became entwined with the Black civil rights movement. The incorporation of radical left-wing ideas also led the protesters began questioning the legitimacy of the state itself. At which point the govt began using the tried and tested methods of brute force and stiffling dissent by incorporation of 'leaders' into the elite (divide and rule).

    The lessons are there if we want to learn from them. However I'd also be wary about trying to force our opinions down other people's throats. There are a lot of other legitimate reasons for opposing this war.
  12. ICB

    ICB now then

    Big_red_one

    Err, I don't see how your post relates to mine, sorry.

    You say:

    There is world of difference between a democracy and a polyarchy.

    I grant that there are differences in the definitions of these two generic political systems.

    You say:

    There is world of difference ...between opposition to the globial capitalist elite's selfserving agenda and some kind of comparison to communism or indeed anarchism.[sic]

    Which I find a meaningless or uninterpretable statement.

    Perhaps you equate my phrase "some sort of representative democracy" with your phrase "the globial capitalist elite" which you have no grounds to do, other than perversity.

    What are you trying to say exactly?

    Why be derogatory?
  13. 0742

    0742 Guest

  14. inflatable jesus

    inflatable jesus I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders

    epi.

    for a start communism isnt incompatible with representative democracy.

    And I dont think that you can really describe anarchy in the same way as those two ideologies. There are various strains of anarchist thought, only some of which make recommendations for a new system of exchange. I think you can best anarchism as a commitment to seriously examine power relationships and hold them to reason not a dogmatic anti-representation ethos.

    And what i think big red one was saying (and i understood it fine) is that we've got a piss poor example of representative democracy. And that the defence of it shouldn't be in opposition to imaginary other scarier systems.

    Why shouldn't it be critisised from radical left viewpoints?
  15. Anti-capitalism is hardly a "radical left" viewpoint - it's the viewpoint of 90% of the world's population!
  16. ICB

    ICB now then

    ij:

    epi.
    for a start communism isn't incompatible with representative democracy.


    I must beg to differ, although it may transpire that we have wildly divergent definitions of communism if you can assert this. See Karl Popper in "The Open Society and its Enemies" (1945). The principle differences being:
    • the right to property
      the right of the governed to change their government
      the ability to exercise free will and choice

    And I dont think that you can really describe anarchy in the same way as those two ideologies.

    I agree, just as well I didn't then :)

    There are various strains of anarchist thought, only some of which make recommendations for a new system of exchange. I think you can best [define] anarchism as a commitment to seriously examine power relationships and hold them to reason not a dogmatic anti-representation ethos.

    I didn't set it up as "a dogmatic anti-representation ethos" although it is often espoused in this way. Nor can I best [define] anarchism in the way that you suggest (I'd call that "enquiries in political philosophy"). I define anarchism thus:

    "a doctrine of political philosophy which maintains that every form of government is harmful, and that the individual should be absolutely free to act as he thinks proper"

    or more practically:

    "Belief that an ideal human society should have no organized government, often accompanied by a practical disregard for the authority of existing governments."

    there are undoubtedly different interpretations of what this actually means in practice but the important point is that Anarchism bears the same relationship to Democratism or Communism as Aethism does to Christianity or Islam i.e. is constitutes an order shift beyond the parameters and scope of these ideologies to deal with the root concepts and assumptions that underpin them. The definition you give is part of this.

    And what i think big red one was saying (and i understood it fine) is that we've got a piss poor example of representative democracy.

    I agree that we have. I didn't say that we had a good one. However, I still don't see where big_red says this, although it may be a natural interpretation of what he says if you know him or his views, which I'm afraid I don't.

    And that the defence of it shouldn't be in opposition to imaginary other scarier systems.

    Why shouldn't it be critisised from radical left viewpoints?


    No reason, I simply said that:

    "It amazes me that there are still people happy to consider communism or anarchy as reasonable alternatives to some form of representative democracy"

    Note "some form", not our present form. Until someone can come up with a reasonable case as to why I should change my view, i.e. present solid arguments that clearly show why communism or anarchy might be preferrable, then my view will remain as stated.
  17. Well, obviously if you choose to use Popper's definition, then you have to talk about what "the right to own property" means.
  18. ICB

    ICB now then

    Do I? Why? ;)

    Actually I wasn't using any definition of Popper's but mentioned him since he gave the first solid refutation of Marxist theory (which many people equate with communism, rightly or wrongly).

    Of course there are many understandings of what communism means ranging from recommending the communual lifestyle as preferrable for small groups (which can be done within a democracy and is therefore a compatible view in IJ's sense) all the way up to hardcore Marxism. However, I believe most people see communism as something stronger than the idea that living in communes is "better", which maybe is more properly described as "soft communitarianism".
  19. danray

    danray Guest

    epi-cure-us said "present solid arguments that clearly show why communism or anarchy might be preferrable, then my view will remain as stated. "

    I'd also like to here these arguements. Being someone who's not quite as clued up on politics n all that, as some of the people on this site, it would be nice to hear for once what you all think the alternatives really are. I've read alot of posts arguing for arnarchy but admit to not really understanding what / how that would manifest itself in a way that is more beneficial than the current system. I don't actually believe that"a doctrine of political philosophy which maintains that every form of government is harmful, and that the individual should be absolutely free to act as he thinks proper" would be a good thing.

    On the point about more differentiation of protest banners i have two points.
    Firstly everyone carrying the same message shows the unification of feeling encapsulated by that protest.
    Secondly given the limited coverage these things do receive, a single message, is your best chance of get that message to a wider tv audience. If we all marched down whitehall shouting about different issues then it wouldn't have been a protest to stop the war. If you want to protest about something else then all you have to do is organise one.
    We already have members of this group complaining that peeps like the SWP are bandwaggoning their issues on the backs of legitimate protest, everyone joining in the act would just make matters worse.
  20. Cautious Fred

    Cautious Fred commie troublemaker

    If people don't like SWP placards they should make their own. What's the problem?
  21. kissthecat

    kissthecat Guest

    That is too complicated enough Fred. Or do I mean not complicated enough?
  22. Cautious Fred

    Cautious Fred commie troublemaker

    YOU WILL NEED:

    A small stick, a square of cardboard, paint, paint brush, sellotape.

    INSTRUCTIONS:

    Sellotape the stick to the cardboard. Paint slogan on cardboard using paint, paintbrush and words.

    For your slogan, why not try: "Stop this bloody war. Fight US/UK imperialism." (oh - bollocks ... can't have that - that's what the SWP placards said).

    [ 16 October 2001: Message edited by: Cautious Fred ]
  23. Kaka Tim

    Kaka Tim Ready to Riot

    I saw a 'posh and becks say stop the war!' but yeah there were thousands of CND and SWP placards.
    Not everyone is wildly original and are quite happy to have an 'off the peg' slogan.
    I still reckon this is better than no placards at all.
    Instead of moaning, get lets get making our own.

    Actually I thought the rally in Trafalger Square was an anti-climax - we needed a big banging sound system and a fuck load more noise from everyone there. Next time?

    Oh yeah, as for the 'movement' being about being 'anti' everything - I'd argue that Capitalism is Anti-Human.

    [ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Kaka Tim ]
  24. inflatable jesus

    inflatable jesus I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders

    EPI.

    Clearly we do have completely different views of what all three of those terms mean. I guess that's what happenns when you meddle around in defunct ideologies. ;)

    Also it's not my job to try and convince you of the merits of communism or anarchy (or anyone else around here for that matter). That's a rather bizzarre request dont you think?

    Youre quite entitled to hold any opinion your little heart desires so long as you argue it logically and without being deliberately offensive. And anyone else is entitled to argue with you. We're not all trying to recruit you you know.

    It may also be worth mentioning that the only people who seem to have the slightest intrest in communism on U75 are those who are trying to make arguments against anti-capitalism. I've never known any U75er to describe themselves as a communist. I was merely pointing out that there are communist systems that use elected representatives (doesn't china have elections?). If you wanted to talk about their relative merits then that's a different matter entirely.

    On the anarchy thing. I really wouldnt accept either of those definitions as how I view anarchism.

    Absolute freedom is a bit of an oxymoron for me. Freedom can only make sense as a relative concept, ie to be more or less constrained by x,y or z. Unless youre God youre always going to be constrained by something or other.

    While I'd probably agree that an ideal society would have no goverment. I dont think you have to be aiming for utopia to agree with anarchism. Do you seriously believe that a perfect form of representative democracy will ever exist? And if not does that mean that you shouldnt attempt to increase 'democratic accountability' if that's your thang.

    Also, while govenment is often the focus of anarchist critiques, it's concerned with all hierarchy and power. For me it's any act that increases the amount of freedom in the world. It's about working to overturn exploitation wherever it's found.

    This being the case, why should it not be preferable to unconditional support to the current 'representative democracy' that has clearly failed miserably in sorting out some very basic problems in society.

    The Christianity/Atheism analogy is flawed but useful. Yes, it represents a significant change in some basic concepts. But atheism does not assume to do the job of christianity, it doesnt make plans for weddings, funerals etc, it dosnt give you something to do on a Sunday morning.

    Atheism is not a religion and anarchism is not a political system. Neither of them have all the answers. Representative democracy (like Christianity) only pretends to.

    ok I'm getting too in to this analogy now. so I'm going to quit rambling.

    IJ
  25. ttaM

    ttaM New Member

    Sorry for being derogatory Epi_cure_us, I just dont have your faith in the EXISTING, so called
    'democratic' systems, which are in fact polyarchies; thus form elites within society by their
    very nature; see anything relating to 'policy networks' and the like. Also those of us who chose to align our selves with 'defunct ideologies' and 'amaze' you by considering them reasonable alternatives to representative democracy (or do you meen Capitalism?) might just get anoyed when you rubbish ideologies without, it seems, properly understanding them.

    On another point I dont think it realy matters what the plackards look like, but that we develop a solid alternative to what Kaka Tim correctly calls an Anti-Human way of carving up the spoils of our world
  26. ICB

    ICB now then

    Chaps:

    You still seem to be assuming a lot about what I'm saying rather than looking closely at the words I'm using.

    e.g. I didn't request that anyone present an argument about a better form of government than representative democracy, nor did I suggest that it was anyone's job round here (although it may be, any professors of Political Philosophy out there?)

    I know I'm entitled to my opinion but that I should argue it logically and dispassionately, that's what I'm doing. My heart's actually quite big too ;) As for recruitment, it would be entertaining if someone tried. :)

    As for definitions, anarchy is an-archy i.e. against archy or governmental institutions. It has a very clear and direct concptual link to atheism in that the anarchist says "we don't need (cannot reasonably justify) government" and the atheist says "we don't need (cannot reasonably justify) a super-natural all-powerful being" whereas all the alternatives assume on the one hand that we do need some form of government and on the other hand that there is some form of super-natural explanation for the world. So IJ is completely correct is asserting that "atheism is not a religion and anarchism is not a political system", in fact they are both rejections of those. However, the statement prior to this is confused since it is true that atheism doesn't do the job of christianity in exactly the same way that it is true that anarchism doesn't do the of government, i.e. both claim that there is no legitimate job to be done.

    I never suggested that a perfect form of government could exist and I certainly think that an increase in proper democratic accountability would be a good thing.

    Freedom is a massively important topic in all this. My view is that freedom only arises when there are constraints, you can't have freedom without them. In a truly anarchist world we'd have very little freedom or choice, if any. (See Le Guin's "The Disposessed" for a wonderful thought experiment in what would it really mean to have an anarchic world). I want to be free from the threat that someone who has a brain defect from birth or a nasty bump on the head tries to kill my children (which could easily arise in an anarchic situation). In order to secure this freedom I need some form of protection in law, hence governance, hence archy not anarchy.

    I do not equate representative democracy with capitalism. I'd be pretty daft if I did as one is a political system, the other an economic system. I grant that this confusion is a common enough problem though.

    I didn't rubbish ideologies, I don't have the time, space or learning to do that and it's already been done by professionals. However, I do have an understanding of what these concepts involve having studied political philosophy in my younger days (although I confess that ethics and logic were stronger suits).

    I stand by what I said, where are the arguments that these are reasonable views to hold? It's not anyone's job here to present them or reference the work of others unless they want a stab at changing peoples' views.

    Perhaps I should add that I don't take any of this personally and I hope no one else does. :)

    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
    Albert Einstein
  27. bezzer

    bezzer !i!iCommodore 64!i!i

    Cautious fred…

    “Much of the anti-capitalist movement has, quite rightly, transformed itself into an anti-war movement.
    With the bombings in Afganistan, it's become increasingly clear that NATO, the US military, the UN Security Council etc are simply the armed wing of globalisation.
    In opposing this war, which is a symptom of capitalism, we're also opposing capitalism itself.”

    I totally agree that the anti war protests are part of globalisation, but i question that a lot of people are from an anti-captilist dessent, but instead from a muslim ethnic minoritys. but slogans such as “ no war “ give no lead to emphise on these points you have mentioned.

    Nomoney…

    “Bez
    Unfortunately all political groups/anti-capitalist movement exist only from one campaign to another.
    They are more and more single issue organisations, without much more vision of the future than tomorrow.
    They are not politically educated so they are happy to rely only on implementing small local reforms.
    When the reform is granted by the government campaigners pack up their toys and coming bach into non-existance.
    Issue of class never appears in their literature, because it would only spoil "flow of the argument against this war".
    Here we are. Let them be as they are.”

    But I don’t think joining a political party such as the spg?? ( forgotten the name name ) ;) is solution to solidarity of people on the vast aray of issues involved. The only govermentle reform I think of ( from public protest/riot is the poll tax ). the objective is more to make an impact on public opinion. Which proberly goes part of the way to explaning the carnival atmosfere on a lot of protests ( which some people in the hard left do not like ).

    There seems to be a more longgevity objective involved. Its strange to think that carnival has its roots in colinal plantations, as a way of eleviating socail presusres between the the plantation owners and slaves ( allmost like a piss take ). Slaves would dress up like the plantation owners and dance in a parade. But it was not only confined to the americas, when tou look at antropoligey it seems to a constante thru out most cultures, in one form of the othere.


    Mr zero…

    The single issue of stopping war now is more important now than , once war has ceased then it's time to examine what caused the war and how , in the future we may stop it , there are people losing their lives as we speak , this must end !”

    agree, but as tony benn mentioned in question time this week “ if america wants oil, then it will have to pay the full price like the rest of us “. Basicaly I can see this war issue riseing again, we need to look at the reasons now. ( the longgivity objective) these are the questions, that the western coalitions are trying to avoide, and bury as deep as they can. And also lets not forget, the powers that (be) certainly have long term projections, but at what cost to human life ?

    pauley…

    “Much of the anti-capitalist movement has, quite rightly, transformed itself into an anti-war movement because fundamentally it defines itself as an anti-anything movement.”

    Pauley a share your name in real life, but alas not your opinins. Strange logic you have there ? are we anti-socalism ? yes some people are, but others not.



    W of W...

    “Bezzer. I agree there should be a broader and more imaginative and colourful range of slogans and flags. For fux sake don't rely on identikit monolithically designed off the shelf typography and slogans from the SWP/GR to up the innovatoryness though!
    Sorry to be sectarian, but its true. There are too many of those arse-dull banners at every protest.
    I wasn't even on the march so I have limited room to comment but from the admittedly limited coverage, for every one colourful/individual flag there seemed to be six from Standard Slogan and Design Brand issue.
    Or perhaps it was more varied if you were actually there.
    W of W”

    Looking at the war coalation website they have made the reasons for oposing the war very clear http://www.stopwar.org.uk/reading.htm and respect to them to, for setting up such a comprehensive site in the short time span. but if did not read the posts on urban 75 and I never visted the war coalation website, I am not sure that I would understande why people are aposing the wars. I know its propberly an imposible equation, but how can we put a clearer message across ?

    I was with a mate the othere day, driving in the car and listing to the radio, I think it was 5 live, somebody phoned in and had a rant about sanctions on iraqu, and as a result, killing the population throw poor medical care and malnutrion. My freands response was… well if they lifted the sanctions then saddam hussain would kill people with chemical weapons ( perfect autoque response ) how can you explane the situation to somebody when there intial response is that? He Did not evan take into account that thosands of people are dieing every month, but prefered to pursue the mythical hypothisis that if we help irque people to live, via revitilsing there econmey, then it would be biological world war fare. ( I wont go into the pros and cons ) but how do you make a more direct argument, to people who seem to take so much on surface values of issues ?

    The thing is with my mate, I know if I started a counter argument aganst his remarks, then he would get more defensive, and his convictions, in what he said would become more deeply resolved in his self. My point is.. plato Socratiese always used to reason in his philisopical debaits, by asking people questions about there values, and never giving them ground to what he actuley thoght about the issue, untill they had quesioned there and reasoned with them selves. So maybe its not so much “ no war “ but… “ why is there war “.

    Nemo…

    “Pauly, the anti-capitalist movement per se does not exist. It is a meaningless term introduced by the media to prevent the spread of 'alternative' political ideologies such as communism and anarchism. Neither of these are 'anti-' very much but they are described as such by cynical media manipulation.”

    Agree, to cerain exetent and for the reason that they are lazey hacks.

    Epi_cure_us

    “Perhaps the media bundle various movements up into the category "anti-capitalist" because they need a convenient way of dismissing those who align themselves with defunct ideologies.”

    I agree with this as well.( lazy hacks )

    “It amazes me that there are still people happy to consider communism or anarchy as reasonable alternatives to some form of representative democracy.”

    Have you herd of the concept of… of pandoras box ;), as big red one... goes on to point out. :)

    Inflatible jesus…

    “In intresting parralell might be with the anti-vietnam movement in the states. Despite what the media likes to believe, it was not all about hippies, acid and love. The protest movement also became entwined with the Black civil rights movement. The incorporation of radical left-wing ideas also led the protesters began questioning the legitimacy of the state itself. At which point the govt began using the tried and tested methods of brute force and stiffling dissent by incorporation of 'leaders' into the elite (divide and rule).”

    To true and hopefully a lot of this anti teroism legilation does not infringe to much on are own cival rights. One of the related issues that worries me a lot at the moment, is the detention of asylum seekers, imigration in conjunction with special branch of the police, can contrive a lot more reasons to detain people seeking asylum. Which is another issue related to this war, that should be connected to this movement. No dought the dover post and daily mail will be haveing a field day “ clamping down on the human sewage “.

    The out come of the 60s some would argue was the race realtions act and sex discrimination act, I don’t think such good legislation is on the new neo liberal agenda.

    Kaka tim…

    “Actually I thought the rally in Trafalger Square was an anti-climax - we needed a big banging sound system and a fuck load more noise from everyone there. Next time?”

    Iam up for that :)
  28. PatelsCornerShop

    PatelsCornerShop watching you watching me

    Bezzer.

    We all need to repeat the SAME message. Again...and again.....and again.....

    So what the protestors are doing is actually quite good. This is how advertising works. This is how Blair's media campaigns actually work. It is how PR campaigns are run. It is professional.

    If we decide to get more sophisticated and more 'in depth' it will dilute this message and will be far less effective. You regular person out there hasn't the time to know WHY you want to stop the war and spend a full hour finding out. What is important is that they know that thousands of people are out there against the war. It's as simple as that. Then they'll start asking the questions themselves.

    I am happy that protestors have decided to go under the 'Stop The War' banner. It might seem to us like a pretty obvious message, but to millions of people out there, it's the furthest thing from their minds and so we need to repeat this message in it's most basic form.

    Again...and again...and again...
  29. PatelsCornerShop

    PatelsCornerShop watching you watching me

    PS.

    If you want to do something in the mainstream media, I have already set up a speaker list of people available to be interviewed by the media, write articles etc.

    If anyone wants to know more, then PM me.
  30. Cautious Fred: You write (to paraphrase)"With the beginning of bombing of Afghanistan, NATO, etc. have proven the armed wing of globalization. By protesting the war, we are protesting capitalism."

    How does that follow? It appears you have tried to wed two unconnected ideas. It's like trying to put a rock and some milk into a blender, and calling it a milkshake.

    Inf. Jesus. I would contend that you have the order of events reversed with respect to the US anti war movement in the Vietnam era.

    The government of the US in the sixties and before had been very repressive, but social change was bringing intense pressure from below. This pressure was coming from the civil rights movement, the women's movement, amongst others. The 'younger generation', raised without the hardship of war or Depression, wanted change, and was impatient for it.

    The administration moved slowly in response to these demands for change. Social unrest was growing, but it wasn't widespread before the war.

    Vietnam was an unpopular war, and it became the focal point for the dissent that was already present in that country. Dissent became 'popular' with a broad range of society, and with it came an examination and acceptance of the other societal grounds for discontent.

    The situation became very volatile, with American troops shooting American university students, etc. (Kent State, genesis of the old Crosby Stills and Nash song "Four Dead in Ohio")

    It is my opinion that, if the war hadn't ended when it did, an insurrection would have taken place in that country. The war would have been the vehicle for an attempt at creating some new order.

    I think today is different. Like it or not, the new war is much more popular with the general population. As well, the elements of dissent (women without legal status, blacks living out the tail end of the slavery era, etc.) are not present in modern day US or UK, at least to the extent they were then.

    As a result, the social change that grew during and after the Vietnam war era, will likely not reoccur this time.

Share This Page