Smash the State! - Tory HQ stormed!

[klr]

Not sure violence is the way forward , I think it's counter productive .If protests are likely to end in a riot ,less people will turn up and I think News International love to show all anti-Gov demonstrators as mindless thugs.
selective ,targeted destruction of property I'm happy with , but if you expect to gain any sympathy for a protest from the people around then keep it save .

ten thousand people on a march and a fight with the riot squad can be ignored .A national strike and hundreds of thousands blockading westminster cannot .

That's exactly what it's doing.

[Lozzer]

Not sure violence is the way forward , I think it's counter productive .If protests are likely to end in a riot ,less people will turn up and I think News International love to show all anti-Gov demonstrators as mindless thugs.
selective ,targeted destruction of property I'm happy with , but if you expect to gain any sympathy for a protest from the people around then keep it save .

ten thousand people on a march and a fight with the riot squad can be ignored .A national strike and hundreds of thousands blockading westminster cannot .

That's exactly what it's doing.

What about 1968 France? As I recall it was riot action that mobilised eleven million people to strike.

[stripes4]

Who remembers the Miner's strike?

[Lozzer]

Who remembers the Miner's strike?

Yerp

[Pappa]

Who remembers the Miner's strike?

I do!

Who remembers the Battle of the Beanfield?

[stripes4]

Who remembers the Miner's strike?

I do!

Who remembers the Battle of the Beanfield?

I do as it was on my birthday. My 16th I think Jolly bad show

[devogue]

Who remembers the sinking of the Titanic?

[cue Pen]

[Lozzer]

Who remembers the sinking of the Titanic?

[cue Pen]

[Santa_Claus]

Me late Missus went out on the streets when the (new) Govt had tanks deployed. Saved all that voting nonsense apparently. Partly out of a youthful enthusiasm and partly a sense of doing the "right" thing. But mainly because she liked to rumble! - takes some balls when you know you are dealing with folks who don't f#ck around when it comes to killing folks, both at the time and later.

Irony was that Army was the source of her family's wealth. and mojo. and it weren't from wholesaling (retail? pah!) rice (we could've had a former PM at our wedding (some Generals had won elections in the past! - but that takes more than squaddy pay) - if we had crossed his palm with silver, albeit her response to that idea was "why da fuck would I do that?!"). But the high point of the family was before I arrived on the scene.

Despite her being on the winning side (Army backed down) in later years she regretted bothering. Didn't make any difference to the country carrying on being looted by those in power, whilst the peasants were assured that not enough to go around (sound familiar?). but that was 3 coups ago (I think, I've lost track nowadays). Of course her later views could have been coloured by the Govt having death squadded a number of her relatives in the intervening years - but business is business. and she wasn't without her own funny stories on that one.

Folks fighting for Democracy and the "right thing" can be a mixed bunch.

[sandinista]

So, the entire anti-war movement of the late 60s and early 70s was a complete waste of time, then?

Of course it wasn't a complete waste of time, I just hate it when the hippies take credit for "ending a war". They never did, it was the Vietnamese people who ended the war.

[sandinista]

Well, there are forms of civil disobedience, well thought out, that can grab media attention and mobilise things without mindless violence. There were some clever things done in the anti-Vietnam war protests in Oz (which I took part in) which eventually lead to a change in government and pulling the troops out.

There are too many protestors for whom violent protest is no more than a personal thrill...

Of course mindful violence is better than mindless violence. Still, "protesting" is ineffective. The Vietnam war was not stopped by westerners "protesting", it was stopped by the Vietnamese people themselves. This was after over a million murdered Vietnamese.

Why do you need violence at all? There are plenty of other ways to get the government's attention that are completely peaceful, and most of them would be much more effective.

such as...

[PsychoSerenity]

Why do you need violence at all? There are plenty of other ways to get the government's attention that are completely peaceful, and most of them would be much more effective.

such as...

Have you no imagination man? hmm let's see...

Well the smashing of the windows etc. was in this case, mostly symbolic. Not much actual disruption was caused, that couldn't have been stopped if there had been more police there. - But if you want symbolism, and the symbol is disgust, some form of faeces would be a good bet.

One of my all-time favourite protests is the farmer who used a dung spreader to plaster the front door of a bank, I think it was, with nearly a ton of slurry. - In this case however, a row of twenty turds on the Tory HQ doorstep, each with a little flag in them saying "We will not pay" would have got the message across I think. Nobody gets hurt, the perpetrators can easily slip away into the crowd before anybody knows what's happened, it's not expensive to clear up, and nobody can claim it was just a mindless act of aggression.

If on the other hand, you want to cause some disruption, perhaps because they aren't taking any notice of the protests, blockades are a classic. If you want a mass blockade, a human chain around the outside, and people in the middle sitting down like they're having a picnic, is the best way to go - it's much safer and it looks really bad on the police if they're sent against that, all dressed in riot gear.

However, I would opt for a more cleverly organised network of mini blockades. A hundred or so strategic locations around London, 10 to 20 people in each group, and bring the traffic to a halt. The police will be in mayhem getting calls left right and centre, and if they approach a group, the protesters can quickly disperse and reform just up the road.

To be honest though, what I think the students should really do, is announce their intentions for mass non-compliance. If the vast majority of students simply refuse to pay the inflated costs, there's not much that can be done to force the money out of them.

The cost of education should be falling rapidly in the digital age, and if the government can't match that, then the students can teach themselves, and should be prepared to, if that's what it takes. There's no need for everyone to either fit into the little boxes of society or be cast out with nothing to do but rage. There should be no monopoly on education. The students have a massive union; they could easily form their own guild, and set up universities themselves. There used to be a lot of that before everything got regulated and settled, but if the government are going to fuck about, there's no reason why it can't happen again.

[sandinista]

and you think some shit on a doorstep is going to change the governments plans? Don't think so. Blockades, do you think that would change anything? The peaceful sit down picnic "protest" would also accomplish nothing. It was done at the G20 in Toronto and accomplished nothing but getting protesters arrested. When I asked "such as..." I was looking for actions that would actually have some effect on government decisions and neo liberal policies. Sure anyone can come up with "clever" protest ideas, but as I was saying previous, they will accomplish nothing. Even if, as you are saying the students simply refused to pay the increase, all that would mean is their schooling would be done.

[JimC]

Why do you need violence at all? There are plenty of other ways to get the government's attention that are completely peaceful, and most of them would be much more effective.

such as...

Have you no imagination man? hmm let's see...

Well the smashing of the windows etc. was in this case, mostly symbolic. Not much actual disruption was caused, that couldn't have been stopped if there had been more police there. - But if you want symbolism, and the symbol is disgust, some form of faeces would be a good bet.

One of my all-time favourite protests is the farmer who used a dung spreader to plaster the front door of a bank, I think it was, with nearly a ton of slurry. - In this case however, a row of twenty turds on the Tory HQ doorstep, each with a little flag in them saying "We will not pay" would have got the message across I think. Nobody gets hurt, the perpetrators can easily slip away into the crowd before anybody knows what's happened, it's not expensive to clear up, and nobody can claim it was just a mindless act of aggression.

If on the other hand, you want to cause some disruption, perhaps because they aren't taking any notice of the protests, blockades are a classic. If you want a mass blockade, a human chain around the outside, and people in the middle sitting down like they're having a picnic, is the best way to go - it's much safer and it looks really bad on the police if they're sent against that, all dressed in riot gear.

However, I would opt for a more cleverly organised network of mini blockades. A hundred or so strategic locations around London, 10 to 20 people in each group, and bring the traffic to a halt. The police will be in mayhem getting calls left right and centre, and if they approach a group, the protesters can quickly disperse and reform just up the road.

To be honest though, what I think the students should really do, is announce their intentions for mass non-compliance. If the vast majority of students simply refuse to pay the inflated costs, there's not much that can be done to force the money out of them.

The cost of education should be falling rapidly in the digital age, and if the government can't match that, then the students can teach themselves, and should be prepared to, if that's what it takes. There's no need for everyone to either fit into the little boxes of society or be cast out with nothing to do but rage. There should be no monopoly on education. The students have a massive union; they could easily form their own guild, and set up universities themselves. There used to be a lot of that before everything got regulated and settled, but if the government are going to fuck about, there's no reason why it can't happen again.

Mind you, some parts of it may be unlikely to happen, herding students is a bit like herding cats and atheists, but it's worth a try...

The main point is that there are creative solutions without violence that can embarass authorities and generate publicity about a cause that is not tarnished by images of wanton destruction of random property. In Oz, when you had to register for National Service at 20 in the Vietnam war era, we did a campaign of mass posting of false registration papers. As well, the demonstrations of the time were very inclusive, with families, pensioners, workers and professionals as well as students, almost all without violence (although certainly lots of disruption of city streets), and they grew and grew in size...

In addition, I am a big fan of the power of unions. In some circumstances, union action can be a useful part of political campaigns. As an aside, it amuses me that the left on this forum fulminate against corporations, but never mention unions, which are the immediate, practical bulwark of the ordinary working man and woman against greedy bosses...

(of course, in some circumstances in certain industries, that power can be abused, but a good, independent system of industrial arbitration can provide some checks and balances...)

[sandinista]

How bout a protest where everyone wears big funny hats and chants "hey ho tuition hikes have got to go"? Thats sure to shake things up.