They think silly protests and being a pain in people is how we gotten our earlier gains, despite it not working.
I think its because of shows and stuff saying that these methods do work, when in reality is gaming the system (which they only do if it means blocking new housing for some strange reason)
The BIG recent social gains in the UK (and likely Western Europe) happened after World War 2. The ruling classes were terrified of growing Soviet support and “allowed” concessions like the NHS and a large welfare state. The last 50 years have seen the slow reversal of those big gains.
To me it looks like most social and political change in the UK has come about as a consequence of fear of revolutions abroad (French and Russian primarily).
Day-to-day social change comes about as coordinated direct action though. Look at the successes of the LBTQ+ movement over the last 50 years and the profound progressive impact its had. You could probably say the same about animal wellfare.
I think environmental change will happen as a mix of direct action and some catastrophes that directly affect UK and Western countries. What IS a major factor preventing positive change is the billionaire-owned media that undeniably influences how ordinary people think and behave.
Yes, I agree. We have a very biased and politically controlled media. Things which they see as intrusive on what they wish to pursue are hidden and unreported. They only ever publish items that push there own agenda forward.
Take the Stop oil protests, the only protests that anyone hears about are the ones that put the protests in a bad light. We got to hear that expensive art was being vandalised, we got to hear that traffic was being stopped and drivers were very irate. We never got any coverage of the many other protests that are happening all the time. Stop Oil noticed the lack of coverage and decided to up their game for sensationalism. This just played into hands of Murdoch’s media. Murdoch has managed to make them look like terrorists. He even got the Tories to change the law so that we all got affected because of the acts of Stop Oil. This again does Stop Oil no favours. Protests without the right sort of coverage is a total waste of time and effort.
Protests without the right sort of coverage is a total waste of time and effort.
Weren’t some suffragettes labelled as terrorists and locked up? Some went about smashing things up and planting bombs.
Eventually - despite the way they were portrayed in the media of the day - they won. The suffrage movement took about 100 years (the earliest from around the time of the 1832 Reform Act and certainly from around 1870). Maybe the envirnomental movement will take that amount of time, too?
The first petition to parliament was in 1866. 50 years later they had achieved nothing.
4 years of war, where women were pushed into the roles that were traditionally held by males, gave their cause magnitude. This also came at a time when the population were asking why the masses were paying the highest cost and yet had no real say in what was happening. The suffragette movement did not just affect the vote for women; it gave empowerment to ask the question of equality for all. Google how Alice Paul had to contend with black women wanting to take part in the rally in 1913. The world was changing from being subservient to empowerment with a voice.
The media back then had a lot more power than the media of today. There was no competition to give an opposing view, now we have Facebook, Twitter (X or whatever), Tiktok and many other forums. Without the world war, you could easily argue that the cause could have failed and died.
Look at the hijab protests of Iran. This is exactly the same oppression that women were under at that time. They had to fight religious norms as well as an entrenched society of males who were supressing the population. I sincerely hope the Iranian women win their fight, but the cost will be high.
So no, I disagree that terrorism can win the day always.
The Good Friday Agreement was born out of terrorism. Even then Terrorism was not the main factor in achieving the end result. It took multinational efforts to get both sides in the same room. It took near 50 years of consistent bombing campaigns and murders where 3532 people lost their lives to convince the people that this was wrong. Put this into context with population size against the UK. Ireland has a population size close to a 40th of the UK. I can count the number of suffragette events on my fingers that I know of. I remember most of the bombs that the British news media posted regarding the troubles. Every bomb was given media coverage. We had much better press back then, even if it was biased towards propaganda against the IRA, they never failed in reporting an event.
The GFA is hanging by a thread even now. Can you honestly say that the suffragette movement could have yielded same result without the world war?
Very interesting info about Alice Paul - thank you. I didn’t know anything about her.
I think you misunderstood the point I was making (or, apologies, I wasn’t clear). I wasn’t advocating terrorism. I was pointing out that the sufferagist movement was sometimes labelled as “terrorists” by the press not that they were actually terrorists. I was trying to draw comparisons between the way they were described and the way that (fairly moderate) environmentalists are labelled today. (Though I do think that the Irish republican movement has also made big gains and it’s likely we’ll see a united Ireland at some stage.)
I don’t think it was World War I that enabled social change in Western Europe (that’s a nice story told by the establishment to create the illusion that the upper and lower classes were all in it together). It was the fear of the spread of Bolshevism. We saw this repeated after 1945.
My personal view about political/societal change is that direct action eventually forces longer-term political change. Voting in a parliamentary election is little more than entertainment (and, of course, distraction).
But surely you recognise that voting in parliament is what seals the deal. That is where the real power is. This is why Tory donators have spent so much money on “advisory” groups like 55 Tuften St etc. I always say follow where the money is. The largest money in the world is chasing reforms through law not through intimidation, because that is the cheapest way to do it.
As for the suffragettes, they most certainly were terrorists. That is regardless of whether you saw them as right or wrong. They were ultimately trying to change opinion through fear and intimidation.
I agree there are a lot of comparisons between the suffragettes and the groups for climate change today. My point was that they were ineffective in getting that change until circumstances provided an opportunity. Even today the biggest drive for Net zero has come from the war in Ukraine. Prior to this Net zero activists have gained no ground.
Large amounts of cash is the driving force that is actively blocking the changes we desperately need. Most people in the world are blind to the corruption that is taking place. We need mechanisms in place so that we can educate the public on good/bad in a critical approach. We need empowerment for the whole nation of the UK not just those in the swing seat areas. FPTP is a very easy system to manipulate. It is because of this that we have a fascist government today. They may not have the power of some of the historical known Fascists, but the ideals for taking total control and subjugating dissent is very much there. They are openly using the tactics from Fascists of time gone by.
I very much agree with climate activism. I am arsey in how much effort I make sure my household does it part to be green. I just disagree with the actions they are taking. I see them as very short sighted and destructive. When you are attacked by clowns always go for the juggler. The juggler in the UK is Parliament. Climate activists should be fighting to change how Parliament works to be more effective. If we had a PR voting system, then everyone can have their say on what is important to the country. You shouldn’t need to protest; you should only be looking to re-educate to gain support not intimidate.
It was the fear of the spread of Bolshevism. We saw this repeated after 1945.
This is very much wrong on so many fronts. The triple entente was an association that led to alliance during WW1 between both “democratic” and communist regimes. WW2 also had Russia as an ally. We even banned animal farm being published because of it. There were suppressions going on against communism in the UK, which then reinforced the unionist movement. Most notably were in the Glasgow shipyards. There may have been a fear of these for the upper classes, but the lower class were empathetic to the cause. I would argue that the appeasements given to the lower classes that were gained in the 1920’s were partly down the legitimacy of the ideals that the communist pushed out. There really was an outcry for more empowerment across the board.
The unknown soldier we have in London now is a direct result of the fear the upper classes were feeling at that time. The grief of all nations who took part in the war was palpable. The upper class read the room and made adjustments because of it. The unknown soldier was the original version of South Park’s “I am really sorry” video.
But surely you recognise that voting in parliament is what seals the deal.
No, I don’t. I can’t see who the deal is between - because it’s not between the ruling class and the ruled (the social contract doesn’t exist). In the big scheme of things the money given to Tuften Street “think tanks”, lobby groups, straightforward corruption and ownership of the media is peanuts in comparison to maintaining the current property relations in UK (and most of the world). We’ve seen what happens when the ruling class feels threatened and can no longer maintain the façade of “democracy”. PR doesn’t alter things much abroad: it gives a different style of entertainment to keep people distracted.
I’m in favour of distributive ownership and distributed power. No one group should be in control. We know that - to save the planet - we need to do things like outlaw oil companies (and the rapid end of use of fossil fuels) and mega-cattle farming. No “parliament” (first past the post, PR or whatever) is going to do that anywhere in the world. It’s going to come down to a mix of terrible catastrophes which trigger direct action.
Individual education trumps news media imo. I do not experience the need for the food banks in the UK, and yet I am very much aware and saddened by them. Populist media relies on people just using their own experiences. This allows them to target each group separately. I believe that people should broaden their horizons with the views of others to get a look at the bigger picture. And more so, sadly in today’s world, follow the money trail.
TBF: Most climate activists were mislead on what implements change for a reason
Can you expand on that? I am not understanding what you mean.
They think silly protests and being a pain in people is how we gotten our earlier gains, despite it not working.
I think its because of shows and stuff saying that these methods do work, when in reality is gaming the system (which they only do if it means blocking new housing for some strange reason)
The BIG recent social gains in the UK (and likely Western Europe) happened after World War 2. The ruling classes were terrified of growing Soviet support and “allowed” concessions like the NHS and a large welfare state. The last 50 years have seen the slow reversal of those big gains.
To me it looks like most social and political change in the UK has come about as a consequence of fear of revolutions abroad (French and Russian primarily).
Day-to-day social change comes about as coordinated direct action though. Look at the successes of the LBTQ+ movement over the last 50 years and the profound progressive impact its had. You could probably say the same about animal wellfare.
I think environmental change will happen as a mix of direct action and some catastrophes that directly affect UK and Western countries. What IS a major factor preventing positive change is the billionaire-owned media that undeniably influences how ordinary people think and behave.
Yes, I agree. We have a very biased and politically controlled media. Things which they see as intrusive on what they wish to pursue are hidden and unreported. They only ever publish items that push there own agenda forward.
Take the Stop oil protests, the only protests that anyone hears about are the ones that put the protests in a bad light. We got to hear that expensive art was being vandalised, we got to hear that traffic was being stopped and drivers were very irate. We never got any coverage of the many other protests that are happening all the time. Stop Oil noticed the lack of coverage and decided to up their game for sensationalism. This just played into hands of Murdoch’s media. Murdoch has managed to make them look like terrorists. He even got the Tories to change the law so that we all got affected because of the acts of Stop Oil. This again does Stop Oil no favours. Protests without the right sort of coverage is a total waste of time and effort.
Weren’t some suffragettes labelled as terrorists and locked up? Some went about smashing things up and planting bombs.
Eventually - despite the way they were portrayed in the media of the day - they won. The suffrage movement took about 100 years (the earliest from around the time of the 1832 Reform Act and certainly from around 1870). Maybe the envirnomental movement will take that amount of time, too?
The first petition to parliament was in 1866. 50 years later they had achieved nothing.
4 years of war, where women were pushed into the roles that were traditionally held by males, gave their cause magnitude. This also came at a time when the population were asking why the masses were paying the highest cost and yet had no real say in what was happening. The suffragette movement did not just affect the vote for women; it gave empowerment to ask the question of equality for all. Google how Alice Paul had to contend with black women wanting to take part in the rally in 1913. The world was changing from being subservient to empowerment with a voice.
The media back then had a lot more power than the media of today. There was no competition to give an opposing view, now we have Facebook, Twitter (X or whatever), Tiktok and many other forums. Without the world war, you could easily argue that the cause could have failed and died.
Look at the hijab protests of Iran. This is exactly the same oppression that women were under at that time. They had to fight religious norms as well as an entrenched society of males who were supressing the population. I sincerely hope the Iranian women win their fight, but the cost will be high.
So no, I disagree that terrorism can win the day always.
The Good Friday Agreement was born out of terrorism. Even then Terrorism was not the main factor in achieving the end result. It took multinational efforts to get both sides in the same room. It took near 50 years of consistent bombing campaigns and murders where 3532 people lost their lives to convince the people that this was wrong. Put this into context with population size against the UK. Ireland has a population size close to a 40th of the UK. I can count the number of suffragette events on my fingers that I know of. I remember most of the bombs that the British news media posted regarding the troubles. Every bomb was given media coverage. We had much better press back then, even if it was biased towards propaganda against the IRA, they never failed in reporting an event.
The GFA is hanging by a thread even now. Can you honestly say that the suffragette movement could have yielded same result without the world war?
Very interesting info about Alice Paul - thank you. I didn’t know anything about her.
I think you misunderstood the point I was making (or, apologies, I wasn’t clear). I wasn’t advocating terrorism. I was pointing out that the sufferagist movement was sometimes labelled as “terrorists” by the press not that they were actually terrorists. I was trying to draw comparisons between the way they were described and the way that (fairly moderate) environmentalists are labelled today. (Though I do think that the Irish republican movement has also made big gains and it’s likely we’ll see a united Ireland at some stage.)
I don’t think it was World War I that enabled social change in Western Europe (that’s a nice story told by the establishment to create the illusion that the upper and lower classes were all in it together). It was the fear of the spread of Bolshevism. We saw this repeated after 1945.
My personal view about political/societal change is that direct action eventually forces longer-term political change. Voting in a parliamentary election is little more than entertainment (and, of course, distraction).
But surely you recognise that voting in parliament is what seals the deal. That is where the real power is. This is why Tory donators have spent so much money on “advisory” groups like 55 Tuften St etc. I always say follow where the money is. The largest money in the world is chasing reforms through law not through intimidation, because that is the cheapest way to do it.
As for the suffragettes, they most certainly were terrorists. That is regardless of whether you saw them as right or wrong. They were ultimately trying to change opinion through fear and intimidation.
I agree there are a lot of comparisons between the suffragettes and the groups for climate change today. My point was that they were ineffective in getting that change until circumstances provided an opportunity. Even today the biggest drive for Net zero has come from the war in Ukraine. Prior to this Net zero activists have gained no ground.
Large amounts of cash is the driving force that is actively blocking the changes we desperately need. Most people in the world are blind to the corruption that is taking place. We need mechanisms in place so that we can educate the public on good/bad in a critical approach. We need empowerment for the whole nation of the UK not just those in the swing seat areas. FPTP is a very easy system to manipulate. It is because of this that we have a fascist government today. They may not have the power of some of the historical known Fascists, but the ideals for taking total control and subjugating dissent is very much there. They are openly using the tactics from Fascists of time gone by.
I very much agree with climate activism. I am arsey in how much effort I make sure my household does it part to be green. I just disagree with the actions they are taking. I see them as very short sighted and destructive. When you are attacked by clowns always go for the juggler. The juggler in the UK is Parliament. Climate activists should be fighting to change how Parliament works to be more effective. If we had a PR voting system, then everyone can have their say on what is important to the country. You shouldn’t need to protest; you should only be looking to re-educate to gain support not intimidate.
This is very much wrong on so many fronts. The triple entente was an association that led to alliance during WW1 between both “democratic” and communist regimes. WW2 also had Russia as an ally. We even banned animal farm being published because of it. There were suppressions going on against communism in the UK, which then reinforced the unionist movement. Most notably were in the Glasgow shipyards. There may have been a fear of these for the upper classes, but the lower class were empathetic to the cause. I would argue that the appeasements given to the lower classes that were gained in the 1920’s were partly down the legitimacy of the ideals that the communist pushed out. There really was an outcry for more empowerment across the board.
The unknown soldier we have in London now is a direct result of the fear the upper classes were feeling at that time. The grief of all nations who took part in the war was palpable. The upper class read the room and made adjustments because of it. The unknown soldier was the original version of South Park’s “I am really sorry” video.
No, I don’t. I can’t see who the deal is between - because it’s not between the ruling class and the ruled (the social contract doesn’t exist). In the big scheme of things the money given to Tuften Street “think tanks”, lobby groups, straightforward corruption and ownership of the media is peanuts in comparison to maintaining the current property relations in UK (and most of the world). We’ve seen what happens when the ruling class feels threatened and can no longer maintain the façade of “democracy”. PR doesn’t alter things much abroad: it gives a different style of entertainment to keep people distracted.
I’m in favour of distributive ownership and distributed power. No one group should be in control. We know that - to save the planet - we need to do things like outlaw oil companies (and the rapid end of use of fossil fuels) and mega-cattle farming. No “parliament” (first past the post, PR or whatever) is going to do that anywhere in the world. It’s going to come down to a mix of terrible catastrophes which trigger direct action.
@Syldon @tintory
Individual experience trumps news media, don’t you think?
Individual education trumps news media imo. I do not experience the need for the food banks in the UK, and yet I am very much aware and saddened by them. Populist media relies on people just using their own experiences. This allows them to target each group separately. I believe that people should broaden their horizons with the views of others to get a look at the bigger picture. And more so, sadly in today’s world, follow the money trail.