brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Awareness raising usually comes before consciousness and activism; they're already winning you over.Nope, their stated aim is to get people to put pressure on the government.
Awareness raising usually comes before consciousness and activism; they're already winning you over.Nope, their stated aim is to get people to put pressure on the government.
Awareness raising usually comes before consciousness and activism; they're already winning you over.
That's the spirit.If you say so. Perhaps if they stop me visiting my mum next week I’ll just divert to Parliament Square and harangue Michael Gove or something.
Why would they block the stairs up from your basement?If you say so. Perhaps if they stop me visiting my mum next week I’ll just divert to Parliament Square and harangue Michael Gove or something.
I don't see that as a particular obstacle, why do you think he can't start a group - is he being held in an oubliette without access to lawyers and visitors?When is Hallam starting a Just Stop LNG Imports splinter group? Oh wait he’s in HMP Wandsworth.
I don't see that as a particular obstacle, why do you think he can't start a group - is he being held in an oubliette without access to lawyers and visitors?
It's intended to cause inconvenience. If something doesn't cause inconvenience them it has zero effect. Imagine a strike that inconveniences no one. What's the point? Now while I might not be a fan of JSO, XR and IB and might not always agree with their tactics or politics (lack of) they at least understand the idea of fucking shit up. I'm surprised you don't understand this.Great. Maybe you can explain how their tactic of blocking motorways is meant to get thousands of inconvenienced people lobbying the government to cave in to their demands? It's almost like they live in a bubble and don't know how most of society think and behave.
It's intended to cause inconvenience. If something doesn't cause inconvenience them it has zero effect. Imagine a strike that inconveniences no one. What's the point? Now while I might not be a fan of JSO, XR and IB and might not always agree with their tactics or politics (lack of) they at least understand the idea of fucking shit up. I'm surprised you don't understand this.
Widespread public support….Strikes aren’t comparable because they work fundamentally due to a withdrawal of labour, not inconvenience (lots of strikes don’t affect the public at all). If inconvenience worked then strikers would remain at work on full pay and glue themselves to infrastructure in their time off.
Back when Greenpeace actually did stuff, they did direct action and were often successful, but they took direct action against relevant targets, got widespread media coverage, and widespread public support. They never blocked roads or tried to exert pressure by annoying or inconveniencing people.
Yes, strikes are based on a withdrawal of labour and these are effective when they directly impact on the bosses' business. But guess which strikes are most effective... those which affect infrastructure and inconvenience the public. That's why RMT, ASLEF and transport sections of Unite have the most clout these days and it's why miners and other workers' actions could lead to those inconvenient power cuts in the 70s.Strikes aren’t comparable because they work fundamentally due to a withdrawal of labour, not inconvenience (lots of strikes don’t affect the public at all). If inconvenience worked then strikers would remain at work on full pay and glue themselves to infrastructure in their time off.
Back when Greenpeace actually did stuff, they did direct action and were often successful, but they took direct action against relevant targets, got widespread media coverage, and widespread public support. They never blocked roads or tried to exert pressure by annoying or inconveniencing people.
Clearly with paintings it's beans a long way in front of cheeseYes, strikes are based on a withdrawal of labour and these are effective when they directly impact on the bosses' business. But guess which strikes are most effective... those which affect infrastructure and inconvenience the public. That's why RMT, ASLEF and transport sections of Unite have the most clout these days and it's why miners and other workers' actions could lead to those inconvenient power cuts in the 70s.
Obviously, strikes are about a lot more than inconvenience, and there's probably lots to criticise JSO* for, but inconveniencing the public isn't it.
* I still have no clue about what chucking soup or beans at works of art is all about.
Did they fuck.Strikes aren’t comparable because they work fundamentally due to a withdrawal of labour, not inconvenience (lots of strikes don’t affect the public at all). If inconvenience worked then strikers would remain at work on full pay and glue themselves to infrastructure in their time off.
Back when Greenpeace actually did stuff, they did direct action and were often successful, but they took direct action against relevant targets, got widespread media coverage, and widespread public support. They never blocked roads or tried to exert pressure by annoying or inconveniencing people.
Did they fuck.
Bizarre that anyone would claim that Greenpeace didn’t face huge backlashes - pretty sure they were called “yogurt weaving hippies” etc - now it’s “tofu eating wokerati” of course.Any activist organisation as notable as Greenpeace is going to attract criticism worthy of an article on Wikipedia. That doesn't necessarily mean those criticisms reflect general public opinion. So which part of that article is relevant?
The Jackdaw gas field, for one:Have you seen the popular media talking about the licensing of new fossil fuel extraction since these protests started?What has been licensed recently or is likely to be soon?
I have some bad news for you about what the effects of labour being withdrawn are.Strikes aren’t comparable because they work fundamentally due to a withdrawal of labour, not inconvenience...
Bizarre that anyone would claim that Greenpeace didn’t face huge backlashes - pretty sure they were called “yogurt weaving hippies” etc - now it’s “tofu eating wokerati” of course.
Everyone attacking JSO here would have attacked Greenpeace back in the day. Very reminiscent of Republicans now praising MLK. These protests shift the narrative you lot just need to catch up.
Platty Sage was making out that Greenpeace had the full backing of the general public which is obv bollocks. I’m glad you agree he’s wrong - should be everyone’s default position tbh.I don't remember claiming there was no backlash. You linked to a page talking about criticisms from academics and Nobel laureates. But I didn't find anything about the prevailing opinion of the general public.
The Jackdaw gas field, for one:
I'm sure there's others, Jackdaw just stuck in my head as an example of how there seems to be some curse on the name of ACG publications.Shell invests in the Jackdaw gas field in the UK North Sea | Shell Global
BG International Limited, an affiliate of Shell U.K. Limited, has taken the final investment decision (FID) to develop the Jackdaw gas field in the UK North Sea, following regulatory approval earlier this year.www.shell.com
I have some bad news for you about what the effects of labour being withdrawn are.
It isn't, but you never said "inconvenience to the public", you just said "inconvenience", and I still think all strikes, by definition, are pretty inconvenient to someone. Strikes are effective because they disrupt the economy, and blocking roads and railways also achieves that. And wasn't one of the major factors leading to the defeat of the miners' strike that it was isolated, which means that if railworkers had come out and caused more disruption/inconvenience, they would've been much more likely to win?Affecting profits and shareholders isn't the same as causing inconvenience to the public. Most strikes don't inconvenience the public. Certain one will, but as I said if inconvenience to the public is the method of achieving strike demands, that doesn't actually need a strike and can be done in spare time while remaining on full pay. Why didn't the miners just keep working and block the roads and railways on their days off?
Bizarre that anyone would claim that Greenpeace didn’t face huge backlashes - pretty sure they were called “yogurt weaving hippies” etc - now it’s “tofu eating wokerati” of course.
It isn't, but you never said "inconvenience to the public", you just said "inconvenience", and I still think all strikes, by definition, are pretty inconvenient to someone. Strikes are effective because they disrupt the economy, and blocking roads and railways also achieves that. And wasn't one of the major factors leading to the defeat of the miners' strike that it was isolated, which means that if railworkers had come out and caused more disruption/inconvenience, they would've been much more likely to win?
Christ, I have a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for those who stayed out in 84/85, but you'd think someone would hesitate a bit before going "why don't these JSO numpties use proper effective tactics that have been shown to work, like the ones that won the miners their famous victory in 1985?"
Wot Serge actually said was:That’s not what I’m saying is it.
The claim was made that strikes in general are effective due to disrupting and inconveniencing people, so JSO can be effective through the same tactics.
My point is if inconvenience is the key to strikes, why don’t strikers just cause inconvenience without striking and losing their pay? The reason they don’t is that JSO-style inconvenience is not the key to strikes.
Can you give an example of a successful strike that did not cause inconvenience? Also, you seem to reckon that JSO-style causing of inconvenience, which carries pretty much a guarantee of arrest, the likelihood of criminal charges, and the subsequent possibility of missing work and losing pay when dealing with the fallout of said criminal charges, has a higher cost to the causer than going on strike, and probably being able to claim strike pay through the union. I'm not sure you've thought this one through.It's intended to cause inconvenience. If something doesn't cause inconvenience them it has zero effect. Imagine a strike that inconveniences no one. What's the point?
Wot Serge actually said was:
Can you give an example of a successful strike that did not cause inconvenience?
Not in the short term, but if it continued for long enough I reckon the public would definitely notice if there was a shortage of aeroplane fan blades. It's like the successful Chep strikes - in the short term absolutely no-one gives a shit if workers at a pallet repair factory are working or not, if supermarkets and warehouse start finding that a shortage of pallets is meaning they can't load and unload stuff along their distribution chain then it very much would have quite a notable affect on the public.Pretty sure no members of the public were affected by the successful RR strikes recently:
Rolls-Royce Barnoldswick: Deal with Unite union secures plant's future
Manufacturing at a once-threatened plant will continue for at least 10 years, the firm announces.www.bbc.com
No inconvenience, but certainly not zero effect.