Tags

Further thoughts on the London anti-cuts demo

Tell me. If the police did a 100% job in policing demos. If they kept peace. If they protected the shops. If they protected a royal motorcade and prevented some privileged chick from being prodded with a stick or something. If they did not provoke a scuffle, and perhaps a fight, with the demonstrators, how on earth are they going to promote the view that the intention of a demonstration is as sullied as the actions of ‘mindless thugs’ amongst the demonstrators? Thus, we can say, When the police don’t do a good job in demos, they are doing a great job.

That’s what came to mind when i read Laurie Penny’s (i love her ‘goth’ chick look.) account of an incident at Trafalgar Square,

“It starts when a handful of police officers moved through the quiet crowd, past circles of young people sharing snacks, smoking, playing guitars and chatting. They move in to grab the young man, but his friends scrambled to prevent the arrest being made, dragging him away from the police by his legs. Batons are drawn; a scuffle breaks out, and that scuffle becomes a fight, and then suddenly hundreds of armoured riot police are swarming in, seemingly from nowhere, sweeping up the steps of the National Gallery, beating back protesters as they go.” - newstatesman

Seems like the violence was quite well orchestrated by the police to me.

“you guys go in quietly, pick on someone, and then they’ll certainly try to stop you. Then a fight will surely ensue, or someone’s going to strike you accidentally whilst attempting to help their friend, or you could say they did, and then we’ll come in to bash a few heads. But they’ll be in the wrong, because it’s always wrong to hit a policeperson, even if we cast the first stone...hehe ;)”

Of course, there will be some demonstrators who will be going in to keep their football hooliganism skills in practice. But are their numbers enough to create enough ‘mindless mayhem’ so that the entire movement can be discounted? Well, perhaps it might be. But it never hurts - the cause of the elite - to ensure that the forces of control do their best to up the numbers enough to elicit the call for greater control, and perhaps, banning of demonstrations, etc, in future. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s just common sense. Nations do it all the time on a global scale when they attempt to provoke unrest in some states through a host of means so that regimes might be changed by their own people. So given such practice on a global scale, it wouldn’t take much to do it amongst the native population don’t you think.


(On a side note, I think, sometimes, that the lower classes are maintained so that they might supply the violent and ‘mindless’ actions during demonstrations and thus enable the entire movement to be discounted. Also, given the greater delinquency that can be expected from the disadvantaged, the other classes can then focus on how their interests ought to be protected instead of seeking a system-change so that there wouldn’t be a lower class designed to supply labour and insecurity for the rest.)

It is the ole ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. Most of us want to get to the upper classes. It seems an easier thing to achieve than turning the entire populace into an upper class via true socialism.
Another point is the ‘rallying of victims’. In other words, it is not enough that the people see the political elite as the problem. Don’t forget, any system works when the people, or at least a significant portion of the people, can be enlisted as co-conspirators. In other words, the upper middle classes, the bankers, the celebs, elites of various sectors, and so on. But In times of strife, such as that witnessed in London yesterday, the advantaged will also be naturally identified as part of the problem. Hence, Camilla might be prodded with a stick, banks decorated with graffiti, shops paint-bombed, or occupied, etc. And then, the actions of the demonstrators can be viewed as an attack on the people. Great walls around elites are best maintained when a significant portion of the people can be used as a moat around the walls. And that is how the relatively advantaged are simultaneously enlisted as members of the reserve army of ‘victims’ called out to be victimised at these times.

“Refined middle-aged couples who had been having quiet cream teas in Fortnum's downstairs restaurant stare blinkingly at the occupiers, who are organising themselves into a non-hierarchial consensus-building team. "I oppose the cuts, I'm a socialist, but I think this type of thing is too much," says property manager Kat, 32. "There are old ladies upstairs. And I just came in to buy some fresh marshmallows, and now I can't."”

But, of course, the ‘celebs’ also serve their function well. They are the entertaining arm of the elite whom tell the people that a system of privilege isn’t all that bad since the celebs can keep you entertained whilst you’re being screwed by the economic and political sector of the elite. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the people don’t really take issue with the system and just ask for concessions and less cuts. Perhaps celebs are paid a lot so that they can reduce the negative feelings amongst the people toward the privileged and the class system as a whole. Just look at how lennon presented himself as a Jesus Christ whilst raking in the money that in effects serves to maintain the divide.

When we ‘get on with things’ or 'our lives' within an inegalitarian system, an attack on the source of our problems become an attack on ourselves.
It is the ole ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. Most of us want to get to the upper classes. It seems an easier thing to achieve than turning the entire populace into an upper class via true socialism. This is the almost poetic contradiction that sees the former aspiration undoing inclinations toward the latter. We can’t have the former if we support the latter. But as people are inclined to say, ‘we need to get on with our lives’, and thus make more efforts for the former and shun the latter. And so we get on the merry-go-round, playing the role of problem and solution whilst exacerbating the former enough to undo the latter. Then we can latter say that these demos achieve nothing and move on to 'getting on with our lives'. That’s the problem isn’t it. When we ‘get on with things’ or 'our lives' within an inegalitarian system, an attack on the source of our problems become an attack on ourselves.

As i stated some years ago on a previous site, it's easier to suggest a solution than to not be a part of the problem.


ed





0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo