MarxSchmarx
27th November 2010, 14:54
I'm shocked, just shocked that a comfortable writer for the Bourgeois Bloviation Co. decides to denounce political protesting:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11849259
it's a simplistic criticism, and although I am somewhat sympathetic to his conclusions (about how it is often basically about the protester's ego), it's very poorly argued.
The assumption of this joke of a column is that the marches are aimed to get the attention/interests of parliamentarians and politicians. The problem is is that while sometimes they are this, often they are aimed instead at the general public.
The real issue with marches today is that the broader public is not exposed to protests because the likes of the BBC aren't interested in covering it. When they do, and cover the grievances fairly (and to their very limited credit they have covered the student protests), a march succeeds somewhat by getting the message heard on the evening news even if the government ignores it - ultimately because the marches shouldn't be directed at the government.
But when the media doesn't cover it for one reason another, we have to rethink our strategy (or be able to turn out millions at a march). And if one has a march of 100 people generally unless you're the KKK marching in a minority neighborhood the media, and for better or worse the general public, won't care. For very, very local issues this might be a viable strategy, but when we're talking about student fees nationwide or wars or the like a lot of the criticism in the article is about right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11849259
it's a simplistic criticism, and although I am somewhat sympathetic to his conclusions (about how it is often basically about the protester's ego), it's very poorly argued.
The assumption of this joke of a column is that the marches are aimed to get the attention/interests of parliamentarians and politicians. The problem is is that while sometimes they are this, often they are aimed instead at the general public.
The real issue with marches today is that the broader public is not exposed to protests because the likes of the BBC aren't interested in covering it. When they do, and cover the grievances fairly (and to their very limited credit they have covered the student protests), a march succeeds somewhat by getting the message heard on the evening news even if the government ignores it - ultimately because the marches shouldn't be directed at the government.
But when the media doesn't cover it for one reason another, we have to rethink our strategy (or be able to turn out millions at a march). And if one has a march of 100 people generally unless you're the KKK marching in a minority neighborhood the media, and for better or worse the general public, won't care. For very, very local issues this might be a viable strategy, but when we're talking about student fees nationwide or wars or the like a lot of the criticism in the article is about right.