|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Protest or Direct Action? |
| Protest |
|
12% |
[ 1 ] |
| Direct Action |
|
87% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:06 am Post subject: |
 |
|
While groups such as this one certainly represent a mob, I would not call them "the masses," or "the people" either for that matter. That is what their organizers want us to believe: that when these street fighters gather, smash windows, express hostility toward law-and-order, and when they hold signs demanding that the world abolish money, etc., that they are speaking for everyone and that they are speaking against "the people in power," etc.
Very simplistic. Also very inaccurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Protests can often be very effective. Protests led by Rev. Martin Luther King and other brave Americans in the civil rights movement were highly effective and improved American society, especially for racial minorities.
These days, the mere thought of Rev. Sharpton coming to town to protest makes civil rights violators very nervous.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with MLK and, before him, M. Gandhi's, politics, worldviews, and methods of protest. I think they both had it right and they both went about it the right way.
They have little, if anything (and I think "nothing" is best), in common with these Che-Guevara protestors and the anticapitalism people today. It offends me to see someone attempt to link the two, as if nothing separated Gandhi's march to the sea and the NSDAP's Stormtroopers' tactics, breaking windows in the streets, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Interested
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The full article may not be of interest, so just note the bolded bit. I think it's a fair point that many of the 'advancements' we made came about through direct action (in the form of civil disobedience).
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mick-brookes-what-are-we-doing-to-our-children-in-the-name-of-assessment-1678553.html
| Quote: |
Mick Brookes: What are we doing to our children in the name of assessment?
I apologise for the fact that in two weeks' time England's Year 6 children will be going through the same farcical testing system that should have been abolished many years ago.
Related articles
But I do not apologise to anyone for joining with our colleagues in the National Union of Teachers to ensure that 2009 really is the last year that England's children, their teachers, their schools and their communities are subject to this tyranny.
We do have a real moral dilemma faced by others throughout history, when rules, regulations or regimes block the greater good. For example: Without civil disobedience women would not have the vote. Without civil disobedience the right to roam on places like Kinder Scout would not have happened.
But let me be clear, we have no desire whatsoever to be in conflict with the Government, but it appears we are given no option.
We are told that a boycott would be "disruptive to pupils and parents". Colleagues � this beggars belief on the back of the ETS scandal last year, where the only credit that the Department for Children, Schools and Families can claim is that they managed to salvage some of the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money invested in that company.
What is disrupting to pupils is the intrusion into high-quality primary education in Key Stage 2 where good teachers are pressurised into teaching for the test for up to 10 hours a week.
What is disrupting and demeaning to pupils is having four years' work assessed by a 45-minute test. What is disrupting to parents is having their child miserable in the very year that they should be revelling in the zenith of their primary years.
Colleagues, I have evidence of children coming in to take the tests despite the fact that they are ill, have broken limbs or have to take the test with a sick bucket nearby in case they throw up. What are we doing to these children in the name of politically motivated independent assessment?
We have also been told that we risk damage to the standing of the profession. I say we risk greater damage and recruitment to the profession by allowing this nonsense to continue.
This is an edited extract from a speech given by the General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers to its annual conference in Brighton yesterday
|
In case the reference to Kinder Scout means nothing:
| Quote: |
The mass trespass of Kinder Scout was a notable act of willful trespass by ramblers. It was undertaken at Kinder Scout, in the Peak District of England, on 24 April 1932, to highlight weaknesses in English law of the time. This denied walkers in England or Wales access to areas of open country, and to public footpaths which, in previous ages (and today), formed public rights of way. Political and conservation activist Benny Rothman was one of the principal leaders.
A commemorative plaque now marks the start of the trespass at Bowden Bridge quarry near Hayfield (which is now a popular area for ramblers). This was unveiled in April 1982 by an aged Benny Rothman during a rally to mark the 50th anniversary. The trespass proceeded via William Clough to the plateau of Kinder Scout, where there were violent scuffles with gamekeepers. The ramblers were able to reach their destination and meet with another group. On the return, five ramblers were arrested, with another detained earlier. Trespass was not, and still is not, a criminal offence in any part of Britain, but some would receive jail sentences of two to six months for offences relating to violence against the keepers.
The mass trespass had a far-reaching impact, some of which is still playing out today. Eventually, changes in the law would allow all citizens access to public footpaths, regardless of whether they crossed private land. This culminated in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which legislates a limited right to roam over scheduled access land (see Open Country).
Ewan MacColl, the poet and folk singer, celebrated these events in his song The Manchester Rambler, and it is also the subject of the song "You Can (Mass Tresspass, 1932)" on Chumbawamba's 2005 album A Singsong and a Scrap. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BS.Dos. wrote: |
I've just noticed the G20 protests taking place in London this weekend and can't help thinking, somewhat cynically, that events such as this achieve very little. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single occasion in the last 20-years or so when a protest on a national/international scale had any discernible effect on the eventual outcome.
To that end, which do you feel carries the stronger potential for influencing change? |
Individual protests on their own generally don't achieve much, no, but they shouldn't. National policy should not suddenly change just because a moderately large number of people got together to express their opinion one time.
Protests are useful ways to draw national attention to specific issues and raise awareness. If the protests in question persuade enough people of one's cause, those people will then take that into account in their voting, and in time policy will change. I don't think that makes protests ineffective, I think it makes them a reasonable social tool, provided the protests in question do not disturb the public order through causing physical injury to citizens, causing property damage, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by direct action, on the other hand. If you mean voting, obviously voting achieves more than protests, since voting is the means by which people convinced by protests enact their will. If by direct action you mean something else, please elaborate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Socialism has two core tenets worth mentioning in this topic:
1. There is no private property
2. An individual has control over his own labor
Slavery violates #1 because it implies ownership and property, and violates #2 because a slave has zero control over his own labor. It's rather cut and dry.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is much more murky in terms of slavery. Capitalist theorists have basically made it the exception to the rule. The core tenet of capitalism is that man has self-ownership: a man owns himself. That extends to the ownership of his labor, which he can sell as a service, and to the ownership of property. However, things get sketchy when you consider the phrase self-ownership implies property: if something can be owned by an individual, it is property of sorts. If you can own yourself, why can you not sell yourself? You have the right to sell everything else you own, after all. Now of course, there's the conundrum of not being able to possess the money directly after selling oneself into slavery, but in the case of alleviating a family debt (or something similar), the transaction could arguably be considered valid.
And that's not even delving into the realm of labor exploitation resulting in less than full control of one's labor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
Socialism has two core tenets worth mentioning in this topic:
1. There is no private property
2. An individual has control over his own labor
Slavery violates #1 because it implies ownership and property, and violates #2 because a slave has zero control over his own labor. It's rather cut and dry.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is much more murky in terms of slavery. Capitalist theorists have basically made it the exception to the rule. The core tenet of capitalism is that man has self-ownership: a man owns himself. That extends to the ownership of his labor, which he can sell as a service, and to the ownership of property. However, things get sketchy when you consider the phrase self-ownership implies property: if something can be owned by an individual, it is property of sorts. If you can own yourself, why can you not sell yourself? You have the right to sell everything else you own, after all. Now of course, there's the conundrum of not being able to possess the money directly after selling oneself into slavery, but in the case of alleviating a family debt (or something similar), the transaction could arguably be considered valid.
And that's not even delving into the realm of labor exploitation resulting in less than full control of one's labor. |
You're speaking of capitalism as anarcho capitalism. A simple law against slavery can eliminate any concerns.
About labour exploitation.
The value extracted from your labour is a payment to the individuals who created your job at their own risk. A factory owner puts his/her own capital up and the difference between your full productive value and the value your receive is the payment to her/him for their entrepreneurial activity, their managerial labour and the like. If "the workers" received 100% of their productivity, there would be very little productive activity. Anyways, in a socialist/communist system the individual is similarly exploited under the principle of "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs". Again, this is a discussion of absolutes.
To avoid this, you can go into business for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
