Very tenuously P: London marches and revolt

[kelber at mindspring.com]

The problem with passive resistance (Gandhi-ism) in a basically democratic country is that the movement is too easily marginalized (no news coverage) or co-opted (sit-coms having characters who comically spout the resistance lingo, Starbucks offering a fraction of a percent to environmental issues, etc.).  It takes a broad swathe of protesters (hedonistic hippies, grandmas for peace, neo-Trotskyites, masked thugs with a yen for window-breaking, doctrinaire academics, apoliticals pissed off about a narrow issue, etc. etc.) all acting in concert to force the concepts of change and/or resistance into the public arena. 

Laura

-----Original Message-----
>From: Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 2, 2009 10:54 AM
>To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: Very tenuously P: London marches and revolt
>
>On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>> Just listened to Tony Benn on DN. The ex British labor parliamentarian
>> spoke at this event and has plenty of ideas and credibility. The idea is
>> simple anyway- Don't bailout the bankers and charge the people. How is it
>> democratic when leaders defy 80-90% of the people and serve the
>> billionaires?  Why is capitalist thuggery and anarchism ok  and credible,
>> and the angry response not?
>
>
>Because it would be more effective not to stoop to their level. The sense of
>righteous anger gets lost amongst a torrent of smash and grab pillaging. And
>great though Tony Benn is I'm afraid his track record in actually achieving
>an effective policy change is fairly negligible. Perhaps his most
>significant act in office was actually to shut down pirate radio stations
>which rather runs contrary to his libetarian-socialist reputation.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 2, 2009, at 8:23 AM, Johnny Marr wrote:
>>
>>  Felt like something of a non-event, although someone has died as a result
>>> of the police cordon so perhaps there was more trouble than I picked up on.
>>> There seemed to be the usual gaggle of contumely trouble makers without a
>>> coherent message to protest behind. I'm not pleased with the way the world's
>>> heading either but too many of the protestors were malcontents looking for a
>>> fight and an opportunity for vandalism - there wasn't any particularly lucid
>>> attempt to solve the global financial crisis, just a lot of sensationalist
>>> placards about Eating The Rich and Fucking The Banks.
>>>
>>> Again, there is a genuine and valid sense of discontent with world
>>> politics across most of the country, in particular what seems like the blind
>>> reward or salvation banks regardless of how well or how poorly they're being
>>> run, but we wouldn't want to associate ourselves with basic thuggery,
>>> malevolence and inchoate 'anarchism'. Sub-sixth form parades like
>>> yesterday's undermine themselves by being so full of hot air and so lacking
>>> in ideas and credibility.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Guy Ian Scott Pursey <
>>> g.i.s.pursey at reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Was anyone else in London yesterday for the protests?
>>>
>>> Interested in hearing what people made of it.
>>>
>>> Guy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>