Very tenuously P: London marches and revolt

[Joseph Tracy]

I have to agree with you Laura. Historically that is what it takes  
and sometimes worse. We haven't quite got to the stage of civilized  
debate. Gandhi eschewed the word passive. He spke of non-violent  
resistance that was active and confrontational.
On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>