Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

What is the best way to bring about societal change?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I've been watching the protests in the USA (and now spread over here) and it got me thinking. The ptb always insist that only peaceful protest effects change, yet most peaceful process (including the most peaceful of protesting - writing a letter to your MP) has never brought about change as there will always be a power imbalance between those in power and those who have no power. The only thing that effects change in a peaceful way is via anonymous ballot but that only happens every few years and the choices are normally between versions of the same kind of politics, so "change" only illusory (and even then, often backtracked upon such as Blair's pledge to not bring in University fees etc.), not in action (you could say the Brexit vote brought about change but whether there will actually be change is another matter).

The Suffragettes managed to effect change eventually through more radical acts (including violence to themselves) since peaceful protest did not help them. So perhaps that is the way to go to bring about change? I do not advocate violence but mass disruption, peaceful civil disobedience and prominent acts of defiance that the ptb have no choice but to take notice of until change becomes inevitable. Perhaps less powerful groups such as renters, who are not represented by lobbyists and have less power or money, should adopt similar policies in order to get the message through to politicians?

Or do people here think that the protests will end up backfiring? 

Edited by HolyCow
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that to get real change takes a long time, we now live in a world that wants instant results but to do things the right way requires years if not inter-generational.

I'd say it's seriously difficult to actually force change, violence is useful for getting you noticed but out side of a total regime change* I'm not sure it's a particularly successful tactic.

In a lot of cases the perceived mechanism for change was really only a side show, for example Ghandi probably had very little to do with Indian independence outside of a figure head role, the British simply couldn't keep colonial plates spinning after the war and so it was inevitable that those changes were on the horizon. Same with the Suffragettes, throwing yourself in front of a horse will have got you in the papers but it was women entering the work force and paying tax that was the real driver for getting the vote.

You mention Brexit, that really is a decent example, regardless of actual change in practical terms leaving the EU is massive symbolically. But while the seeds were there since we joined UKIP started in 1991, so getting on for 30 years and I'd say that was actually good going.

* civil war is a decent tactic, but it's not a useful tool for minor amendments, it's a complete system change mechanism.

-------

In terms of the current US situation, protest for the sake of protest is point less, it needs to be backed up with an actual political aim. Black Lives Matter means what exactly? Outside of people shouldn't be racist, what mechanisms do they want in place to achieve their aims?

Maybe it's not possible to work within the US systems to get that change, that may well be the case. But they had a "black" president for 8 years and he didn't seem to do a great deal to help your average black man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Change happens when it wants to.  It is seldom influenced by people doing stuff.  Sure, there are lots of examples of change occurring because people did stuff, but there are lots more examples of change not occurring because people did stuff.  

Eg,

  • Suffragettes -- This was mainly influenced by WWI.
  • Berlin wall coming down -- USSR lost the economic war with the USA.

The next big changes will be because of the craziness of the last 30 years (an inevitable consequence).  But there'll be loads of people/groups ready to take the praise (if any is due) or throw blame (ditto).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ashestoashes said:

only solution is to monitor everyone and let a computer decide everything

please god no! What was it we used to say in IT?

To err is human but to completely fuckup takes a computer.....

Having said that I'm looking forward to my robot girlfriend, I'm sure it'll be a lot more intelligent than most women xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 5min OCD speculator said:

please god no! What was it we used to say in IT?

To err is human but to completely fuckup takes a computer.....

Having said that I'm looking forward to my robot girlfriend, I'm sure it'll be a lot more intelligent than most women xD

 

Not only will you not have to turn her on but you will be able to turn her off as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HolyCow said:

I've been watching the protests in the USA (and now spread over here) and it got me thinking. The ptb always insist that only peaceful protest effects change, yet most peaceful process (including the most peaceful of protesting - writing a letter to your MP) has never brought about change as there will always be a power imbalance between those in power and those who have no power. The only thing that effects change in a peaceful way is via anonymous ballot but that only happens every few years and the choices are normally between versions of the same kind of politics, so "change" only illusory (and even then, often backtracked upon such as Blair's pledge to not bring in University fees etc.), not in action (you could say the Brexit vote brought about change but whether there will actually be change is another matter).

The Suffragettes managed to effect change eventually through more radical acts (including violence to themselves) since peaceful protest did not help them. So perhaps that is the way to go to bring about change? I do not advocate violence but mass disruption, peaceful civil disobedience and prominent acts of defiance that the ptb have no choice but to take notice of until change becomes inevitable. Perhaps less powerful groups such as renters, who are not represented by lobbyists and have less power or money, should adopt similar policies in order to get the message through to politicians?

Or do people here think that the protests will end up backfiring? 

Peaceful protest does not change anything only violence, all power is from the barrel of a gun ultimately. 

The key evidence of this is the military when the government wants to effect change in other countires it is not peaceful methods it uses but military power to impose its will. 

The same is true internally to a less extent, with the police who impose the will of politicans via violence, if you resist and fight back enough ultimately they will kill you. Every law passed is ultimately enforced by the police being will to kill to enforce it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dgul said:

Change happens when it wants to.  It is seldom influenced by people doing stuff.  Sure, there are lots of examples of change occurring because people did stuff, but there are lots more examples of change not occurring because people did stuff.  

Eg,

  • Suffragettes -- This was mainly influenced by WWI.
  • Berlin wall coming down -- USSR lost the economic war with the USA.

The next big changes will be because of the craziness of the last 30 years (an inevitable consequence).  But there'll be loads of people/groups ready to take the praise (if any is due) or throw blame (ditto).

 

 

The dynamics of history are not really within human control. Russia was not short of Revolutionaries in the 19th Century but it was the First World War fought between the Great Powers that gave Lenin his opportunity. If he had been born a generation earlier he would probably have been a foot note in history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ad_ceng said:

The key evidence of this is the military when the government wants to effect change in other countires it is not peaceful methods it uses but military power to impose its will. 

More countries have been captured via monetary policy/debt  than have ever been via militarily means 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ad_ceng said:

That is an interesting take and probably true for the last 100 years. 

If you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman it is hard not to arrive at the conclusion that the US/UK has been captured by Saudi interests, even if he claims the exact opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest way to get societal change for the better, in my view, is complete freedom of speech online and in the street.  No government restrictions on what you say about anybody or any facts/theories.  

Many of our problems are due to lies or concealment of the truth.  examples include immigration, banking, trade, taxation, drugs, etc etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wherebee said:

The biggest way to get societal change for the better, in my view, is complete freedom of speech online and in the street.  No government restrictions on what you say about anybody or any facts/theories.  

Many of our problems are due to lies or concealment of the truth.  examples include immigration, banking, trade, taxation, drugs, etc etc etc.

So go get societal change, we must first get societal change... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was Brexit as you say and that is a good example of peaceful change brought about by a committed group who worked for years to give power for the majority who wanted out of Europe.

Most social problems IMO derive from plentiful resources which derive at root from cheap energy.  This means that a vast number of people in this country can have a reasonably comfortable life whilst producing nothing and with no calls on their time; so either they just sit around or they put their surplus energies into crime and drugs for some extra money.

With the end of cheap energy - coming to you from 2030* IMO - there will not be the resources to do this.  Then society changes back to the previous model of necessity that you work or you starve.  Immigration then falls off a cliff and chavs and "travellers" cease to exist.

 

* Saudi oil spluttering as its new reserves are shown to be imaginary, EVs pulling more electricity from the grid than it can supply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...