developing reclaim the streets

chewy

hi as ever looking for feedback on reclaim the streets ,did you go to the one in may ?

well the september one is coming up car-free day on 22 september , how do you recvkon we could develope the diea or have other actions apart from a partyy but in the same vain



there will be an open meeting to dicuss such thing at the cultivate center west essex street 730pm on weds 20 of august
please come along tell your friends

The Saint

Arm the protestors with riot gear and make it a fair fight:D

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Saint
Arm the protestors with riot gear and make it a fair fight:D

It certainly would be fun to pull out a large iron bar the next time a de-badged Garda come running at you with a club

"Say hello to my little friend"

Joking of course, I think our police force do a bang up job

(btw "Reclaim" isn't a protest.)

Sand

How about the RTS crowd trying to get from say Celbridge to Leixlip ( less than 2-3 miles apart) using our public transport system, to demonstrate how viable life is without cars?

DadaKopf

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sand, shut up.

RTS has to solidify its strategy through more meetings like this.

On the agenda, specifically, should be a discussion on practical ways to get the idea across to the public, to make it everybody's protest. RTS is everybody's protest because it transcends political ideology and social divisions, it's about everyday life - but most poeple don't realise it. Most people still see a bunch of loony crusties, even though that's far from the reality today, so strategies have to be better developed to counter this. Perhaps this is due to an attitude adopted by those who protest (I'm one of those people) that contributes to the establishment of a "them and us" dynamic that effectively shuts people out.

Coinciding RTS with Car Free Day was an excellent move the last time because it legitimised it much more. Unfortunately, misinformation following the May 6th RTS persists so that has to be counteracted. Strategies, say, 'outreach' strategies, would be a good way to get the ideas/ideals/aspirations of RTS across, not just on the day but in the leadup. The idea is incredibly sensible and inspirational but sometimes the bumpf about it is alienating, idiosyncratic and non-factual. Fix it.

It's also vital that this year, there's a zero tolerance policy on organisations (in particular SWP) selling agitprop and merchandise. It betrays the movement.

Who is reclaiming the streets for who here?
The public road is there for a purpose which is to facilitate traffic, ie the movement of workers, their bosses, their goods and services.This is mainly done with cars and trucks, albeit with too many due to lack of sharing.

We live in a democracy whereby things are changed when there is a consistant demand for that change.
I say consistant because, an electorate could be mad at a government at some point , yet be fairly satisfied at another, so there might be no change.
I've no problem with the "reclaim the streets" existing as a movement , except their title is melodramatic and suggests that we are all suppressed here into an existance that we do not want. I do not think that is the case for the Vast majority.

It's up to the movement that styles itself as "reclaim the streets" to convince a majority to their way of thinking.
Again I have a couple of tasty hats here, to shake the pesto on if that happens.
mm

DadaKopf

We live in a democracy whereby things are changed when there is a consistant demand for that change.

Maybe you didn't notice but there are a lot of people not just in Ireland but in the world who have been consistently demanding change. Perhaps symbolised by RTS, that demand is for self-rule, or democracy, based on geniune consensus rather than the transfer of power from the general public to an elite few.

When you say 'reclaim the streets, you're referring to a complex event that at base is an exercise in reclaiming the power of the community which has been consistently eroded in recent decades throughout the world. RTS is the reclamation of public space for the reclamation of public power.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Maybe you didn't notice but there are a lot of people not just in Ireland but in the world who have been consistently demanding change.

No - I think he was pointing ouit that you are in the minority. The majority do not want change - if they did, you could have it without protests, violent clashes, etc. etc. etc.

Ergo, we must consider that your "lot of people" are still agitating for the wishes of a minority, in a democratic state....which validates the point that Man made.

It's also vital that this year, there's a zero tolerance policy on organisations (in particular SWP) selling agitprop and merchandise. It betrays the movement.

Zero tolerance, eh?

Would you accept a zero tolerance policy from the police on RTS activities? If not, then what right do you have to expect others to follow the rules you want to put in place for the environment you create while breaking the rules society demands you keep just in order to create that environment in the first place?

For a group who consistently refuses to comply with their legal organisational requirements (e.g. prior notification to the police) and who then have a large vocal minority (which seems to be the logic behind RTS overall ) complain about the police and authorities not tolerating their decision to disobey orders....surely a "zero tolerance" policy by RTS on anything is hyprocacy in the extreme?

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
Who is reclaiming the streets for who here?
The public road is there for a purpose which is to facilitate traffic, ie the movement of workers, their bosses, their goods and services.This is mainly done with cars and trucks, albeit with too many due to lack of sharing.

From the London RTS site:

The car system steals the street from under us and sells it back for the price of petrol. It privileges time over space, corrupting and reducing both to an obsession with speed or, in economic lingo, "turnover". It doesn't matter who "drives" this system for its movements are already pre-determined.

However, later on we have:

Won't the streets be better without cars? Not if all that replaces them are aisles of pedestrianised consumption or shopping "villages" safely protected from the elements. To be against the car for its own sake is inane; claiming one piece as the whole jigsaw.

The struggle for car-free space must not be separated from the struggle against global capitalism - for in truth the former is encapsulated in the latter.

The streets are as full of capitalism as of cars and the pollution of capitalism is much more
insidious.

At first the people stop and overturn the vehicles in their path... they are avenging themselves on the traffic by decomposing it into its inert original elements.

Next they incorporate the wreckage they have created into their rising barricades: they are recombining the isolated inanimate elements into vital new artistic and political forms. For one luminous moment, the multitudes of solitudes that make the modern city come together in a new kind of encounter, to make a people.

The streets belong to the people: they seize control of the city's elemental matter and make it their own.

So the streets are being reclaimed by the people for the people. However, this is part of a larger struggle against global capitalism according to the site. The means by which global capitalism may be destroyed isn't discussed on the site.

Meh

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Maybe you didn't notice but there are a lot of people not just in Ireland but in the world who have been consistently demanding change.

Actually, I didn't notice. I didn't see any RTS candidates getting elected in the recent general election. I haven't seen more than a few hundred people at any RTS protest in Dublin.

Originally posted by SkepticOne
However, this is part of a larger struggle against global capitalism according to the site. The means by which global capitalism may be destroyed isn't discussed on the site.

Well then at that public meeting spoken about above, a name change of the organisation should be proposed to something like " The movement for the universal overthrow of capitalism " and they should put foward candidates for election on that platform.
They should in a democracy, get used to the idea of going from door to door and putting their case to the people whose minds they have to change.
By not doing that, they are suggesting to me that, they'd rather ignore everyone else and would prefer to force their agenda.
Thats not a concept that ties in very well with the notion of a people being free.
If they get people elected, they have suffecient support for to have the power to impliment perhaps some of their agenda, Mildred fox style.
I doubt very much though, if there will ever be enough widespread support for that to happen, the devil we know, being better than the devil we don't, and all to that.
mm

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Man
Well then at that public meeting spoken about above, a name change of the organisation should be proposed to something like " The movement for the universal overthrow of capitalism " and they should put foward candidates for election on that platform.
They should in a democracy, get used to the idea of going from door to door and putting their case to the people whose minds they have to change.

It would be something to raise at the meeting, I suppose.

I suspect that many regard the system to be at fault. Surely, they might argue, people can't want western liberal consumerism.

BKtje

RTS seems to be to be just one big party (impression ive gotten from friends who went to it to get drunk). All i want is for a better public transport system so that traffic congestion is reduced. I dont think the streets need to be reclaimed as such.

but in the world who have been consistently demanding change

But if there was a high enough demand something would have been done about it through the polictical system surely?

colinsky

you've got to rethink what you are doing with the event and how it represents what you want to accomplish. right now, the claims and the actions are inconsistent.

for instance, by blocking off the street you are not only blocking private cars, you're blocking public buses. yet, increased used public transportation IS the solution to clearing off the streets for pedestrian use, and you should be supporting this. so at the very least, leave the bus lanes clear.

rather than fighting with the city, cooporate with them as much as possible. for instance, look at the last (official) car-free day -- it was miserable. only two small streets closed for half the day. you should have tried to coordinate with this to make it a much bigger event. Also, announce the locations further in advance -- this will get people other than those running to event to know about it and plan to show up. you folks are already convinced; you need to get the others there.

DadaKopf

by bonkey:
Zero tolerance, eh?

Etc...

I'm sorry, my language was badly chosen. Look, RTS is a non-commercial *and* trans-party-political event and it's simply not appropriate for political parties to sell merchandise. Since RTS is a non-hierarchical event, it is the responsibility of all participants as individuals and members of a collective who are committed to the event to make sure this doesn't go on.

by Man:
Well then at that public meeting spoken about above, a name change of the organisation should be proposed to something like " The movement for the universal overthrow of capitalism " and they should put foward candidates for election on that platform.

They should in a democracy, get used to the idea of going from door to door and putting their case to the people whose minds they have to change.

RTS is a genuine attempt to reconceptualise politics and self-rule (democracy). Clearly, you assume that civic-republicanism with representative democratic party-politics is the only way to organise society. In this country, as in most others, 'civic' as been excised from republicanism, 'democracy' has been excised from representation and 'politics' has been excised from party. Clearly, there are other models worth pursuing, such as direct democracy, consensual democracy. Perhaps most importantly, power has to be reformulated because it's the transformation of power and subsequent abuses of it which fuel the ideas and aims of the global justice movement, of which RTS is part. RTS is an event which experiments with alternative conceptions of civic, democratic politics.

by Man:
... they are suggesting to me that, they'd rather ignore everyone else and would prefer to force their agenda.

Thats not a concept that ties in very well with the notion of a people being free.

So you think all good ideas emerge through spontaneous popular consciousness? Think again. Any good idea has to struggle to get heard. You've got to decide whether RTS is a good or bad idea yourself. Just because it's still a fringe movement doesn't logically imply it's a bad or illigitimate idea - that's like saying pop music is great music because it's popular and alternative music is crap because it's alternative. Great argument.

RTS is about being free. We have a Constitutionally enshrined right to protest - a fundamental freedom - so we use it. We're not forcing an agenda, we're encouraging people to participate in something we think is pretty deadly. I've never once seen anyone complaining about the massive disruption caused by funfares on Merrion Square or by the St. Patrick's Day parade. Obvioulsy lots of people think those are deadly, too - I don't so I don't go but I don't complain about it. I'm happy people are using the streets Some people just have a political antipathy to ideas like RTS because they're prejudiced. Anyway...

As I said in the above paragraph, RTS is about reformulating politics by reasserting public power. Voting is an act of disenfranchisement because it is the transfer of power from the many to the few. RTS's reformulation puts power back in the hands of the general public. To me, and many others, this is freedom.

by colinsky:
rather than fighting with the city, cooporate with them as much as possible. for instance, look at the last (official) car-free day

Was't that the day of the last RTS?

by SkepticOne
I suspect that many regard the system to be at fault. Surely, they might argue, people can't want western liberal consumerism.

The fact is that our current lifystyles are unsustainable and unhealthy. People are dying on the roads, more people are getting leukaemia because of car emissions, Dublin isn't pleasant to walk around anymore because of traffic, pollution, crime, less civic spaces. Much of this is the result of government policies that have put efficiency and competitiveness ahead of social health. We might now be able to choose between 20 different types of cheese at our local Tesco, but less and less of us are sure if we'll have a job next month. Moreover, public power is diminishing, our government has been severely criticised for measures taken to make them less accountable and because of public cynicism and apathy, compined with a lack of imagination due to consumerism, we have no viable political alternative. If this is how 'great; western consumerism gets, I want out.

Finally, Man seemed to ask whether RTS is a movement in itself or actually a "movement for the universal overthrow of capitalism". RTS is a complex idea but essentially, it's the distillation of a number of different, similar thoughts and movements which have developed over time that are of, you could say, the leftist persuasion. RTS is an exercise, an idea that captures much of what the global justice movement is about. RTS is not separate from the global justice movement so why should it be renamed? The name says what it does. It's part of the global justice movement - it brings together many related strands of thought and transforms them into action.

Meh

We have a Constitutionally enshrined right to protest - a fundamental freedom - so we use it.

Don't the Socialist Workers also have a Constitutionally enshrined right to protest?

We're not forcing an agenda...

Just curious -- if the SWP turn up and start handing out leaflets, how will you stop them? What exactly does "zero tolerance" mean? Nasty looks? Harsh language? Violence? Who made the decision that the SWP weren't welcome?

Clearly, you assume that civic-republicanism with representative democratic party-politics is the only way to organise society.

Not at all. There is plenty of room for independent candidates in our political system. 14 independents won seats in the last general election -- nearly 10%. Politics in this country is not restricted to members of political parties alone.

chewy

you suggested using better was to get our genuine message across any ideas?

chewy

one part of the idea of reclaim the streets is to have a non-commercial zone (can't think of the other phrase right now)
autonomous

so swp or the pds or whoever can come down set up a stall and give out information for free, but they are advised as is the idea of this once yearly event not to sell there info which is what they did last may to some peoples displeasure, we'll try nad make sure that doesn't happen again

giving out information for free is a vital part of social politics


one cyclist guy was also selling his zine nobody bothered him but that does show an inconsistancy and i think imho that you would have to ask him if wish to spread his zine about to give it out for free that day too, it be worth it for the promotion( dame capitalist like word)

or you could trade (something other then currency)

don't ya hate it when people have the answers to your nasty gripes:)

DadaKopf

Originally posted by chewy
you suggested using better was to get our genuine message across any ideas?

I'm still thinking about it and am reading the mailing list.

The main problem, still, is that no one knows what it's about. Reclaim the streets, but 'reclaim the streets from who?' or 'reclaim the streets for who'? RTS, in this country at least, has to explicity state the reasons and aims of the event. To me, as far as literature goes, this means well researched articles, fact boxes etc which justify RTS - in particular, within the Irish context. They could cite studies and research conducted which may even have made their way into the national press - people like what's familiar and it would make the whole thing more convincing in the eyes of critics - which is just about everybody.

I suppose one thing I could suggest is for a sustained RTS campaign up until the 22nd. (I'm thinking as I type here...) Maybe activists could set up little info stalls at the top of Grafton Street to hand out literature (for free of course) and talk to people. The experience would be as good for the RTSers as much as everyone else.

A barter market could be a good idea. Reclaim work and trade, re-examine value. It could even become a semi-regular thing.

As far as locations go, they seem fine to me, but I would like to see a protest in a pedestrianised, highly commercialised pseudo-public-space like Temple Bar or a shopping centre.

Sand

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Sand, shut up.

Why dont you chain yourself to a tree about it?

And take a peek at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46807 .

On the agenda, specifically, should be a discussion on practical ways to get the idea across to the public, to make it everybody's protest.

Yap to be honest - your response to a practical challenge is to tell me to shut up. Thats grand/predictable, but then you go on about finding practical ways to get RTS across? Never mind, you cant expect much better from RTS I guess.

So the streets are being reclaimed by the people for the people. However, this is part of a larger struggle against global capitalism according to the site. The means by which global capitalism may be destroyed isn't discussed on the site.

It is very Life of Brian though isnt it? What has capitalism ever done for us? What have cars ever done for us?

As I said in the above paragraph, RTS is about reformulating politics by reasserting public power. Voting is an act of disenfranchisement because it is the transfer of power from the many to the few. RTS's reformulation puts power back in the hands of the general public. To me, and many others, this is freedom.

How? The RTS crowd talk an awful load of waffle but whats their immediate policy? Will they ban cars immediately, phase them out, or tax them to the point where they are unviable? Will the police and public services be allowed to have cars? Doctors? Taximen? Will haulage corporations and delivery trucks still be allowed to operate in the city? Will any steps be taken to revise public transport ? What steps? What ideas do they have beyond raising taxes? When it comes to preventing commercialisation of public space what does this mean exactly? Does it mean corporations will not be able to invest in areas as a form of indirect advertising? Will advertising - signs etc - actually be banned from public areas? Will areas like Temple Bar be banned or nationalised for want of a better word? When exactly will RTS get around to toppling the WTO/WorldBank/Global capitalism? What concrete measures and steps are they taking to ensure it occurs on schedule?

Less waffle and vague extremely long term aspirations please.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The main problem, still, is that no one knows what it's about. Reclaim the streets, but 'reclaim the streets from who?' or 'reclaim the streets for who'?

I don't know what it is about. I've heard your and other's opinions about what it is about. It seems to be something that everyone can project their idiology on to provided it is vaguely left wing.

These questions have been asked on this forum but as far as I can see remain unanswered.

I'm amazed that several protests can be held without anyone knowing what they are protesting about.

DadaKopf

How? The RTS crowd talk an awful load of waffle but whats their immediate policy? Will they ban cars immediately, phase them out, or tax them to the point where they are unviable? Will the police and public services be allowed to have cars? Doctors? Taximen? Will haulage corporations and delivery trucks still be allowed to operate in the city? Will any steps be taken to revise public transport ? What steps? What ideas do they have beyond raising taxes? When it comes to preventing commercialisation of public space what does this mean exactly? Does it mean corporations will not be able to invest in areas as a form of indirect advertising? Will advertising - signs etc - actually be banned from public areas? Will areas like Temple Bar be banned or nationalised for want of a better word? When exactly will RTS get around to toppling the WTO/WorldBank/Global capitalism? What concrete measures and steps are they taking to ensure it occurs on schedule?

Yep, all valied questions which RTS tries to open up for the imagination. Well done, you're getting the hang of things.

DadaKopf

Skeptic: go back and read the other RTS threads again. Or read No Logo if you haven't already.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Skeptic: go back and read the other RTS threads again. Or read No Logo if you haven't already.

If the object of the protest hasn't been defined, how am I to judge the relevance of No Logo to this particular protest? What are the demands of the protesters? Does it simply depend on who turns up?

DadaKopf

Well, theres a chapter on Reclaim the Streets for one thing...

Sand

Ill save you the bother Skeptic, No Logo is all about the evils of corporations infiltrating their brands into our daily lives turning us into a nation of consumer zombies.

And theres a line on how local governments dont enforce existing domestic laws on foreign multinational factories.

Generally Corporations=Evil, People who agree with No Logo=Good.

The relevance to No Logo is probably to do with the overall left wing slant of the book and with RTS being generally a fairly vague left wing rally disguised as a street party. Their ideas are so unpopular theyve got to hide them behind meaningless slogans now.

Yep, all valied questions which RTS tries to open up for the imagination. Well done, you're getting the hang of things.

Well Im glad you and the RTS lads have spent enough time to have figured out some answers. Where do I sign up to get the RTS running things, rebels without a clue?

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
Their ideas are so unpopular theyve got to hide them behind meaningless slogans now.

The fact that RTS is a worldwide movement is a further testament to your unbiased assertion.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Well, theres a chapter on Reclaim the Streets for one thing...

"An end to the car in cities"
"An end to consumerism"
"An end to capitalism"

Are these the demands? I'm deliberately leaving out the rational for the demands. I want to stick to what is to be achieved by the protest so that when people turn up they can know exactly what the end goals are.

Originally posted by DadaKopf

RTS is a genuine attempt to reconceptualise politics and self-rule (democracy). Clearly, you assume that civic-republicanism with representative democratic party-politics is the only way to organise society. In this country, as in most others, 'civic' as been excised from republicanism, 'democracy' has been excised from representation and 'politics' has been excised from party. Clearly, there are other models worth pursuing, such as direct democracy, consensual democracy. Perhaps most importantly, power has to be reformulated because it's the transformation of power and subsequent abuses of it which fuel the ideas and aims of the global justice movement, of which RTS is part. RTS is an event which experiments with alternative conceptions of civic, democratic politics.

I don't assume anything about the merit of what you seem to be proposing at all.
I'm just posing the question as to how you intend to persuade the majority of the public to come round to your way of thinking.
I'd have thought talking to them would be a good step and if they don't agree, what do you then?? you hardly force your opinions on them like the way, it seems the RTS movement thinks capitalism is?? To do that would be a version of the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm just rather skeptical that your proposals are going to wash, with a majority of people who currently like things the way they are.

So you think all good ideas emerge through spontaneous popular consciousness? Think again. Any good idea has to struggle to get heard. You've got to decide whether RTS is a good or bad idea yourself. Just because it's still a fringe movement doesn't logically imply it's a bad or illigitimate idea - that's like saying pop music is great music because it's popular and alternative music is crap because it's alternative. Great argument.

Well then off you go to the meeting mentioned at the start,and propose to the floor that, you canvass and engage the public in a debate , door to door on your proposals.
If your ideas aren't popular after that, you cannot deny people the right to their opinion on them.

I've never once seen anyone complaining about the massive disruption caused by funfares on Merrion Square or by the St. Patrick's Day parade.

Well , I don't know if you are aware but the local authorities have to give notice in the papers in order to close those streets on those occasions and the Gardaí are always informed and police the occasions.

Voting is an act of disenfranchisement because it is the transfer of power from the many to the few.

I'm sorry, but I was starting to like your diverse opinions( but not necessarilly agree with most of them ) on how the world should work untill I read that line.
Who is anyone to make a sweeping statement like that??
It rather questions a lot of peoples intelligence.
mm

DadaKopf

Well , I don't know if you are aware but the local authorities have to give notice in the papers in order to close those streets on those occasions and the Gardaí are always informed and police the occasions.

My point was people don't start foaming at the mouth that these things block traffic in the city, too. The immediate bone of contention is that one is legally sanctioned, while the other one is spontaneous. No one's disputing it. People are disputing people's political rights to politically legitimate protest, which is a constitutional assurance.

Perhaps because they generally happen on bank holidays.

People are disputing people's political rights to politically legitimate protest, which is a constitutional assurance.

I do recall the farmers driving their tractors into Dublin and several towns across Ireland in a very well organised protest.
They weren't denied the right to do that, despite the city centre traders giving out about it.
Theres no need for anarchy in protest. There is a need to be clever about the way you protest though, for it is those that are clever about their protest who get people en masse behind them as they strike a chord not only from what they are saying , but by the way they are saying it.
Just more food for thought for your meeting.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The immediate bone of contention is that one is legally sanctioned, while the other one is spontaneous.

Good choice of words there to avoid saying that the immediate bone of contention is that one is legally sanctioned and the other is not, and is therefore illegal.

Also, there is nothing "spontaneous" about an annual, pre-organised event, to be held on a pre-announced date, at a pre-announced time, in a pre-announced location. Your event is planned, not spontaneous....which is another reason for a lot of the negative reaction it generates....

"On this date, in that place, at such-and-such a time, we will all spontaneously gather and do the same type of stuff we do each and every year, which is all more-or-less a localised variation on what the original RTS events did. Oh - and we can't contact the authorities about this, because its all spontaneous...it'll just happen on the spur of the moment".

Spontaneous my left nostril. Ever consider that this degree of ultra-transparent spin is also a key reason that people have a problem with RTS?

Also...as a matter of interest...if you have a problem with democracy (as you apparently do) as it empowers the few at the cost of the many (despite those many deciding who the few should be)....then how the hell is your protest any less of an empowerment of the few?

A few people are empowering a few more to remove power from the majority, so you can have your disruption. You see this as a fairer solution to allowing people to actually make a choice? By what right are the few RTS organisers empowered to have this control over the rest of us through their event? By what right are the RTS attendees empowered to cause the disruption at the expense of others.


jc

SkepticOne

Right, here's how I think it can be developed.

1. Get rid of the 'party' aspect to it. A protest should be a serious thing. It should be about achieving things that can't be done any other way. If you wan't a party, hire a hall. That way you won't be inconveniencing others.

2. Narrow it down to specific easily communicated demands. I would suggest concentrating on the area of Dublin's woeful public transport. This is something people can relate to. When there are real alternatives to cars, then people will be more willing to listen to ideas relating to their removal from cities.

3. Get rid of the anarcho-socialist overtones. This detracts from the message you are trying to get out. It is fine for people to hold these views on an individual basis, but the protest should concentrate on what can be realistically delivered in a relatively short term.

The London RTS site talks about how cars are destroying community but then undemines that by saying that they are merely a symptom of world capitalism.

Concentrate on one or the other. If it is about world capitalism, concentrate on that.

4. Explore ways of achieving your results without alienating others. Is blocking a street from traffic the best way of achieving the results?

DadaKopf

by Man:
Perhaps because they generally happen on bank holidays.

So have most recent RTS events.

by Man:
There is a need to be clever about the way you protest though, for it is those that are clever about their protest who get people en masse behind them as they strike a chord not only from what they are saying , but by the way they are saying it.

Yes, and at least 80 years of good thought by prominent political writers has gone into developing RTS-style strategies. I think RTS is very, very clever and extremely sensible.

by bonkey:
Good choice of words there to avoid saying that the immediate bone of contention is that one is legally sanctioned and the other is not, and is therefore illegal.

Yeah it was a bit sloppy on my part. Rather, I means one is legally sanctioned which gives it legitimacy in law (as well as general will) whereas an RTS event is perceived by many (those who participate and those who agree with it in principle but don't participate) as politically legitimate even though it most certainly is an act of civil-disobedience but one which is constructive, not destructive or oppositional.

By what right are the few RTS organisers empowered to have this control over the rest of us through their event?

There are 'central organisers' simply because they are people who decide to take on a burden of responsibility. No one is voted, anyone can help out.

By what right are the RTS attendees empowered to cause the disruption at the expense of others.

By being human, probably. Stop talking of rights and start talking about reasons.

I don't know if opening up the aesthetic dimension of RTS right now could be useful. Anyone, like chewy, want to elaborate on this aspect?

DadaKopf

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Right, here's how I think it can be developed.

1. Get rid of the 'party' aspect to it. A protest should be a serious thing. It should be about achieving things that can't be done any other way. If you wan't a party, hire a hall. That way you won't be inconveniencing others.

2. Narrow it down to specific easily communicated demands. I would suggest concentrating on the area of Dublin's woeful public transport. This is something people can relate to. When there are real alternatives to cars, then people will be more willing to listen to ideas relating to their removal from cities.

3. Get rid of the anarcho-socialist overtones. This detracts from the message you are trying to get out. It is fine for people to hold these views on an individual basis, but the protest should concentrate on what can be realistically delivered in a relatively short term.

The London RTS site talks about how cars are destroying community but then undemines that by saying that they are merely a symptom of world capitalism.

Concentrate on one or the other. If it is about world capitalism, concentrate on that.

4. Explore ways of achieving your results without alienating others. Is blocking a street from traffic the best way of achieving the results?

Ref:

1. Why should political protests be serious? Can you not see that protests can exist other ways? Can you not see how the party aspect fits into the reasons behind RTS?

2. RTS isn't a single issue event. Critical Mass is and that works quite effectively but it's not the same as RTS. I agree that an effort should be made to more effectively communicate the intellectual and historical origins, ideals and aims of RTS but reducing it to a single issue event completely defeats the purpose. You clearly don't have a bog's notion what it's about but you make judgements about which are incorrect so I advise you at *least* go back and read the previous threads here.

3. No. RTS *is* anarcho-socialist - that is: an experiment in non-hierarchical, non-commercial, socially oriented social organisation. The understanding is that we are all individuals *and* are tied to the community. It runs directly counter to hierarchical consumerist individualism so to get rid of this would be rediculous. [Heh, I'd love to see if anyone would be willing to hold counter-RTS protests: "Yeah! We want MORE CARS! LESS PEOPLE! MORE POLLUTION! LESS JOBS! HIGHER PRICES! ULTRA-INDIVIDUALISM! IN FACT WE WANT NO ONE TO TALK AT ALL!!!" Yeah, everyone would love it. I wonder how long that'd last.] That RTS quotation isn't a contradiction: statistics show that in Ireland, the rise in car ownership and traffic congestion is directly correlated with the rise of globalised consumer capitalism, to which Ireland is inextricably linked.

4. Isn't this partly what the thread is about? Although what you seem to be implying throughout these four points is that RTS should lay down and die.

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
whereas an RTS event is perceived by many (those who participate and those who agree with it in principle but don't participate) as politically legitimate even though it most certainly is an act of civil-disobedience

By "politically legitimate", I assume you mean "morally legitimate, whilst illegal". Remember - I started on this line to try and explain why (in my opinion) so many people have a negative opinion of RTS. No matter what way you dress it up, and how you nicely try and spin it, you must admit at the end of the day that it is - by choice - an illegal event, in that it deliberately circumvents legal requirements for a gathering of that nature. The point I'm trying to make is not that it must be viewed one way...its that many of those who disagree with RTS do not see it as a legal protest, and therefore do not see it as a legitimate protest. By RTS supporters insisting constantly that the whole idea is to break the law (politely worded under spinnage like "civil disobedience"), you're never really going to change those people's opinions. I'm not saying they are right, nor that you are wrong....just how I perceive the situation.

but one which is constructive, not destructive or oppositional.

You mean one which is intended to be constructive, and hoped not to be destructive or oppositional. Big difference - especially considering (again) the lack of co-operation with the various bodies who's job it usually is at such organised events to prevent these occurrences. You know - people like the police.

I've also never heard anyone from RTS accept responsibility for any damage which ensued.

There are 'central organisers' simply because they are people who decide to take on a burden of responsibility. No one is voted, anyone can help out.

And how do disagreements get resolved? Not by a vote I trust? Does some "leader" have the final say, or what?

Stop talking of rights and start talking about reasons.

OK. There is a reason that democracy has been instituted in society, as it gives us a viable mechanism whereby on a large scale, society can have a direct influence into the running of things in a workable fashion.

On a small scale, democracy is not necessarily needed - hence RTS itself does not need to be a democratic society....but society at large needs some formalised structure...and any formalised structure will disempower people. Democracy, at least, would appear to have the ability to disempower people the least. In a dictatorship, for example, the people have no say whatsoever.

So......(given that you want reason and not right).....what reason does RTS have for discarding this structure, other than the fact that the wishes of the RTS supporters have not been carried out, and will never be carried out whilst RTS-concept supporters remain in the minority? You can couch it in terms of "empowerment", but at the end of the day you are simply still making up for the fact that the RTS does not share the wishes of the majority and is not willing to accept that.

If those supporting concepts like RTS were in the majority, and the government was making steps in the direction that you wish to see...I'm willing to bet that you and your fellow RTS-supporters would be the last people standing up complaining about the disempowerment of democracy, and how it is ok to oppose it with civil disobedience.

Consider - if RTS ever did work...would you support people decding they wanted a "RTSfC" movement? (Reclaim the Streets for Cars), and who once-a-year decided to drive and park all along whatever pedestrianised areas you had won? Bit o' drag-racing...or maybe one of those "boy-racer meets" that you see on the box every so often? Well?

As far as I can see, you are still ultimately just saying that the system is wrong because you are in the minority. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Now....I know people are still going to be getting me wrong on this. I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of RTS. I am fundamentally opposed to some aspects of it, and heartily support others. However, the stance I take is quite confrontational - I hear far too much spinnery and faffage about how nice and fluffy a bit of anarchism RTS really is, when the reality is somewhat different.

I'm not trying to knock the idea entirely. I'm trying to explain/illustrate why there is so much opposition to the idea of RTS in the first place.

When you say "spontaneous" and I point out that this is spin to avoid saying "illegal", you then switch to it being "just"....which is still spin for it being illegal....but at least this time you admitted the issue of legality and explained your stance on it.

This is what RTS needs, IMHO. Stop waiting for people to say "but you're breaking the law". Stop waiting for people to say "but you're discarding the concepts of democracy". When they do say it, stop dodging the issue, or try to cover it up with nice-sounding spin (like claiming its a spontaneous event - its not because the occurrence is pre-planned). Such spin is the game of the people who got us into this type of mess in the first place - the type of ba5tard5 that RTS is supposed to be redeeming us from. Stop becoming them in order to sell your agenda. If you can do that, and still sell your agenda, then you have something worth selling. If you can't, then you're really just another snake-oil salesman in my book.

When RTS is plugging itself, it should be blunt and honest about it :

"Yes, we are involved in civil disobedience, and yes, that does mean we are breaking the law to some extent. Here's our reasons for doing that.

"Yes, we are aware that we are increasing the risk of injury etc. by not liaising closely with gardai and health officials for the event, and here's what we have done instead, and here's why, and yes - we will make sure attendees are notified as necessary of this type of thing in advance.

"No, we haven't actually got solutions. More often than not, we are simply agitating for something else to be tried without necessarily knowing what that solution may ultimately be. We do know, however, that if we never look for it, we will never find it".

This is what I think RTS should do. To be honest, however, I can never see it happening.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
You clearly don't have a bog's notion what it's about but you make judgements about which are incorrect so I advise you at *least* go back and read the previous threads here.

Have you ever noticed how the people involved in RTS never explain what its about? They tell you to go and read X which explains it, and then come back.

X can be other threads, books, web-sites, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately, I've read all of those, and RTS is everything from a single-issue event like Critical Mass to an anarcho-socialist experiment, to a non-extremist encouragement to discard the ultra-capitalist/consumerist path we are on in favour of something better, even if it is neither anarchical or socialist in nature.

RTS is all of these things and more, and none of these things....depending on who you ask and what you read. As a result, telling people they haven't a clue isn't terribly helpful - nor is telling them to go and read the masses of contradictory material out there about it. At the very least, while they are discussing it with you (as an individual), it would be enlightening to let them know what it means to you.

I would also suggest that (again - dealing with why so many people are opposed to RTS) giving out the attitide that "you havent a clue what we're about, we're not willing to explain it to you, but we're right and you don't know enough to even offer any opinion, let alone criticism" is never going to win you support.....but quite frankly its what I see from a significant number of RTS posters once you get far enough into any thread where nothing has been explained and the RTS people still refuse to offer explanations.

Remember - its the people who do not support you that you need to convert. Telling them to sod off and get a clue will not do this.

Heh, I'd love to see if anyone would be willing to hold counter-RTS protests:

I'd just find a way to drive through an RTS protest in a BigFoot if I wanted to do that. Or I'd turn up and sell stuff. With a trading licence. Accompanied by some gardai to protect my legal right to perform such an action if the RTS people tried preventing it.

jc

DadaKopf

When RTS is plugging itself, it should be blunt and honest about it :

"Yes, we are involved in civil disobedience, and yes, that does mean we are breaking the law to some extent. Here's our reasons for doing that.

"Yes, we are aware that we are increasing the risk of injury etc. by not liaising closely with gardai and health officials for the event, and here's what we have done instead, and here's why, and yes - we will make sure attendees are notified as necessary of this type of thing in advance.

"No, we haven't actually got solutions. More often than not, we are simply agitating for something else to be tried without necessarily knowing what that solution may ultimately be. We do know, however, that if we never look for it, we will never find it".

Yes, I agree. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the fault of RTS is that those participants, including myself, are trying so hard to make it respectable that we pad the core ideals out with friendly language, which doesn't particularly lie about what it is but it's ever so slightly deceptive. I also agree that RTS literature should be crammed with simply stated and well argued reasons.

The traffic aspect is always something people can grab onto but once the writing attempts to explain the aesthetic dimension to RTS, the fact that it's the practise of transforming art into a practical political tool, people's eyes begin to glaze over.

The other side of the coin is that the general public aren't willing to consider these ideas because they're emotionally repulsed by anything vaguely leftist. This is largely due to the pervasiveness of our party system which has never allowed for a genuine political left. It'd be nice if the public started listening, too.

Instead, it increases ideological polarisation.

I still think it's important to keep in mind, though, that those who are pushing left/new-left agendas through things like this are still contributing significantly to the building of a genuine political alternative in this country.

DadaKopf

RTS is all of these things and more, and none of these things....depending on who you ask and what you read. As a result, telling people they haven't a clue isn't terribly helpful - nor is telling them to go and read the masses of contradictory material out there about it. At the very least, while they are discussing it with you (as an individual), it would be enlightening to let them know what it means to you.

This is another aspect of RTS and the style of political thinking that goes behind it.

In fact, contradiction can be a good thing. So can indeterminacy. They force people to discuss and argue, which is always a healthy thing because it gets things moving, everyone gets a say, so solutions are better worked out.

RTS has been built on a lot of political theory following Marx, Georg Lukács, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva and the Situationist International. The arguments put forward by these guys say that the world simply can't be neatly categorised and compartmentalised. They're the dudes who have theorised the human effect that capitalism and consumerism has on human beings, on the experience of everyday life. The thesis is that capitalist consumerism divides us from ourselves, which makes us to that extent less human and therefore less free.

[Human being is understood as the ability for every person, as necessarily linked to the community and to nature (ecology) to exercise his/her intrinsic creativity and leave a meaningful mark on the world. Capitalist consumerism is shown to be a highly rationalised form of control and total determinacy, which transfers human-being (or the 'self') onto external objects to the point at which we divide ourselves from ourselves and meaning is no longer of our own making.]

So RTS, is a practical application of this critique. In my previous post, I said that RTS is the transformation of art into a political tool. The other aspect of these thinkers is that they considered the aesthetic dimension to be the the only arena capable of revolutionary change, these days. The reason for this is because art is both structured by culture and is autonomous from it - it's capable of both revealing the underlying logic of culture (that is, everything to do with human activity) and transcending it. This duality remains in dynamic tension, setting up a temporary dichotomy until such time that it transforms into its opposite. These heads claimed that the very way we experience and act in the world is shaped by culture, so, consequently, our political options are limited to what we know. But art opens that up by revealing *both* what we know and what is possible, so art therefore is able to push us into a new phase.

The aesthetic aspect of RTS is really what's central: art has the capacity for political and social change. RTS throws definitions and concepts into disarray and provokes thought and argument, which is achieved through creative expression.

So, back to bonkey-esque bullet points:

1. RTS is a left wing event, informed by left-wing thought [but this is just a convenient categorisation].

2. RTS is an artistic event.

3. RTS is a political event.

4. RTS is an event which blurs the edges between political protest and outdoor festival; part of it is illegal, part of it is constututionally enshrined; it deliberately defies categories thereby drawing together culture and politics.

5. RTS is an act of civil-disobedience.

6. RTS is radical-environmentalism.

7. RTS is about opening up spaces of genuine critique separate from our current system for the reason of facilitating genuine inquiry into alternatives to our current problems.

8. RTS uses the car as a tangible symbol of these problems; these problems are political, social, economic, ethical, ecological and personal in nature. These problems are all interrelated.

9. Since RTS is an artistic event, participants don't actually have to read all this theory to get it, they just have to experience it. It's the same as when people see an art work and never see the world the same way again - revalations can happen through intuitive insight. Then it all just clicks.

10. RTS is about changing people's mindset.

Bonkey, I've put about two years' worth of attempting to explain RTS to people on these boards so don't you go giving out to me about refusing to explain something. It's more due to exhaustion than anything else. I really don't want to be repeating myself unnecessarily.

SkepticOne

When the police come along to break the thing up, are they, in a sense part of the art - part of the point being made?

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Bonkey, I've put about two years' worth of attempting to explain RTS to people on these boards so don't you go giving out to me about refusing to explain something. It's more due to exhaustion than anything else. I really don't want to be repeating myself unnecessarily.

I'd suggest either saving a once-typed description (perhaps this one) that you can open, copy and paste at need....or just ask a nice mod to sticky the information for you somewhere.

I was thinking about the diversity and ambiguity of what RTS really is last night, and its funny....the diversity strikes me as both a strength and a weakness.

On one hand, RTS transcends many of the typically-political divisions between groups who all seek some variant the same type of change. RTS allows all of them to band together - they can all walk the first couple of steps together, and if change ever comes, they can then start disagreeing about where things should go from there at that point. Very smart. Helps with popularity.

On the other hand, many people look at this diversity, this conflict of apparent purpose, the lack of targetted aims and goals (in preference to a fuzzier "we want it changed so its better" goal which is mostly what RTS sells from what I perceive) and they come away with doubts. If there is no concrete goal, and no concrete purposes...surely "its all just an excuse for the lefties to have a street-parade", right?

Well, no. Its a lot more than a street-parade, and I can see why people like Dada here get very frustrated dealing with the "unbelievers". On the other hand, I've had conversations with people who would consider themselves to be firmly pro-RTS who cannot say what it is they want to see, how it should come about etc. etc. etc. nor even clearly articulate that it is anything more than some sort of medium to make some sort of protest about how bad some things seem to be in the world.

If you think about it...the inherent lack of structure in the RTS ideology is what causes this. There are no appointed spin-doctors. There are no marketing bods coming up with the right things to say when interviewed etc. etc. etc. Well - I'm assuming there aren't......

At the end of the day, this is something I find very interestng, because to me it says that the "different approach" of RTS has shown some strengths and weaknesses that everyone (supporter of RTS or not) could learn something from considering....

jc

Shorty

Okay, I'm going to attempt to try and clarify some things with this post, I think it's going to be quite broad and general, so it will probably be quite easy to attack. Hopefully I will have helped to explain something, hopefully!

I know it's stupid and not very helpful, and it happens alot in discussions on this board, to tell someone to go read a certain book cause I can't be bothered to explain, but I hope to explain some points. But to mention a book, as a starting point No Logo is quite good, but a new book out now that I find to be quite good on the subject of the (insert whatever) movement is a book called "One No, Many Yeses" by Philip Kingsnorth in which he attempts to try and answer the usual attack on the movement of "I know what you're against, but what are you for?".

I know this is more to do with "the movement" but it's quite interesting that the same critiques of RTS are also similar critiques of "the movement".

(Okay that was my introduction and attempt to cover myself )

In mayday 2001 (I think) the critical mass bike riders in London had a banner saying "Get rid of capitalism and replace it with something nicer" and I think that is one of the problems perceived of and within the movement. But what I firstly want to say is that what were seeing now is something so new and different it's hard to describe. But what you have to understand is that this movement is an attempt to move away from the "old left".

Here's a qoute from the above mentioned book.

"For while there is much common ground, there is also a fundamental differnce between this new politics of resistance and the old politics of the revolutionary left. ... Traditional hard-left politics is about seizing state power, either through revolution or through electing a 'workers' party'. It is about vanguard politics, it is usually anti - democratic and even the working class that it claims to represent is so changed from the days when Marx and Engels wrote their gospels that even modern adherents have trouble defining who's in and whose out.
Radical political movements have long been ronowned for dissipating their energies on People's Front of Judea type squabbling rather than attacking their common enemies. This movement, is rather different. It is so frightened of shattering it's own fragile unity, or developing a hierarchy that would enable the more powerful and influential activists to push all the others around, that there is almost a pathological fear of airing differences in public and potentially 'splitting the movement'."

And

"A movement inspired by Zapatismo and radical democracy that speaks a new language, promotes new ideas and wants no party or vanguard to lead it can never make its peace with dogmatic statists from the Utopian left, convinced that 'power' must be 'seized' at state level, by them, for 'the workers', whether anybody else likes it or not."

And

"This is an enormous and chaotically diverse movement, full of passionate and intensely argumentative people. It's impossible to sum up everything that evry person person or group stands for, particularly as some of them contradict each other. It is possible, though, to draw up a list of principles and values which run through most of this movement,
This is a movment which stands for redistribution - redistribution of both wealth and power. It stands for equity - a world in which everyone gets their share, of material wealth, of representation and influence. It stands for autonomy, and for genuine democracy... . It stands for a model of organising which rejects, in many though not in all cases, traditional hierarchies, and similarly rejects the old left-wing model of leader and followers, vanguard and masses. It stands for DIY politics - a willingness and a desire to take action yourself, to take to the streets, to act rather than to ask. It stands for economic independance, anti-consumerism and a redefinition of the very concepts of "growth' and 'development'. It seeks a world where there are strict limits to market values and private power, where life is not commodified, where the commons are redefined and reclaimed, where ecology and economy go hand in hand. It stands for a rejection of top-down models and all encompassing 'Big Ideas'. And it stands, perhaps above all, for a reclamation and redefinition of power itself."

Now I'm probably going to be wiped off the board for this ( see the pun :rolleyes: ) but they're just qoutes and I would encourage people to read that book to get a better understanding of what it's about.

Also I think this might explain ( I hope ) why the movement and RTS don't, as people here and elsewhere have been calling to, elect a leader and put forward a manifesto and run for parliament. It's hard for people to understand this and their differences in beliefs about radical democracy and representative parliamentary democracy, but once you can recognise that you might start to understand where they are coming from. This might explain Dada's earlier comment.

And I think this difference between old left and now, explains why they also want to break away from the march, chant, black and white placards, speeches, march some more style of protesting and to make it more enjoyable. Hence the street party as protest idea, but I do recognise the problem people have with it being perceived as a party and just that, with no political message and I think that is another reason the meeting has been called, a wanting to move forward.

Also in the same way that "the movement" isn't an organisation that you join up to and get a membership card neither is RTS. It's not the same people all the time organising these and there IS a large element of spontaneity and for people to actively entertain themselves and bring their own entertainment at these events, rather than passively waiting to be entertained. Also RTS as an "organisation" isn't that big and if you want to know their organisational methods I suggest going to something like The Grassroots Gathering to see it in action instead. If anything it is PAINFULLY democratic, it is non-hierarchical and consensus based decision making, so it takes a good deal of time.

Also, I hope people understand how new this movement is, it is still only in it's infancy, only 4-5 years old, and it is only starting to develop it's beliefs, so give it time.

Turnip

Originally posted by Shorty
"This is an enormous and chaotically diverse movement, full of passionate and intensely argumentative people.

Not very argumentative RTS types round here....

It stands for a model of organising which rejects, in many though not in all cases, traditional hierarchies, and similarly rejects the old left-wing model of leader and followers, vanguard and masses. It stands for DIY politics - a willingness and a desire to take action yourself, to take to the streets, to act rather than to ask. It stands for economic independance, anti-consumerism and a redefinition of the very concepts of "growth' and 'development'.

And when they leave university, and grow up a bit, they'll realise that if anything is to get done then a hierarchy is the most efficient, natural and effective way to do it. The truth is they ALL want to be "leaders" and that is not possible.

Also, I hope people understand how new this movement is, it is still only in it's infancy, only 4-5 years old, and it is only starting to develop it's beliefs, so give it time.

If this "movement" is about "beliefs", rather than "ideas" or "thoughts" then it is pointless.

Shorty

Originally posted by Turnip
And when they leave university, and grow up a bit, they'll realise that if anything is to get done then a hierarchy is the most efficient, natural and effective way to do it. The truth is they ALL want to be "leaders" and that is not possible.

Excellent! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Turnip
If this "movement" is about "beliefs", rather than "ideas" or "thoughts" then it is pointless.

Sorry, it was the end of a long reply and maybe I was thinking out loud or just threw in what I was thinking. There's no need to be so pedantic over my choice of words, I'm sure thoughts or ideas can be interchanged there and beliefs was definately the wrong word to use for a movement that is anti- "ism"/anti-systemic. Didn't Nietzsche say "We would not let ourselves be burned to death for our opinions: we are not sure of them for that. But perhaps for the right to have our opinions and to change them."

SkepticOne

I don't think a hierarchy is the best way to do everything. If there is sufficient motivation then people can often work cooperatively, sometimes for extended periods. It depends, of course, on what it is being done.

Lennoxschips

Every city that has closed off its centre to cars on a permanent basis has noted a marked improvement in their city centre economy...

bonkey

Originally posted by SkepticOne
I don't think a hierarchy is the best way to do everything.

Absolutely.

However, the "feeling" that I get from the RTS exponents is that it is not the best way to do anything.....which is a completely different argument.

For evidence - here's a bit of what Shorty quoted to explain RTS :

"It stands for a rejection of top-down models and all encompassing 'Big Ideas'"

Note the lack of words to the effect of "where they are not a useful solution" in that sentence.

jc



jc

DadaKopf

I think what shorty meant was that RTS is the expression of a political ethos that holds consensus over and above rationalised, hierarchicalised divisions of labour.

The point is that when divisions of labour under consensus-driven politics are necessary "to get the job done" efficiently, that it's only a temporary hierarchy, pitted to one task. Moreover, this hierarchy is agreed upon by all those who agree to participate.

Somebody up there commented that hierarchies are the natural state of things in the world. This is incorrect; a hierarchical conception of the world is just that, a conception, an idea. The tendency in recent thought is to see the world as systemic. So in fact, the world should be viewed not just horizontally but three-dimensionally, comprised of an infinite number of dynamically interacting systems. Things are not static. Hierarchies are just convenient ways for us to categorise the world - it's just a model - the reality is much more complex and free-form.

This approach means that hierarchies can never get "stuck", thus avoiding the construction of monolithic power structures such as beuaucracies etc.

It's therefore a fundamental affront to the way things have been done before (with a number of exceptions), which have been extremely destructive in the past.

It's important to note, though, that the whole argument is in itself culture-centric. For us, Western-centric. Since the political ethos is based on consensus, that means politics once again becomes local, thus reintegrating politics with everyday life and making it meaningful. Hence the call for an end of "big ideas", such as libertarianism, fascism and communism, to name but a few (of the most destructive ones in recent history).

Politics ceases to be abstract, which is what we have now, and wouldn't that be better for everyone?

The idea's not perfect, but nothing really is. It's the utter denial of utopianism.

Shorty

Those are just qoutes from a book called One No, Many Yeses by Philip Kingsnorth. I was more dealing with "the movement" than RTS, and as I said there are other groups such as Peoples Global Action and the Grass Roots Gathering in which to look at these types of "organisations". Although again, I must stress that RTS isn't really an "organisation" as such.

There's a good piece called The Tyranny of Tyranny by Cathy Levine that might explain a bit about why groups choose to use non-hierarchical "structureless structures". Although this is written more about the feminist movement in the 70's. Although the feminist movement is also an influence on "the movement" as well as the ecological movement being an influence among others. In fact in many introducing type books on politics, they refer to it as an "anarchist influenced" movement.

As for the "Big Ideas" part, I take it more from a postmodern viewpoint such as Lyotards ending of the grand narratives. In fact many see the movement as the first postmodern movement.

DadaKopf

Yeah, Lyotard, among many others. Older fellas sewed the seeds.

Postmodern movement? Aye, surely. This movement being a cluster of interrelated, dialogical movements.

But postmodern is one name, late modern is another, bag of mickies is another.

Turnip

Originally posted by Sand
Generally Corporations=Evil, People who agree with No Logo=Good.

Sand, you're comparing corporations to people, unwittingly I suspect. That's not on.

Their ideas are so unpopular theyve got to hide them behind meaningless slogans now.

They want to see a reduction in car use. So does Dublin City Council. So do most decent citizens in the city I suspect. It's official council policy, so their ideas can't be that unpopular. Unfortunately if a message is to be successful, then quite often it has to be reduced to soundbites and slogans, and hopefully people will get round to the more detailed stuff afterwards.

I find it ironic that a lot of hostility to RTS seems to be due to it being illegal. But many people (even some here I bet) consume illegal drugs and fill the pockets of criminals. Their attitude is "so what." That's a far more serious offence in my book.

However, RTS should stop using outdated citizen alienating "smash capitalism" rhetoric, should club together and rent some office space and should liaise with the council to use their creativity to come up with concete proposals to help reduce the number of cars on the streets.