Frankfurt 'Blockupy' protesters target ECB, banks, airport

Lou.m

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-germany-blockupy-idUSBRE94U0A420130531

"The aim of this blockade is to prevent normal operations at the ECB," said Blockupy spokesman Martin Sommer, adding that some people who had tried to come to work had been sent home by the protesters.

Personally i don't see this as potentially any more useful than the occupy wallstreet movement.

I wonder will this feeling gain momentum.

Most of the protesters seemed to be Germans against austerity from other reports but with other nationalities too.

hatrickpatrick

Came out of nowhere, but fantastic news all the same. 1,500 isn't a bad start (going with the most conservative estimate), hopefully this one manages to snowball. It was probably only a matter of time, but great to see all the same

EDIT: WOW! 7,000 today!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/01/us-germany-blockupy-idUSBRE95009C20130601

yara

meanwhile in Ireland there's practical silence as people bury their heads even further into the sand

Cody Pomeray

The Occupy Dame Street movement was little more than a focus of public mockery. I think it is safe to assume that Irish people attach little or no value to public symbols of protest or what the art schools call "semiotic disobedience".

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of movements like Blockupy or Occupy, it's safe to say that the Irish people are just not interested.

This opens Irish society to the accusation of being more a collection of onlookers than the 'rebels' or historical activists we sometimes prefer to associate with.

It has always been interesting at protests I've been to, that the protestors were sometimes only equal to the number of onlookers.

The fact is that the only times people do come out and protest in this country are when we threaten their personal tax obligations on foot of private property ownership, and other forms of asset owners (relatively high income elderly) feel like they might miss out on the medical card.

On emigration and unemployment, catastrophic national disorders better known to this country than to our neighbours, we are almost completely silent.

Jonny7

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The Occupy Dame Street movement was little more than a focus of public mockery. I think it is safe to assume that Irish people attach little or no value to public symbols of protest or what the art schools call "semiotic disobedience".

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of movements like Blockupy or Occupy, it's safe to say that the Irish people are just not interested.

This opens Irish society to the accusation of being more a collection of onlookers than the 'rebels' or historical activists we sometimes prefer to associate with.

It has always been interesting at protests I've been to, that the protestors were sometimes only equal to the number of onlookers.

The fact is that the only times people do come out and protest in this country are when we threaten their personal tax obligations on foot of private property ownership, and other forms of asset owners (relatively high income elderly) feel like they might miss out on the medical card.

On emigration and unemployment, catastrophic national disorders better known to this country than to our neighbours, we are almost completely silent.

100,000 turned out to protest the war on Iraq.

Cody Pomeray

Jonny7 wrote: »

100,000 turned out to protest the war on Iraq.

True, there are rare exceptions; that one was 10 years ago, but there is a visible pattern.

Cuts to privilege really get people on the streets.

Cuts to people without privilege struggle.

hatrickpatrick

^ Personally I'm not so sure if privilege / non privilege are the real factors in why we've become so docile. I'd much sooner point the finger at the constant shame and inferiority complex which has been hurled at us over the last while by the media and by vested interests.

One only has to look at the number of "Why protest? This mess is our fault" comments whenever anyone tries to organize something to object to the outrageous gravy trains that are politics and the taxpayer funded financial sector to see plenty of examples of this. The concept of separating the general economic mess from corruption and scandal seems impossible to argue to those people, in their minds the two issues are one and the same, and anyone protesting against bankers getting six figure salaries while teachers are being cut back is obviously under the same umbrella as people protesting against cuts generally.
Etc etc etc.

Quite depressing and also quite bizarre. I genuinely don't understand it myself, and I've spent the last couple of years desperately trying to. There are a fair few people here on this forum who constantly point to figures regarding our economy and the deficit whenever a protest comes up, as if the country's balance sheet is the only important thing and any kind of fairness or moral principle is irrelevant. Personally, I care a lot less about macroeconomics than I do about seeing crooks go to prison and get thrown off their gravy trains, but there seem to be a lot of people who would happily ignore all that.

There's also a very nasty element of "Look at these idiots protesting while walking around in new cars and using iPads", as if being wealthy means you can't object to the injustice others are facing, or even that being wealthy means you can't object to injustice period. Personally, even if every single Irish person was a millionaire with a massive house and three '13 cars, I would still be angry that Bertie is getting money from the taxpayer, that Enda's advisors are breaching salary caps, that Noonan abstained from cutting the BOI head's pay and that Sean FitzPatrick still isn't rotting in Mountjoy with the keys thrown into the Liffey. I'd be angry about this even if I was the richest man on Earth and never had to lift a finger to do anything, because it's injustice. And in my view, injustice is something to get pissed off about regardless of whether it affects you directly - it has nothing to do with me, it doesn't make any difference to my own life, but I don't want to live in a society which doesn't punish corruption. Simple as. I don't so much care if it has no practical effect on my own situation, I want to see Bertie cut loose because he's a crook and he deserves to be.

But for a lot of people, that isn't enough to justify protest and they will claim that you're making noise for no reason, because your own life is ok and therefore you have no legitimate complaints.

KyussBishop

All of that is very frustrating, yes; I don't understand it myself either, because there is so much that really is worth protesting about, for its own sake, without having to associate yourself with the entire range of disparate issues that get protested about.

People generally don't seem to care enough, about any of the issues revolving around the crisis, to motivate being even minimally politically active about it, and appear to be easily misled into the stupid "there is no alternative" line of public vs private 'divide and conquer' narrative, where even people bringing up perfectly legitimate issues worth protesting about, are discarded solely for not providing alternatives (and further, even when workable alternatives are shown, they are largely just ignored).

I mean, it took me long enough to fully pin down both the core issues perpetuating the crisis and ways of resolving them, and it's not common knowledge; when you figure it out though, it's fairly easy to gradually get your head around, but not nearly enough people know even the start of it, or how to properly spread knowledge about it all.

Unless there is a critical mass in understanding this stuff, among the populace here and elsewhere, I can't really see anything being done about it; even the people leading the way in writing about this academically who are doing the most to spread knowledge about it, have really great difficulty breaking into mainstream discourse (though their narrative really isn't up to scratch yet, hence why it takes people so long to get their head around it).

expectationlost

yara wrote: »

meanwhile in Ireland there's practical silence as people bury their heads even further into the sand

occupy dublin were battoned and pepper sprayed off the streets

RMD

expectationlost wrote: »

occupy dublin were battoned and pepper sprayed off the streets

The only thing Occupy Dame Street served as was a public nuisance and an eye sore. They had no support from the general populace and set-up camp in a prominent Dublin location against the wishes of local businesses.

hatrickpatrick

RMD wrote: »

The only thing Occupy Dame Street served as was a public nuisance and an eye sore. They had no support from the general populace and set-up camp in a prominent Dublin location against the wishes of local businesses.

The question is, why did they have so little support? Why are so many people content if their lives are more or less ok, to put up with our country being run in a corrupt manner and to put up with crooks being allowed to walk free?

If we were ruled by Britain today, and it was up to today's Irish people to overthrow them, the revolutionaries would be seen as a tiny fringe "nuisance" and laughed off the streets, the army wouldn't even have to do anything about them because they'd be ripped to shreds by their fellow Irishmen. Why is this? What happened? When did we become docile?

kippy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The question is, why did they have so little support? Why are so many people content if their lives are more or less ok, to put up with our country being run in a corrupt manner and to put up with crooks being allowed to walk free?

If we were ruled by Britain today, and it was up to today's Irish people to overthrow them, the revolutionaries would be seen as a tiny fringe "nuisance" and laughed off the streets, the army wouldn't even have to do anything about them because they'd be ripped to shreds by their fellow Irishmen. Why is this? What happened? When did we become docile?

I think you got it in the bolded part to be honest.
The majority of people see this as yet another part of the cycle and a lot have seen it before. This time, they are however in a better position, in general.
There may also be some level of, sure we're all to blame in some way for this anyway........and I would assume theres a strong problem here of people pulling "strokes" as in financial and politicians as being part of the social norms, as the individual on the street may be likely to do the same thing.

There's not necessarily an issue with "becoming" docile. In a civilised society one would hope that issues were sorted out without resorting to the violence that was required when the British were involved and indeed that was a totally different ball game, all things considered.

I've no real issues with protestors. I just wonder about those that protest for the sake of it. What is their long term goal, what do they want to see changed and what kind of an impact will that have on those that do not protest?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The question is, why did they have so little support? Why are so many people content if their lives are more or less ok, to put up with our country being run in a corrupt manner and to put up with crooks being allowed to walk free?

The majority of people either don't see themselves as affected by the corruption, or don't see it as corruption, at least to a degree that requires action by them personally.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we were ruled by Britain today, and it was up to today's Irish people to overthrow them, the revolutionaries would be seen as a tiny fringe "nuisance" and laughed off the streets, the army wouldn't even have to do anything about them because they'd be ripped to shreds by their fellow Irishmen. Why is this? What happened? When did we become docile?

That's not dissimilar to how it was, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sand

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The question is, why did they have so little support? Why are so many people content if their lives are more or less ok, to put up with our country being run in a corrupt manner and to put up with crooks being allowed to walk free?

Because the "Occupy" protesters were quite simply totally unrepresentative of Irish society, or its concerns, and had absolutely zero interest in representing any sort of reasonable program that wider Irish society could support. Their lack of support from wider Irish society is a little more understandable in that context. They were just the typical rent a mob lunatic/SWP fringe protest groups who were desperately, pathetically imitating what they saw Americans doing on TV whilst simultaneously condemning the US as the root of all evil.

Wider Irish society is discontented, and is casting about for a proper democratic expression of that discontent. The occupy movement was not the vehicle for that, and never attempted to be one in any honest sense.

KyussBishop

^^ The thing is, Occupy stuff is just a general protest movement (in my view anyway) designed to encourage protest, not to set the agenda for protesting.

While I agree that the Occupy crowd here, seemed to end in groups of unrepresentative people, on the fringes of credibility, the movement overall was still an opportunity for those with more coherent criticisms/grievances to step forward and protest themselves as well, but this didn't appear to happen.

I know there's going to be a kind of Greshams dynamic, where the loony protestors push more moderate protestors away because they don't want to be associated, but then we don't even seem to have that much of a more moderate protest movement anyway (or even the will for it), that could have setup completely separate to any Occupy stuff.

That's something that appears to be completely missing altogether in this country; we don't even have any new minor political parties representing these grievances, who don't end up discrediting themselves. I find that really strange, and it seems representative of wider society here not giving that much of a toss.

Cody Pomeray

KyussBishop wrote: »

While I agree that the Occupy crowd here, seemed to end in groups of unrepresentative people, on the fringes of credibility

Yes,but essentially with the same message as people who claim to be disillusioned.

The occupy crowd weren't expressing sentiments that were totally at odds with commonly expressed opinions here on boards or down the pub.

They weren't looking to do anything near as exciting, interesting or brave as overthrow a Government, or launch into any program of civil disobedience except for butchering a few Bob Dylan songs. They were mostly saying 'we oppose the stuff you all oppose'.

According to Occupy Dame Street's facebook page - worth subscribing to for all the bonkers user comments - ODS oppose the household charge, favour debt forgiveness, oppose austerity and most crucially for any self-respecting baying mob, they *hate* Angela Merkel and the troika.

That last piece is pretty much the only aspect that might have your average pensioner somewhat reluctant to lend support. Everyone knows Ireland needs the troika on side. But lets face it, what do your average Occupy activist and your average pensioner have in common? The Department of Social Protection. They're not serious about evicting the troika. Neither is anybody else.

Whatever the reluctance of siding with the Occupy Movement was, it wasn't that Occupy's stated opinions diverged from the stated opinions of disillusioned Irish people.

Disillusioned Irish people just weren't interested. I'm not sure what kind of dynamic was going on - maybe Irish people didn't want to be seen as Communists, maybe the Occupy movement didn't truly want to identify as mainstream movement. Most tragically of all, maybe people were just not bothered.

It's possible that Irish people are more inspired to get on their feet for an emigration party than an emigration protest.

KyussBishop

I agree that the overall message, was mostly the same as you'd find commonly expressed; just is my view that over time, people drifted away and it was more and more left with a smaller set of fringe groups with more sporadic goals.

This I don't view as the fault of Occupy or anything though, more of not enough people taking up the opportunity to get involved and keep Occupy going, through strong groups with a coherent message.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

Because the "Occupy" protesters were quite simply totally unrepresentative of Irish society, or its concerns, and had absolutely zero interest in representing any sort of reasonable program that wider Irish society could support. Their lack of support from wider Irish society is a little more understandable in that context. They were just the typical rent a mob lunatic/SWP fringe protest groups who were desperately, pathetically imitating what they saw Americans doing on TV whilst simultaneously condemning the US as the root of all evil.

Wider Irish society is discontented, and is casting about for a proper democratic expression of that discontent. The occupy movement was not the vehicle for that, and never attempted to be one in any honest sense.

Most of the protest speeches at Occupy were about the blank cheques written to Anglo and BOI bondholders actually, which all of us are being forced to pay for completely unjustly while the aforementioned injustices continue to take place.
I would have thought that was something most people would support. The biggest poster at Occupy Dame Street was a gigantic Anglo cheque from the Irish taxpayer. Sean FitzPatrick is still free to walk the streets. Bertie is still being paid for doing absolutely nothing. Not a single person responsible for the collapse has been brought to any kind of justice for it. That's what the people at Occupy were protesting about.

Jonny7

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's what the people at Occupy were protesting about.

They were indeed protesting that, unfortunately they were protesting many other issues.

Most normal people can't give up their lives and go and live in tents on the streets, they have kids, jobs, etc, so the whole "occupy" notion was a bad one from the start.

Also protesting a large amount of grievances without realistic agreed solutions for each seemed.. well.. not very well thought out either.

Yup, they did manage to draw some awareness to certain issues but it became a bit like watching teenagers passionately complaining about their parents.. while cluttering up the streets.. while running back to said parents to get more money

Plenty that needs to be fixed or refined about our current system, but it's obviously good enough that people can camp on streets for months complaining about it

20Cent

Fair play to the Germans for doing that good stuff, shows Occupy isn't dead yet!

hatrickpatrick

Jonny7 wrote: »

They were indeed protesting that, unfortunately they were protesting many other issues.

Most normal people can't give up their lives and go and live in tents on the streets, they have kids, jobs, etc, so the whole "occupy" notion was a bad one from the start.

Also protesting a large amount of grievances without realistic agreed solutions for each seemed.. well.. not very well thought out either.

Yup, they did manage to draw some awareness to certain issues but it became a bit like watching teenagers passionately complaining about their parents.. while cluttering up the streets.. while running back to said parents to get more money

Plenty that needs to be fixed or refined about our current system, but it's obviously good enough that people can camp on streets for months complaining about it

So how would you suggest we force the government to cave, exactly? The whole point of something like Occupy, if it becomes big enough, is that it's so disruptive that the government have absolutely no choice but to do something. It didn't work, but I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind the concept. If everyone in Ireland joined it and brought the country to a standstill, realistically what choice would they have?

The government can only abuse its power as long as people facilitate it by doing as they're told.

Again, if organizing a mass occupation is out, what would YOU suggest in order to force an end to cronyism and to redesign the financial system? I'm obviously fairly militant about it, I'd be in favour of all out revolution to achieve justice, but I can perfectly understand that this isn't something everyone supports, so what would you propose instead? Engaging with the political system has proved utterly useless time and again - here we still are, with the same financial system, the same cronyism, the same crooks still free to walk the streets, the same sense of deja vu and the same bitter resignation to the fact that in all probability this cycle will continue indefinitely until its driven out by force.

Alternative suggestions?

kippy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So how would you suggest we force the government to cave, exactly? The whole point of something like Occupy, if it becomes big enough, is that it's so disruptive that the government have absolutely no choice but to do something. It didn't work, but I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind the concept. If everyone in Ireland joined it and brought the country to a standstill, realistically what choice would they have?

The government can only abuse its power as long as people facilitate it by doing as they're told.

Again, if organizing a mass occupation is out, what would YOU suggest in order to force an end to cronyism and to redesign the financial system? I'm obviously fairly militant about it, I'd be in favour of all out revolution to achieve justice, but I can perfectly understand that this isn't something everyone supports, so what would you propose instead? Engaging with the political system has proved utterly useless time and again - here we still are, with the same financial system, the same cronyism, the same crooks still free to walk the streets, the same sense of deja vu and the same bitter resignation to the fact that in all probability this cycle will continue indefinitely until its driven out by force.

Alternative suggestions?

What do you define as engaging with the political system? Because in my opinion this is where the issue lies.

Jonny7

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So how would you suggest we force the government to cave, exactly? The whole point of something like Occupy, if it becomes big enough, is that it's so disruptive that the government have absolutely no choice but to do something. It didn't work, but I'm pretty sure that's the idea behind the concept. If everyone in Ireland joined it and brought the country to a standstill, realistically what choice would they have?

The government can only abuse its power as long as people facilitate it by doing as they're told.

Again, if organizing a mass occupation is out, what would YOU suggest in order to force an end to cronyism and to redesign the financial system? I'm obviously fairly militant about it, I'd be in favour of all out revolution to achieve justice, but I can perfectly understand that this isn't something everyone supports, so what would you propose instead? Engaging with the political system has proved utterly useless time and again - here we still are, with the same financial system, the same cronyism, the same crooks still free to walk the streets, the same sense of deja vu and the same bitter resignation to the fact that in all probability this cycle will continue indefinitely until its driven out by force.

Alternative suggestions?

There are plenty of alternatives. I would suggest setting up a protest movement with a clear aim and a clear solution.

Engage with politicians, the majority of whom are hard-working and do a decent job.

Set up your own independent party.

Scofflaw

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are plenty of alternatives. I would suggest setting up a protest movement with a clear aim and a clear solution.

Engage with politicians, the majority of whom are hard-working and do a decent job.

Set up your own independent party.

I think the key line there is "engage with politicians". Politicians are not going away, and so any movement that starts off by saying that politicians are the problem and that they're not going to engage with them (or only engage with them by shouting at them) has immediately lost my interest.

Yes, politicians are the problem, but they are also the solution. You cannot simply say "we'll ignore them and press on with reform", because that will produce exactly nothing worth having. At best, it will succeed in replacing the current politicians with new politicians drawn from the movement, which is all that every successful "revolutionary" movement ever has achieved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think the key line there is "engage with politicians". Politicians are not going away, and so any movement that starts off by saying that politicians are the problem and that they're not going to engage with them (or only engage with them by shouting at them) has immediately lost my interest.

Hatrickpatrick has said that engagement with the political system doesn't work, which is not the same as saying that politics itself is doomed, or that we should not engage with politicians.

From a purely theoretical viewpoint, there is a serious problem with access to Government. The large political parties have a monopolistic power over funding, when you do get to the legislature, the political power is concentrated at the Cabinet table and there is almost no prospect beyond recourse to the Constitution of breaking their decision-making capabilities; and in effect, the people have no way of forcing through a Constitutional amendment to say "we want to change the system of Governance".

There is perhaps some basis there for a form of activism that goes beyond civil disobedience.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Hatrickpatrick has said that engagement with the political system doesn't work, which is not the same as saying that politics itself is doomed, or that we should not engage with politicians.

From a purely theoretical viewpoint, there is a serious problem with access to Government. The large political parties have a monopolistic power over funding, when you do get to the legislature, the political power is concentrated at the Cabinet table and there is almost no prospect beyond recourse to the Constitution of breaking their decision-making capabilities; and in effect, the people have no way of forcing through a Constitutional amendment to say "we want to change the system of Governance".

There is perhaps some basis there for a form of activism that goes beyond civil disobedience.

Well, I've proposed before a "reform pledge" for 2016, which would be a push to get candidates to pledge their opposition to the whip system. That's where I think it needs to start - returning to conscience voting, making the legislature something more than a rubber stamp, and reducing the power of the Cabinet.

Now, you obviously can't do that without massive public support that makes it highly attractive or even necessary for candidates to take the pledge, but then, well, it's a democracy, so you shouldn't really be able to. But there's perhaps never been a better opportunity for a "reform the republic" movement than 2016.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, I've proposed before a "reform pledge" for 2016, which would be a push to get candidates to pledge their opposition to the whip system.

That may be of diminished value if the Seanad is broken up. In a unicameral legislature appointed by direct election, all you're going to do there is shift the power dynamic within the ruling party, whereby a certain amount of power shifts from the leadership to its backbenches. The Government's policies approach populism until the point when they have enough backbenchers to offer their support.

I am not condemning unicameral legislatures as ineffective or anything. That system can work well in some jurisdictions, but not where there is a strong clientelist approach to parliamentarianism, to which even the highest ranking Government Ministers and the head of Government can be subjected.

And this is before we even get onto the practical likelihood of a politician agreeing to sign and uphold a pledge on the abolition of the whip. I think it's a great idea but I don't see it as being adequate or even likely to happen in its own right.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That may be of diminished value if the Seanad is broken up. In a unicameral legislature appointed by direct election, all you're going to do there is shift the power dynamic within the ruling party, whereby a certain amount of power shifts from the leadership to its backbenches. The Government's policies approach populism until the point when they have enough backbenchers to offer their support.

I am not condemning unicameral legislatures as ineffective or anything. That system can work well in some jurisdictions, but not where there is a strong clientelist approach to parliamentarianism, to which even the highest ranking Government Ministers and the head of Government can be subjected.

And this is before we even get onto the practical likelihood of a politician agreeing to sign and uphold a pledge on the abolition of the whip. I think it's a great idea but I don't see it as being adequate or even likely to happen in its own right.

Unfortunately, any broader reform programme tends to break down on detail. Breaking the Whip system would at least get the reform ball into play.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, if organizing a mass occupation is out, what would YOU suggest in order to force an end to cronyism and to redesign the financial system?

That is what we have a political system for - namely, so people can organise, stand for election and seek to implement their policies once elected. Politics, after all, provides a mechanism for the various interest groups in a society to advance their causes. No one ever said it had to guarantee those groups "success" in advancing their causes.

The electorate ultimately get to decide if the "cronyism" the current groups are amenable to is acceptable to them. If the electorate aren't interested in organising themselves for change of some description then the electorate get to live with the current system. That means it is up to the electorate to actively opt for change - not to wait around for "someone" to "do something" about it.

Many of the electorate, I would guess, would appear to be fairly comfortable with the current system.

PopePalpatine

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of movements like Blockupy or Occupy, it's safe to say that the Irish people are just not interested.

This opens Irish society to the accusation of being more a collection of onlookers than the 'rebels' or historical activists we sometimes prefer to associate with.

That kinda reminds me of a paragraph describing the initial reaction to Pearse and Co. reading the Proclamation in front of the GPO, which described onlookers as "bewildered".

20Cent

Anything that steps outside of the accepted narrative is viewed with distrust and often scorn initially. Eventually it becomes mainstream:

The IMF have admitted the crisis was handled wrongly and bondholders should have been burnt. Today's editorial in the Independent says the same thing.

Our failure to burn the bondholders was wrong
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/our-failure-to-burn-the-bondholders-was-wrong-29326976.html