developing reclaim the streets

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.

Turnip

Originally posted by DadaKopf
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.

I don't agree, in most attempts to create completely equal social groups or organisations, a core bakunist "invisible leadership" always emerges and tends to dominate. Some people are just more talented, skilled, creative and ambitious than others. I guarantee that people who've been in quasi anarchic groups like RTS from the start will resent any newcomers who arrive with new suggestions and ideas.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
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.

Fair point.

However, I think there is a major difference :

If you want to consume drugs (etc.), you have no choice but to break the law...and most drug users would like to see their drug-taking legalised. If you legalised canabis, for example, I strongly doubt that most canabis-users would change their drug of choice to something still illegal, just so they continue breaking the law.

RTS, on the other hand chooses to implement itself in a manner which is illegal, despite it being possible to organise a street-based protest in a legal manner. I would suggest (but am open to contradiction) that if the laws were changed to facilitate the RTS concept, they would find a new angle whereby they could break the law to make their point - defiance of the system seems to be an inherent purpose in RTS, as opposed to a need.

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.

I agree with this entirely, and the bit I highlighted is more or less what leads me to the statements I made above. RTS chooses not to stick within the law and chooses not to co-operate with "the man", despite other avenues being possible.

If those avenues have been explored (and I don't know for certain that they haven't) then I would expect as much to be made clear by RTS - what was tried, when, why it failed, etc.

In other words, if RTS could explain why their actions have to be illegal, without resorting to the "damn the man" and "smash capitalism" language (as you said - citizen-alienating), then I suspect you would see a lot more support for them.

jc

DadaKopf

I don't agree, in most attempts to create completely equal social groups or organisations, a core bakunist "invisible leadership" always emerges and tends to dominate.

There's a difference between establishing a model of the world that deems it immutably hierarchical and establishing an understanding of the world that understands it as a dynamic system of power-relations. The vital aspect of this political manifest is that it's best for everyone that these power-relations never become fixed. It's more of an attitude towards power: it's better to be dissipated among the many, rather than to be consolidated on the few. Eventually the centre would be exposed and dissolved.

Consensual politics is never perfect, as I said, but an awareness of the tendancy toward "invisible leaderships", as excercised by responsible human beings, is enough to at the very least confine their scopes.

May I repeat: RTS isn't a utopian philosophy.

Turnip

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The vital aspect of this political manifest is that it's best for everyone that these power-relations never become fixed.

I think that in general, people like continuity and that means establishing solid institutions that are open and accountable. I'd like to see 'old boy networks' wiped out for instance. They are a true cancer in our society. But mainly, our system fails in the schools. Children should be taught to respect authority but they should also be taught how to make use of it.

chewy

my personal response to alot of things written here

i've stuck em on my website in txt files seeing i did at home

there are

goobits.txt interesting parts of previous dicussions
response2.txt
summaryresponse.txt
response.txt a summary response from an rts
stragety.txt summary of 2012 dublin spacial stragety

sorry there not formatted better but glance through them and you see some interesting stuff my responses are [*****]
like so

http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~chewy/rts/ and the above files names