Of course they will they no longer have to stay inside their heated houses consuming electricity and gas.
"Just stop oil"
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Man of Honour
Did it? Or was it due to the campaigners who did the real work that the suffragettes who jumped on the bandwagon at the end claimed credit for? I think the suffragettes delayed the third major voting reform act rather than causing it and that they would have delayed it further if it hadn't been for the 1st world war causing them to stop their terrorist campaign and thus allow the law to pass without the terrorists winning.
A case could also be made for the most important voting reform act, the first one aka the Great Reform Act. But in that case the main driver was public opinion and the worst of the violence was by the state against the campaigners. Most notoriously, the Peterloo Massacre. But there was a plausible threat of full blown revolution, so the case could be made that violence (or, more accurately, the threat of violence) played a role in getting the law changed.
It's true that violence sometimes works to force political change, but the result is often worse. The French revolution and The Terror comes to mind.
It quickly became a banner for all the nutters to rally under. If they went out and did this independently, no one would give them attention.
Their actions aren't really about oil anymore. They seem to love vandalizing art galleries and museums, what has that got to do with oil. They mostly stopped blocking traffic now because drivers get out, kick them in the ribs and drag then around a bit before police show up.
Their actions aren't really about oil anymore. They seem to love vandalizing art galleries and museums, what has that got to do with oil. They mostly stopped blocking traffic now because drivers get out, kick them in the ribs and drag then around a bit before police show up.
Last edited:
Probably because society will take notice of that vandalism rather than them, so to draw the attention to them they have resorted to that or they could be complete muppets with nothing better to do with their time.
Soldato
Their actions are about elevating themselves to be morally superior, this is the case for all of those types of people.
Those types of people are 100% useless in the best case to society and achieve nothing.
In the worst case the push destructive laws which make things worse, which is what they are doing if you hear about them.
The good news here is that those two are pensioners, and being useless for the rest of there lives is irrelevant as they are retired anyway.
A few examples of why I love oil. 
A typical weekly food shop of a family of 4 has traveled 30 - 40,000 miles before it ends up in your trolley.
Pretty much all buildings and infrastructure are constructed from fossil fuels. Raw materials are mined then imported. 90% of everything in our homes / businesses are imported from China / Europe.
Vast majority of clothing is manufactured in China / Europe.
Most stuff is imported into this country by air, sea and HGV.
Everyone (including eco hippies) would be begging the government for fossil fuels if they decided to just stop oil.
A typical weekly food shop of a family of 4 has traveled 30 - 40,000 miles before it ends up in your trolley.
Pretty much all buildings and infrastructure are constructed from fossil fuels. Raw materials are mined then imported. 90% of everything in our homes / businesses are imported from China / Europe.
Vast majority of clothing is manufactured in China / Europe.
Most stuff is imported into this country by air, sea and HGV.
Everyone (including eco hippies) would be begging the government for fossil fuels if they decided to just stop oil.
Almost a pensioner myself but I get what you mean.I am however a useful member of my family and society
I provided an example in the same post - which you have quoted ! Plus can add pretty much any other protest march from the last 30 years - i gave you an example to prove your point - Poll Tax - which is actually more than you have done following your suggestion that protests have to be violent to succeed. Only one of us was rambling and it clearly wasnt me.
Associate
Well, the ANC in South Africa, ZAPU/ZIPRA in Southern Rhodesia, Sinn Fein/IRA in Northern Ireland all eventually succeeded and violence was very much part of their political strategy.
The bottom line is that when the stakes are very high and the establishment (in this case: rich fossil fuel companies/governments) have a vested interest in ignoring a problem and maintaining the status quo (and they control most of the media - so can easily manipulate public opinion), then no amount of peaceful protesting is ever going to make any significant difference. At that point, a campaign involving violence is probably the only way to make the situation untenable for those in positions of power who consistently refuse to take any meaningful action.
Sadly, the UK's political system is not fit-for-purpose. We have a de facto two-party state thanks to FPTP and hence not a lot can be achieved by setting up a political party to campaign solely on this issue.
The IRA's goal was the unification of Ireland through violence and they've not succeeded at all in doing that, the UK position was (and had been for decades) that that should be decided by the people living in Northern Ireland (and indeed held a poll back in 1973 which the IRA/Sinn Fein opposed).
The IRA got themselves into a situation where they were riddled with informers and finally, under a Labour government, agreed to a peace deal whereby they agreed with the UK's position that the future of Northern Ireland would be settled democratically.
The wins you could maybe point to re: the IRA as a result of direct action were on smaller things like the treatment of prisoners who they saw as POWs or political prisoners etc. after dirty protests/hunger strikes.
Last edited:
Associate
As Dowie has already answered your mention of the IRA, I'd like to expand a little on your example of ZAPU/ZIPRA and the ANC.
Those organisations were fighting against regimes that were unjust. Those regimes were not supported by the majority of the rest of the World.
Those "Terrorist/Freedom Fighter" organisations didn't win anything through violence. The situations in Rhodesia and South Africa would have resolved themselves simply with time. The regimes were bygone relics of aa different era.
As you have said, the "Status Quo" will remain while the "establishment" is unchanged, and the Establishment is not going to change while the majority of people want the status quo to remain.
Although I do not know any JSO activists personally, I'll wager that they all live in centrally heated houses and drive cars/use public transport/wear clothes/eat meat etc.
They may be ahead of their time, and World opinion will change to support them, but I don't think it will be in my lifetime. There's too much money invested.
Last edited:
Associate
Yes, the provisional IRA wanted the unification of Ulster with the Republic or Ireland. However, the latter is the direct descendant of the Irish Free State, which only existed because of the "old" IRA's activities.
In the Good Friday Agreement, which required them to disarm and disband, it was agreed that there would be an end to direct rule from Westminster, powers would be devolved to Stormont, cross-community majority agreement on certain major decisions would be required and a border poll must be called promptly if it looked likely that a majority in NI would vote for unification with the Republic. Neither Wales nor Scotland have the right for a border poll if their nationalists have reason to believe they have the votes to win it.
The Salisbury Agreement (which ended the Southern Rhodesian civil war) called for the creation of an interim government in which black Southern Rhodesians were included in leading government positions for the first time, while an independent civil service, judiciary, police force and army were created. It required a new constitution to be drawn up where black Southern Rhodesians would have equal rights, followed by the holding of an overseen* General Election in which whites and blacks could vote. Seems like a win for violence then.
*The subsequent General Election was overseen by agents of the British government.
Yes, the establishment cares far more about money than the environmental consequences of pollution.
Fossil fuel companies make trillions of dollars in profits* every year and have trillions more invested in the infrastructure of oil, gas and coal. They have also received trillions of dollars of subsidies from governments around the world. They will never give all that up without a big fight. They have dozens of PR agencies, lawyers and corrupt politicians on speed dial to stem any attempt to slow or stop them. They can whistle up a small army of influential lobbyists with a few phone calls.
The result of this is watered-down global climate agreements that few countries bother to obey. Add to that 14 years of cynical Tories here, 4 years (and maybe 4 more to come) of Trump's environmental vandalism in the US, powerful (fossil fuel funded) climate change denying groups with tentacles everywhere and, most importantly, a western world with a majority of selfish entitled people who have no desire or inclination to confront the realities of the climate crisis.
We're on course for a 3 degrees centigrade increase over the pre-industrial mean global temperature by 2100. It's going to be a global disaster. It's going to kill millions and displace hundreds of millions of people (from previously fertile land) in this century. People have gone to war over far smaller problems.
*Global fossil fuel industry profits were approximately $4 trillion in 2022
Ah, yeah you could use the Original IRA as an example for sure, but you did actually say "Sinn Fein/IRA in Northern Ireland" and they didn't achieve their goal of reunification via violence, quite the opposite they eventually came around to giving up and agreeing to use peaceful means to resolve it so are perhaps more of an example of it not working.
Yes, that's true, or rather an independence referendum. Scotland still had one though and it didn't require a terrorist wing of the SNP to be formed. Northern Ireland had a border poll back in 1973 and Sinn Fein/IRA opposed it, it's only later that they have come around to endorsing the democratic approach their aim was to achieve their goal through violence and that failed.
The other cases are a bit different whereby the people wanting change not only took part in direct action, terror attacks or indeed full-on civil war (in the case of Rhodesia) but most importantly also had majority support. The latter is arguably the biggest contributor to their success.
Just Stop Oil doesn't have majority support, they're a fringe group. Many people care about the environment and so might have some sympathies with wanting to reduce oil extraction but the group itself is viewed rather unfavourably:
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of the campaign group Just Stop Oil? | Daily Question
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of the campaign group Just Stop Oil?
yougov.co.uk
Last edited:
Associate
Yes, but they won't get another one.
Obviously, majority support is very important, but when you are dealing with an organisation/government which is determined to carry on regardless then often direct action is the only way to make the cost/benefit ratio undesirable for them.
Just Stop Oil are just one campaign group. Their protest techniques are counterproductive because they are usually inconveniencing people who are not responsible for making policy decisions which cause GHG emissions. When your protesting causes people to be late for work, miss hospital appointments etc you will make them resent you and many/most of them will also become hostile to your cause. JSO needs to get those people on their side not make them resentful.
Unfortunately, if nothing changes politically, as climate change accelerates and people in vulnerable developing countries start to suffer and die in large numbers there will come a crunch-point when groups which utilise violence to block new fossil fuel production will emerge. It's a fact of life that on critical issues the disenfranchised poor resort to force when pushed into a corner by the rich and powerful if there is no effective political or legal system to address the former group's grievance.
Which can often be counterproductive, I mean the original point was re: the IRA in Northern Ireland as their goal of a United Ireland through violence is something they've since given up on and the peaceful, democratic path is now accepted as the way forward.
Well yes, it's a good example of direct action not really adding much to the cause and in fact just generating negative publicity for the people involved.
Ditto to say rioting as per this famous tweet where a democrat data scientist was fired during the 2020 madness for telling the truth:
It might feel like taking a more aggressive approach is doing more (perhaps out of impotence, the protests have carried on but people aren't listening so you'll make them listen and impose a cost) but it can easily be counterproductive and non-violent protests tend to trump violent ones.
Soldato
Another art lover.
amp.theguardian.com
Climate activist defaces Monet painting in Paris | France | The Guardian
Woman from Riposte Alimentaire arrested after sticking poster on impressionist painter’s Coquelicots
amp.theguardian.com
