You know shit is going badly for the wealthy elite when Black Block-style protesters take to the streets.
The return of dread Thatcherism? The Brits think so.
The UK newspaper, ‘The Independent,’ is reporting that nearly half a million protesters have taken to the street in anti-cuts protests. The protests were organized as peaceful, but expect authorities to whip up fury with agent provocateurs, the tactic Carlos F. Lam suggested to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
The groups TUC and UK Uncut have organized the two arms of the protests.
UK Uncut posted a detailed plan and map of their target: “Simultaneous occupations of tax dodgers and banks the length of Oxford Street.” In effect, UK Uncut’s protest is aimed at large corporations and banks that have avoided taxes while the rest of the United Kingdom’s citizens have seen cuts in university, arts and social programs. Austerity for the middle class, not the upper class. To read a more complete list of their objectives, check out the group’s press release.
TUC, on the other hand, is the Trades Union Congress. Their march aims for an “alternative” to austerity by way of “jobs, growth and justice.” According to TUC’s site, a recent YouGov poll revealed that the majority of UK citizens support TUC’s March for the Alternative.
Initial estimates put the protesters at 250,000 (the expected number), but most recent reports put the total number of TUC protesters at approximately 500,000.
Some Black Block protesters—not associated with the vast majority of TUC or UK Uncut protesters—occupied Fortnum & Mason, a symbol of the wealthy elite’s shopping sprees, unfurled an anarchist flag and clashed with riot police.
It is important that people keep in mind the Black Block protesters do not speak for the other 500,000 protesters. And while the protests have remained peaceful, don’t be surprised if mainstream media or government officials try to spread disinformation about the nature of the protests and try to paint the event as a violent powderkeg. As is, power’s wont.
One of the UK Uncut protesters, Sally Mason, is quoted as saying:
Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message that we are angry at the government’s choice to protect the rich and punish the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. It’s society that’s too big to fail, not the broken banking sector. There is an alternative through clamping down on tax avoidance and making the banks pay for their crisis, the government is just choosing to ignore it and that is not fair or right.
Stay tuned for updates and possible interviews with London protesters.
March 27, 2011 at 1:06 pm, Lori Chang said:
America must learn from UK and cut.
No other way out.
March 27, 2011 at 1:54 pm, Robj25 said:
cutting your pointless wars,creating a robin hood tax internationally on banks,cutting nuclear missiles and investing in green jobs and public services is the way out. So Lori there is a way out, you just refuse to see it. 500,000 people plus some great alternative groups proved that you can fightback in both peaceful and in direct action against buildings and tax avoiders that this is what we should fight for.
This is the alternative for the majority not your minority view
March 27, 2011 at 4:36 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
disagree.
Yes cut the wars (yet most liberals seem to endorse this new front in Libya, which is mind boggling) but you are not doing the math.
The wars are $200 billion a year. The deficit is over 7 times that. We could cut the wars and the entire defense budget and that would barely even cut half.
Investing in green jobs is a great idea- IF the market does it. Government investment will do nothing but produce shell company “halliburtons” if you will that will loot the treasury for all it’s worth, offering shoddy technology in return.
When will we learn- government investment offers poor return on investment. Private / market investment spurs real growth because they are accountable to the investor. Government investment is accountable to a “representative” third party who couldn’t care less about the money he’s sending.
I agree with Lori chang- we need radical cuts, and of course it will be painful! The riots only reinforce the fact that the cuts are necessary.
March 27, 2011 at 4:14 pm, D. J. said:
Or maybe it’s about time the monarchy, nobility and other wealthy elite assume some austerity measures to balance the budget?
Can’t do that, though: socialism!
March 27, 2011 at 4:37 pm, Jeremy Arthur Vandelay said:
senor pangburn, a well written article. Your brash style is starting to grow on me.
March 28, 2011 at 1:32 am, D. J. said:
I am, at bottom, a polemicist, Mr. Vandelay.
However, I do believe it involves some cognitive dissonance when those in the middle class join the upper class (who care nothing for them) in supporting austerity measures for the middle class, when it was the upper classes (bankers, investors, etc) across the world who threw the economic system into financial vertigo.
Now, you can say that the Federal Reserve is ultimately to blame in America; but it’s merely an instrument of the upper class. The UK has the Bank of England, and it functions much the same as the Federal Reserve: as an upper class economic instrument.
For instance, nearly all Governor’s of the Bank of England in the 20th century are nobility–or let’s call them aristocracy, since there’s really nothing noble about them. The brilliance of the US is that there is an illusion of a democracy, and since we don’t have titles here, we operate under the perception that there isn’t an upper class dominating economic policy (as well as foreign and other domestic policies). But, there is… there most certainly is.
The way I see it is there are two sides: you’re either with the upper class, who don’t give a shit about you anyway, or you’re with the middle and lower classes. You might say that things aren’t so black and white and I’m engaging in class warfare, but I would argue the opposite: things are black and white and I didn’t start the war, nor did anyone else in the middle or lower classes.
Those who hold most of the wealth in countries like America and the UK are pathologically-inclined to avoid the very same austerity that they demand of the lower classes.
The protests in London were organized primarily to support unions (who want a fair wage, and who will fight the upper class for their right) and students (who won’t be able to afford college without dipping into loans that will break their finances in the future).
So, you have to ask yourself: Do you want to line up with the aristocracy (in the UK and here in the States), or will you line up with your own–the working class–despite your aversion to taxes and desire to dispense with your money as you see fit, instead of it being levied by the state?
Remember: there is no such thing as austerity in the upper class.
The battle lines are drawn.
Which side will you choose?
March 28, 2011 at 8:19 am, Troup said:
I go to college in PA where our very smart governor decided it is a smart idea to cut higher education funding by 50 percent. This means that we would be the worse state for higher education by far. Today it is supposed to be voted on by our congress and the 14 state schools are protesting in Harrisburg to show that we the people wont allow this to happen.
I agree that the rich just keep money in their pockets by not giving works higher wages, reducing the taxes they have to pay well making us pay more. I hope they all go bankrupt so I can laugh in their faces
March 28, 2011 at 1:32 am, D. J. said:
I am, at bottom, a polemicist, Mr. Vandelay.
However, I do believe it involves some cognitive dissonance when those in the middle class join the upper class (who care nothing for them) in supporting austerity measures for the middle class, when it was the upper classes (bankers, investors, etc) across the world who threw the economic system into financial vertigo.
Now, you can say that the Federal Reserve is ultimately to blame in America; but it’s merely an instrument of the upper class. The UK has the Bank of England, and it functions much the same as the Federal Reserve: as an upper class economic instrument.
For instance, nearly all Governor’s of the Bank of England in the 20th century are nobility–or let’s call them aristocracy, since there’s really nothing noble about them. The brilliance of the US is that there is an illusion of a democracy, and since we don’t have titles here, we operate under the perception that there isn’t an upper class dominating economic policy (as well as foreign and other domestic policies). But, there is… there most certainly is.
The way I see it is there are two sides: you’re either with the upper class, who don’t give a shit about you anyway, or you’re with the middle and lower classes. You might say that things aren’t so black and white and I’m engaging in class warfare, but I would argue the opposite: things are black and white and I didn’t start the war, nor did anyone else in the middle or lower classes.
Those who hold most of the wealth in countries like America and the UK are pathologically-inclined to avoid the very same austerity that they demand of the lower classes.
The protests in London were organized primarily to support unions (who want a fair wage, and who will fight the upper class for their right) and students (who won’t be able to afford college without dipping into loans that will break their finances in the future).
So, you have to ask yourself: Do you want to line up with the aristocracy (in the UK and here in the States), or will you line up with your own–the working class–despite your aversion to taxes and desire to dispense with your money as you see fit, instead of it being levied by the state?
Remember: there is no such thing as austerity in the upper class.
The battle lines are drawn.
Which side will you choose?