From France to Albania, from Belgium to Turin, the protests of these days stage a clash between metaphors. Young people (the people) and police officers (the State), equally precarious, face each other as if the other were the enemy. But the enemy stopped living where we look for it long ago. And that is precisely where it organizes the anger, makes it visible and summons it into the street.
Let me say this right away, to leave no room for misunderstanding: the young people who have been filling the streets of Europe in recent weeks have every right to do so. This is not a rhetorical concession, one of those premises you write only to take back three lines later. They have reasons to spare: schools falling apart, overcrowded classrooms, a future shrinking like a room whose walls someone moves at night while we sleep. Anyone who dismisses them as vandals, as spoiled children of a prosperity they no longer know, or as puppets of some hidden director, has understood nothing. Or pretends not to understand, which is worse. But precisely because they are right, and precisely because their distress is real, it is worth asking the question nobody seems willing to ask these weeks. Not because it is difficult, but because it is uncomfortable for everyone: for governments, for movements, for newspapers, for commentators. The question is simple. Against whom are they protesting? In favor of what?
I found the critique of protesting/rioting interesting.
The framing of these being a “prepared stage” of protesting, wherein the government declares (non-state-)violence to be unacceptable, the opposition declares the protesters should be listened to, and the outcome ends up being, at best, a compromise, but most often, nothing.
They point to this being caused by governments not actually having the power to change any of this. Still agree, so far.
But the “cops are risking their bodies for a shitty pay, and we should be friends, because the governments is powerless, so they’re not that bad” puts me off. And the conclusion ends up being “our common enemy is social media, so turn off your phones and stop throwing stone! The revolution is simply to be organized by assemblies(ie.: offline)!”
This is what they propose to do about it, and it absolutely infuriates me.I agree with their critique, but the conclusion that “Power has moved. Probably gone for ever. Oh well” could just as well have been “Let’s figure out where that power has moved and attack it”
Toughts?
Well written, academically backed. I learned some history/writers quotes/thesis. Lacks concrete solution proposals.
Anyone who dismisses them as vandals, as spoiled children of a prosperity they no longer know, or as puppets of some hidden director, has understood nothing. Or pretends not to understand, which is worse. But precisely because they are right, and precisely because their distress is real, it is worth asking the question nobody seems willing to ask these weeks. Not because it is difficult, but because it is uncomfortable for everyone: for governments, for movements, for newspapers, for commentators. The question is simple. Against whom are they protesting? In favor of what?
when you listen to interviews, at first it was simple: classes with enough space, classes without cockroaches, classes with teachers … Getting your jaw crashed; losing all your teeth, fingers; hand, eye for demanding those things changes your mind apparently.
French riot police is known for being violent. I saw some footage of them assaulting paramedics.
