When people are outraged and fixate on the wrong cause for their anger the results are seldom good. In the most extreme cases we see genocide when an ethnic group is blamed for the ills of society.
In less extreme cases we see symbolic actions (such as rounding up law-abiding, employed, but "illegal" immigrants in the US and then suffering from labor shortages) which do more harm than good.
If civil unrest gets bad enough and force doesn't work (it hasn't been tried yet, but military escorts of essential commodities to cities seems a likely next step) then governments will throw some money at the protesters, or at least promise to do so.
It seems that most of the reasons posted for the protests point to small producers being in competition with big quasi-monopolies. Breaking up the monopolies would take too long and be doubtful anyway, putting in minimum prices for some services or commodities might be a short-term way to get the protesters back to work, but the bottom line still seems to be too many marginal producers with too little organizational power.
During the farm crisis of the 1870's in the US the railroads and grain mills put a squeeze on the growers. The result was the rise of the Populist movement and an attempt at political action aimed at breaking up the "trusts". It failed, but the ideas were now part of the public discourse and the effort succeeded under Teddy Roosevelt 35 years later. I don't think the truckers and fishermen are prepared to wait.
It would be wise if they formed some sort of political action group now to represent their interests. Since EU countries have more than the two parties of the US they might even be able to get some political power in the short term.
They seem to know the symptoms of the disease, but not the cause. A lack of what used to be called "political consciousness". Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
The canonical example of ineffective(?) action seems to be 1968 (1848?). Have activists learned anything since then? They certainly haven't in the US.
I don't want to sound like a social Darwinist, but subsidizing marginal producers is not a viable long-term strategy. It won't be effective and may even violate EU policies. If the real cause of price constraint is monopoly power then that's where the focus should be.
Of course when the cost of fish and transported food go up the riots will just shift to the supermarkets! (wink.) Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
subsidizing marginal producers is not a viable long-term strategy. It won't be effective
and may even violate EU policies.
If the real cause of price constraint is monopoly power then that's where the focus should be.
Of course when the cost of fish and transported food go up the riots will just shift to the supermarkets! (wink.)
