There is a reason why there are democratic institutions. The correct way to do it, is to wait for the next election and elect your preferred president. You can also strike on your current job (at your own risk), leave your government job, leave the country.
Blocking a public road does not help anyone and makes you more of a pirate.
This is called a “general strike”, and as one of the few means for the working class to assert power even in supposedly democratic countries, it is indeed very cool
Well, better than having a situation like in Germany where the "Agenda 2010" reforms created an entire class of people working full-time but effectively being poor, called "Arbeitsprekariat". French protests have so far succeeded to prevent the repeating of German mistakes.
> The correct way to do it, is to wait for the next election and elect your preferred president.
The problem in France was that they had two choices thanks to kick-out voting: either far-right Le Pen or neoliberal Macron. So many chose Macron, simply to prevent Le Pen from winning.
To say that Macron is the legitimate president wanted by the majority of French population is... a stretch.
Everyone wants a free meal, free health care, free education and cheap public transport. Plus a cushy government job. These things come at a cost. You can't let people make these decisions (unless you are in Switzerland where you get a majority of people voting against a free lunch).
Many people in France are trapped in pay-cheque to pay-cheque and have lots of financial problems. So any pay increase will "save" them and they'll vote of it.
You said the french protests succeeded. That's only true if Macron was preventing French people from accessing their wealth. If that's not the case then the French protests have succeeded at making the future much worse. At the expenses of having a few more pennies today.
Hell, there is even a very close example: Greece.
ps: I'm not saying that Macron is the savior of the French finances. I'm not sure if his reforms are legitimate. But France has lots of baggage to reform and had lost lots of its influential mojo. Time to downscale.
Greece (and Italy) are in no way comparable to France. Both countries have the historical problem of tax avoidance/evasion as a "public sport" which everyone from the small baker shop to the multi billion ship owner competes in, with a lot of organised crime/mafia added on top in Italy.
Both governments would have more than enough money to properly fund their citizens and their infrastructure if said citizens would pay their taxes.
> But France has lots of baggage to reform and had lost lots of its influential mojo. Time to downscale.
The question is, downscale but at what cost? Look at how much the "downscaling" aka the "Agenda 2010" in Germany cost... we lost the trust of a significant part of the population in the democratic system as a result and "gained" a relevant far-right party presence in parliaments.
France needs reforms and has been postponing them for decades. What Macron is trying to do is needed and long overdue.
France needs stability a lot more than reforms. As a country, France still has a highly educated population, great infrastructure, a rich internal market and a solid canvas of small, medium and large business. France should be seeking growth through innovation and investment rather than constantly tweaking its tax code. France is however deeply handicaped by the euro. It is in my opinion the first victim of German dumping (the Hartz reform).
The whole France needs reform mantra is more rooted in ideology than facts. Macron is a Blairite who would rather fight the German by similarly depressing wages rather than confront them directly. It is a losing situation for everyone except the employers and will only lead to more inequality and more poverty in Europe. But well, guess who financed Macron presidential campain...
That's why the country needs reforms. Because the chronic lack of growth leads to protests like the Yellow Vests's.
It is not handicaped by the Euro. The issue is systemic: Red tape, anti-business, anti-innovation, bloated public sector.
Now imagine a neighbor being disturbed by your noisy party but instead of asking you to turn it down or calling the Police, he welds your doors and windows shut and cuts your electricity. Now you tell me if the practical application of your own suggestion sounds reasonable.
In such case, your response would not have been entirely unreasonable.
These are honest questions, I'm genuinely curious how people here see it. Even if I can assume internet opinions are very different from real life ones.
You are always free to take any action you deem appropriate but you will also have to take the consequences. So you can block your employer's warehouse in protest for something but then why be surprised when the time comes to pay for it?
That being said, whether your response in the original hypothetical is reasonable is not the same thing as whether it is legal or moral. In all 3 hypothetical actions, the act is illegal. In some cases, a lesser illegal act is justified to prevent a greater legal act but the specifics of that depends on the jurisdiction.
So you can block your employer's warehouse in protest for something but then why be surprised when the time comes to pay for it?
In this case, both Amazon and the employees have violated the law. The law the employees violated was a lesser law than the numerous laws Amazon violated. Amazon is very likely to face a lawsuit in court and lose--the French are extremely protective of labor rights.
From the original poster:
> If you want to make a political statement as ordinary citizen these days you need to do something with real measurable impact.
i would add "maybe refrain from breaking the law". Encouraging people to take matters into their own hands is pretty much the worst advice you could give them. Not only will that not really change much (unless we're talking about a full blown revolution like overturning communism) but it will also put them in trouble. Who do you think will suffer more? Amazon? Or the guys who have to show up at the next employer as "those people that will sabotage your company whenever they consider it appropriate"?
> the numerous laws Amazon violated
But you're not willing to wait for the court to decide the matter.
> Amazon is very likely to face a lawsuit in court and lose--the French are extremely protective of labor rights.
If the expectation is that Amazon will lose anyway and justice will be done then the only reason to break the law and sabotage your workplace is not justice or prevention, it's revenge. You are actually not gaining anything from this but the satisfaction of causing damage. You know what was the perfectly acceptable way of "punishing" Amazon? Quitting and encouraging others to do it. Without enough employees Amazon loses money.
What's your argument supporting? That I'm wrong in saying that people should not take justice into their own hands?
Yes, complaining does nothing (most if not all complaints die out in the political machinery), while blocking roads etc. usually tends to yield immediate results once those with power in society are affected themselves. Macron was forced to make a lot of concessions towards the poorer population.
If you want to make a political statement as ordinary citizen these days you need to do something with real measurable impact. While I don't think throwing molotovs on McDonald's is a viable path to solutions, grinding the infrastructure to a halt by mass protests/strikes certainly is.