Community | December 06, 2009 | 51 comments

WHY PROTESTS TODAY SUCK

source: http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-protests-today-suck.html

asherp
Protests today are totally impotent...

Except there's an unpermitted protest coming up in March, that I didn't know about at the time of filming, which I hope proves me wrong:

http://www.thepeaceoftheaction.org

The usual stuff:
BLOG: http://punkpatriot.blogspot.com
FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/1OtiqI
TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/punkpatriot
STORE: http://punkpatriot.etsy.com
DONATE? http://bit.ly/7OwKc2
  1. groups:
    Community,   US Politics,   Virals,   Progressive America,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Ralph Nader,  Barney Frank,  Punk Patriot,  prostest,  1 more
  3.     
    |

51 comments // WHY PROTESTS TODAY SUCK // Video

  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • The problem with protest movements is often times we don't know what we are asking for. Part of that has to do with the nuance that comes with thinking critically, but part of that has to do with a lack of organizing clear demands as was the case with Gandhi or Mlk jr.

      I think one of the biggest problems is there is no prioritization of issues as well. We are protesting so many symptoms of systemic problems, like healthcare, or individual wars or even climate change, whereas atleast in my perspective they are a result of the fact that our politicians aren't working for us (issues of democracy) which has to do with their funding (the need for public funding) and because our media is also representative of it's corporate funders through advertising.

      If we do not democratize our information system, we will never here of the issues that affect us in lenses that are meaningful to us. If we do not democratize our funding systems we will always vote for what the media convinces us is the least bad corporate lackey.

      I think we need to organize everyone around these primary issues, and then we won't have to rail to be heard either through our media or by our politicians because they will represent us.

      If we are going to protest I do think we need to learn from those who were successful. I agree with an earlier comment about the reason for Gandhi's success.

      Gandhi's protests were effective because they targeted the one asset that the British cared about in India, profits. They shut down factories and mines and stopped going to work, there's no better way to effect change than to go ofr someone's pocketbook.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      Exactly, protest is meaningless if the person listening doesn't care or if your message is too muddled to make a difference.

      That doesn't mean it's a useless tool, but it needs to be done in conjunction with things like direct lobbying and -real- grassroots campaigns.

      The problem is that the organizational base for America is broken, so it's difficult to achieve anything not on a local level.

      I think we should work public funding up through our counties and then through our states. Slowly build our momentum and then descend on corruption in D.C.

      Fat chance though, I don't really see that happening.

      But it is clear what we need, electoral reform, harsher penalties for corporate intrusion and monetary and banking reform as well.

    • 2 years ago
  • animalia_libero
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • animalia_libero:

      Have fun "tearing down" the institution that invented and uses the AC-130 Specter Gunship.

      Yeah, you and the protesters are really gonna "raise hell" against a 30 mm automatic cannon. Have funnnnnn.

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • animalia_libero:

      Oh libero, your chicken-hawkery and armchair militancy are so adorable.

      But really, let me know how you plan to defeat the United States Military on its home turf when it's just you and your untrained, unarmed, unliked friends against them.

    • 2 years ago
  • ryan8566
    • 0
      ryan8566  

    • here is another point of view, maybe cynical. a while ago a congressman told me that all the street protests are counterproductive, making the following points: the closed streets and detours just pisses off people driving/walking around; nobody in congress really cares despite their press statements; and most important, they are a waste of money. he pointed out that the two most powerful groups were the gun lobby, and the tobacco industry and neither one ever had a march--take the money and put it into lobbyists.
      i think he was saying go buy some congressmen, and you will get what you want.
      but i don't want to make that leap!

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • ryan8566:

      Ralph Nader has been THE SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE change maker in recent US history.

      He spent his time lobbying, organizing, and testifying in front of congress.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sarah_Crane
  • JonRaymond
  • JonRaymond
    • 0
      JonRaymond  

    • I have a theory that MoveOn is actually a government run organization with the intention of subverting protesters and their energy to ineffective outlets, to ultimately frustrate them from protesting at all. If so, they have succeeded because that's exactly the sentiment out there right now on health care reform. Either that or they just play it way too safe and have that effect.

      Mobilizeforhealthcare.org, however, is much more effective and have done what you say. they stormed Lieberman's office, got arrested, got out of jail and stormed it again until now he finally agreed to a meeting. Did they actually meet yet or is he just appeasing them, I don't know. But that organization takes real action. Even though they prearrange with police to be arrested, that takes some balls to do something illegal and actually go to jail.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dejan_Croatia
    • 0
      Dejan_Croatia  

    • i really agree with this i mean many of us were against the iraq war but look at our protest.. it sucks.

      we need to stand up for our rights dont just take it as it comes start doing something

    • 2 years ago
  • H_squared
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  

    • The problem with so-called "French Activism" is that this isn't France. The closest ideological/cultural similarity that the U.S. has to a European country is Switzerland or Germany.

      Doing that shit here gets you maimed, beaten, tear-gassed or shot. It's funny that people have this logical disconnect between current stories about America's police state and this notion of violent protest. Perhaps you haven't paid attention to the fact that the military has been doing training runs to deal with that kind of situation or that we've developed a huge new arsenal of non-lethal weapons to deal with violent protesters.

      It's cute, it really is, that these people think they can "raise hell" against people who professionally raise hell for a living. And to the idiot above who said Gandhi's protests worked because of the "possibility" of violence erupting. Uhhhh, not at all. Gandhi's protests were effective because they targeted the one asset that the British cared about in India, profits. They shut down factories and mines and stopped going to work, there's no better way to effect change than to go ofr someone's pocketbook.

      Even then, it didn't work. They had to wait until after WWII, and it wasn't as if they got special treatment. The British gave up all their colonies after that war.

      The counter-culture types love to look to the sixties for their "inspiration" to protest. But there's a big issue there, the fact that no one has been able to prove that any of that crazy shit actually -worked.-

      In fact, considering we went from largest landslide in U.S. history for LBJ to largest landslide in history for Nixon ought to be a good indication of how much people sympathized with protesters, that being not at all. Plenty of people turned out because they wanted to beat or kill the protesters themselves, and they DID.

      Civil Rights got passed mainly because JFK and MLK Jr. were killed and because LBJ commanded one of the most competent legislative branches in history, ont because people were protesting for it. In fact, the left caused an enormous backlash on that which lasts to this day, we've still never left the 1960's.

      Vietnam ant-war protests? Pffft. Too bad it was the longest war in U.S. history that went on for another full term after the '68 protests.

      Feminist rights, in contrast, were all accomplished by talented lawyers who worked with the best Supreme Court this country has ever seen.

      Protests DO work, in theory, when the government actually cares about what you have to say. But it hasn't been that way since Reagan, barely anyone in government cares because we only barely have a Democratic Republic. We have a Plutocracy whose sole objective is to secure business interests abroad.

    • 2 years ago
  • JonRaymond
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Saladin:

      No, it wouldn't, that's the whole point. If a politician doesn't feel as if he's going to lose votes, they don't care.

      In the age of corporatism, nothing is as threatening as the lobbyist because they represent who funds the campaigns.

      The Republic is gone man, has been for at least thirty years now.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  
    • Saladin:

      you're right for the most part. As for the 60's its true that no is sure the movement was seen as a threat or an alienating force against the heartland of the america.
      However there was much interest of the government and business into the potential possibility that these kids would give up the wage slave system in favor of doing nothing and spread the idea to other kids, thus killing the system. Marketing/pr techniques were literally re-invented to counter the counter culture in truth they took these rebels and slowly steered them into selfish individualism back in the regan era, until they woke up in the extreme capitalism of today and couldn't figure how they got there. The radicals had no alternative to the system they lived in except to do drugs and have sex with everyone, sadly that doesn't reorganize society, as you said it only validates the right to the folks in the country. Truth is the radicals of the 60's forgot how to make a peoples movement and became nothing more than another subculture for other kids to mimic.
      Funny I just read an adbusters article saying something similar about hipsters.

    • 2 years ago
  • JonRaymond
    • 0
      JonRaymond  
    • Saladin:

      As things continue to deteriorate in this country people will come around. Take away their cushy couch and living room and watch them take to the streets. What we need is radical protests in great masses, impromptu with no police notification or prearrangement.

      but it also seems that there is more power in the media. As we become proficient with information technology, we already see people moving away from mainstream TV to the internet. The most popular media is YouTube videos, Twitter and Facebook. It may be there that the revolution takes place.

      Jesse Ventura for president.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Saladin:

      That's right, because women's rights were secured by all the idiots marching in the streets and not from about a dozen supreme court cases securing everything from equal pay almost all the way to constitutional amendment for complete equality that failed because of right-wing backlash.

      Libero, you're wrong about practically anything you talk about. So I'm not surprised that you "disagree" with me.

      But please, enlighten us. Tell us which of those brave protesters secured the right to prosecute marital rape for us.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Saladin:

      "I never said it was all a bunch of protesters...Direct action in many forms is what made this movements successful."

      Methinks me sees a contradiction here.

      Like I said before, go ahead and let me know which protests secured people's rights. Because I can give you all the names of the people who secured female equality legally.

      And your characterization of the state as some monolithic oppressive force is laughable. Where was this discrimination coming from if not from individuals in the home and in the private sector? Are they a part of the "evil state" too?

      Furthermore, an elimination of the state only assures male dominance 90% of the time as any study of tribal life would show you. Anarchists love to think that freedom and decency are just natural and that evil is somehow imposed in on people.

      It's not, people act shitty on their own and the government is just one tool shitty people use to get their way.

      Think I'm wrong? Well then I'd love to introduce you to this wonderful anarchist society in 900 A.D. They lived in the Scandinavian regions and practically conquered the world in their time without any states or government institutions. They were called the Vikings, and they didn't need a governmental structure or even a reason to go out and raise hell. They just did it because they liked it.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  
    • Saladin:

      well erm the vikings raped and pillaged because they were hungry, and always looking for their next meal (they were freelancers in sense, artist joke). They weren't much of an agrarian society, so it was easier for them to just take some other group of peoples stuff, and contrary to popular belief they didn't kill everyone they raided, just took their stuff. Combine that with some cultural machismo an you have the recipe for human jerkness. I think of this as man in the animal state.
      That was the problem the early socialist faced when they did get power they couldn't really control the food supply because of limitations in production at the time. Now with advances in food production (not gmo's) a socialist utopia is more possible. There'd be no quotas like in communisms wild days due to the abundance of food and using less soil (hydro-aeroponics) via our technology. As technology improves and eliminates the human labor, the cost would go down low enough for anyone eat healthily without having to resort to primal instinct. This is a big assumption, but I feel we'll get there.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Saladin:

      Oh that's right, you laugh so much that you have no time for a rebuttal. How unfortunate.

      Anarchists cannot defend themselves, if I wrote an essay debunking the entire modern anarchist movement you'd tell me to "go read more" because the basis is flawed to begin with. I can show you a hundred failed anarchist societies but you won't call any of the anarchist because apparently you can only be anarchist if you don't fail. Huh, reminds me of communist arguments, probably because your movement practically is proto-communist and you're too ignorant to realize it.

      The fact that you continue to move the goal post in regards to what Anarchism is not saving you from the fact that the absence of states does not somehow end Patriarchy, murder or any other from of evil and that I've now DEMONSTRATED that.

      In other words, you haven't put up, but yet you still haven't shut up.

      Convince me that your "political philosophy" is not a religious cult or accept that you believe in it transcendentally and not as a matter of practicality or rationality.

    • 2 years ago
  • Betico
  • MizPiz
    • 0
      MizPiz  

    • This is just a hypothesis, but I think that a lot of the protests today where greatly affected by 1999 protest in Seattle. It was, more or less, a failure and really scared people into trying to due it with as little ripples as possible. Again this is just a guess.

    • 2 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • MizPiz:

      It is a guess, but you might be on to something there.

      Seattle WTO actually wasn't that radical, but cops sent in agent provocateurs so they had an excuse to beat the snot out of them. Then the media spun them as being crazy assholes.

      It's entirely possible that calmed the movements down.

    • 2 years ago
  • Confucius
  • patrickpants
  • kennymotown
  • cinematenango
    • 0
      cinematenango  

    • Hahaha so true. If you look at the way architecture is being developed, especially in downtown centres, it seems as if the architecture of the place is designed even against protesters. There is all the corporate art in the middle making it more difficult for the mass protest to communicate and effectively move around. There are "Wheel Chair" access to building that are exaggerated with super strong steel ( it looks more like an escape route for important people), windows strategically placed so swat teams or other similar organizations can have a great access and things like that. As a song says, One body can start a war, and they now this, your body or mine.

      I also hate, at least in Toronto, if you have an "unscheduled" protest, you'll get a fine. People in Toronto, when they protest, they look like a giant school-trip visiting the government buildings.

    • 2 years ago
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  

    • When things finally get so bad maybe people will join in, so if you want to make an impact and really stir the pot up be prepared too spend the next 20 years in prison. Here is a suggestion for the people really ready to storm the castle, take 20 or 30 truly dedicated individuals and occupy a TV station and broadcast non-stop anti government ideology, maybe you will disturb the zombies who are fixated on American idol.

    • 2 years ago
  • thewhompus
  • Ihatethemall
  • kennymotown
  • Ihatethemall
  • Commentor
    • 0
      Commentor  
    • kennymotown:

      lol ... I don't think it will get above the DIN of everything else ... they people you want to reach will either think is a new reality show or switch stations to some other of the zillions of programs that are on .

    • 2 years ago
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  

    • Absolutely right on! What a dilemma we find ourselves in. Why can't we citizens be like the People in France who helped bring us Democracy. They really hit the streets shut down work and actually screw up the system and it works, they get things done!

    • 2 years ago
  • nkeg87
  • kennymotown
  • nkeg87
  • samthesixth
  • thewhompus
    • 0
      thewhompus  

    • The combining of the peace movement with all other brands of political activism in the early 70's has resulted in such impotence.

      Historically, the only time politicians listen to demonstrators is when there is an actual threat of violence and chaos, or if the majority is large enough to definitively affect their votes.

      If one takes a look at a movement like Gandhi's, it wasn't the non-violence of that movement that made it effective. It was the potential for violence. The British KNEW that the non-violent nature of that movement could only last so long.

      Now we have a system in place that allows people to go to a demonstration, scream a bit, express their opinion, and walk away like they've accomplished something. But ultimately it's a pointless endeavor that just polarizes opinion even more.

      Please don't misunderstand this post as promoting violence. I'm merely pointing out why the current mode of demonstration is useless. If you want to make a difference, being a functional and integral part of your community- talking with your neighbors and coworkers in a reasonable and non-confrontational way about whatever issues concern you- that's the most important form of activism.

      You could force change by inciting violence, but that's a VERY slippery slope that often doesn't turn out well and winds up with people dying.

      You can't force change by screaming at people. That just makes them defend their positions more dramatically.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mayeffie
  • iamfree
  • remanns
more from Community:
from the community

top videos