Why a march?

[BeerShaman]

What does a march manage that other actions (like having a place and sharing leaflets) don't do?
How did marches start to be the mean of protesting for political organisations and movements?
Are nihilists for or against marches?

[Widerstand]

What does a march manage that other actions (like having a place and sharing leaflets) don't do?

A march is a public demonstration of mass. It makes a bigger impression and reaches a greater audience than people running around with leaflets or squatting a building (or w/e you meant with "having a place"). A march also usually attracts a large crowd of bystanders, which you can give leaflets to!

[anar]

well in my opinion a march seems to be something huge, comparing to giving out leaflets.. it depends on how importantly you see an event, for example if someone is murdered by police you'd probably have a march but if something minor and local went down (cant really think of any good examples, maybe an arrest?) you'd probably intervene with leaflets and texts to share your ideas.

a march needs more preparation and propaganda beforehand so that it can happen, and when it does it can be a great way to send your ideas outwards. a march can also have much more feeling to it compared to sharing out leaflets, you cant really do much when giving out leaflets. i guess what im trying to say is that during a march you can have many more actions happening alongside the march, for example leaflets will most likely be handed out, someone might be spraying stuff using the march as cover, maybe black bloc actions etcetc.

giving out leaflets is just a simple, easy way to try to intervene on certain matters, without the need for many people to participate. even 2-3 people could hand out leaflets successfully

[NonServiam]

I think people fail to see a march as the militant show of force that it is. Instead its militancy has been co-opted by liberal reformists and reactionaries and is now more of a procession.

Personally I see these mass demonstration marches as both a travesty and a bluff.

First, they often take on a celebratory approach to in order protest against acts of war, atrocity and oppression. I'm sick of people taking on a "party" attitude in response to suffering. Its sick. What we require is a spirit of Solemnity and Anger.

Second, these marches often wish to portray themselves as threats to the state (or whatever institution being protested). They say: "If you do not heed our demands, we have the forces to attack.", yet time and time again it is proven to be nothing but a big 'ol bluff. We are nothing but a whole bunch of ill-equipped weaklings, flexing our feeble muscles at the monster that is Capitalism. It is ready to attack and has continually done so, we however aren't even close to ready for the fight ahead.

So to sum it up, the left shouldn't be using militant tactics if they don't have the militant force to back it up.

[Q]

So to sum it up, the left shouldn't be using militant tactics if they don't have the militant force to back it up.

Pretty much this. Most antifa "marches" I've been in were rather pathetic.

[Tablo]

So are we supposed to bring weapons so we can get shot at and arrested?

[Blackscare]

So are we supposed to bring weapons so we can get shot at and arrested?

Heaven forbid any such thing ever happen to a revolutionary.

[Widerstand]

Heaven forbid any such thing ever happen to a revolutionary.

... or you could these militant peoples with guns to actually do something useful. Occupy a factory for example (though of course I'm sure there are other things you could do too). Bringing guns to a protest march sounds more like revolution-LARP than anything, and it doesn't change the fact that the left lacks force. Just because you have some protesters with guns doesn't mean you have power to take on the police.

[Blackscare]

... or you could these militant peoples with guns to actually do something useful. Occupy a factory for example (though of course I'm sure there are other things you could do too). Bringing guns to a protest march sounds more like revolution-LARP than anything, and it doesn't change the fact that the left lacks force. Just because you have some protesters with guns doesn't mean you have power to take on the police.


Well yea, I wasn't actually trying to say guns should be brought to mundane protests. I was just trying to point out that many US "revolutionaries" are afraid of taking any revolutionary action. Then again, it's not the ideologues that do most of the fighting, it's the working class that has come to their side.

[MarxSchmarx]

At least in the first world, among the serious left, we need a moratorium on marches.

I suspect some combination of their therapeutic value and often tradition and historical inertia have a lot to do with why so much of a leftist organization's time, money, and stamina are thrown at demonstrations. The focus of marches are ostensibly to draw public attention or show support, but often nowadays they do neither. When narrowly targeted and effectively organized (like during a strike), marches can be a useful strategy. Yet part of the problem is the leftist orgs really suck at messaging - they barely get enough people psyched up to make the local evening news. Or they are some lame annual ritual like candle light vigils in front of the Chinese embassy every June 4th. Frankly as best I can gather their primary purpose on the radical left has become a form of self-reassurance.

Anar is right. Protests follow, and don't precede, extensive groundwork and careful messaging. However too often these marches are seeing as the end all be all of activism - their morale benefits are questionable at best, and they are almost always a luxury at this stage, with relatively few exceptions (like Greece or Nepal).