Peaceful protest

[Psy]

I run into people that state peaceful protests work and point to the 1960's as an example. When I think about it, wasn't the ruling class around the world shitting their pants after revolution in Paris (in May 1968) was narrowly avoided? Didn't charge come because the ruling class became scared of their workers, then the ruling class become more confident they took them away?

[bcbm]

Nothing about the 1960's protest movements, in any country, was "peaceful." That's just popular image that has been propagated in the United States by the former radicals, so they can look back fondly on those days without judgement. In reality, the protest movements were all quite violent, with plenty of rioting and bomb planting and what have you. During the Vietnam war, I think, there were more bombs planted domestically than any other period. Yeah, that's peaceful.

[DiggerII]

Peaceful protest really doesn't do that much. If one was to point to the sixties as an example of anything, it would be to prove the point that protest indeed doesn't work. The height of protest for the Vietnam War was from 68 to 70 and we weren't even out of there until 73. It's a sad truth of the world that in order to get what you want, you have to throw a few rocks.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Riots can be useful, but the bombing campaigns of the 60s and 70s seemed to fall flat.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Juan Sin Ti[email protected] 28, 2007 10:01 pm
Riots can be useful, but the bombing campaigns of the 60s and 70s seemed to fall flat.
They contributed to the general climate of unrest during the period. As long as nobody dies, who cares? Blow shit up.

[DiggerII]

Most of the protest was indeed peaceful. If there were really that many bombings and really that many riots, there probably would've been some more results. But the Chicago riots and what not, those were just put down by police. Violent protest has to be organized much like an army unfortunately. It seems pretty rebellious to throw rocks at cops but it's a whole new ball game to storm a national guard army and start picking off officials.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:06 pm
Most of the protest was indeed peaceful. If there were really that many bombings and really that many riots, there probably would've been some more results.
Sure, some of the protests were peaceful. I'd bet just as many of them weren't. The various movements of the era were up against the most violent societies on the planet, and when met with violence, they fought back, as any thinking person would. While anti-war, they were certainly not dedicated to nonviolence. There's plenty of riot porn from the era out there to prove it. Berkeley, CA and Madison, WI were particularly known for their violent upheavals.

[rouchambeau]

Really, it depends upon what the goal is.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:06 am
Violent protest has to be organized much like an army unfortunately. It seems pretty rebellious to throw rocks at cops but it's a whole new ball game to storm a national guard army and start picking off officials.
They just to maintain their momentum, in May 1968 protesters totally broken through the police lines and were within striking range of the government buildings but the march lost momentum when it faced the last ditch attempt of the police to block the progress of the protesters, the protesters failed to occupy the state (of course they would have found de Gaulle already had fled) before the army was deployed.

Anymore my point was that Paris May 1968 made the ruling class nervous thus peaceful protests at the time having more effect. Remember the protests in Paris before May 1968 were mostly peaceful then all a sudden all hell broke lose (from the point of view of the ruling class) and police forces across the capital were quickly getting overrun, while workers were occupying factories across France. I think some of the ruling class in the USA were worried that the protests in the US could evolve into May 1968's.

[timefornothing]

it seems to me that peacful protest doesnt accomplish much, but what about the other example everyone uses- Ghandi?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:24 pm
it seems to me that peacful protest doesnt accomplish much, but what about the other example everyone uses- Ghandi?
The Indian movement for independence was hardly "peaceful," and the reasons for British withdrawal are more related to being unable to sustain empire than anything.

[SpikeyRed]

Once again I think Violence is a tricky tricky tactic to use because without huge, widespread support, people find is scary and repugnant and it can alienate them from causes and be used as Anti-Left propaganda.

And look at it this way, you'd be pretty pissed off if one of your family members got brutalized wouldn't you? Well I'd think so, and who are the cops? The cops are just more working class people, only they are recruited by the state, trained by the state and indoctrinated by the state to protect the States interests. So in true Bourgeois fashion, workers are pitted against workers at these protests, and violence, if not used very carefully, can end up as workers driving wedges between workers.

[Entrails Konfetti]

If your at a peaceful protest with really annoying hippies and hipsters eat alot of spicy food and fart.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 06:52 pm
Once again I think Violence is a tricky tricky tactic to use because without huge, widespread support, people find is scary and repugnant and it can alienate them from causes and be used as Anti-Left propaganda.
Our tactics shouldn't be based around whether or not the media will make us look good or not. They, and the rest of the bourgeois press, will never, ever be on our side, no matter how nice we play. If we do play by all the rules, they usually just end up ignoring us, or finding something else about us to demonize.

As for workers supporting it or not, when they organize and find themselves under attack, they'll resort to the same tactics. In the mean time, I'm not worried about how my actions are perceived, though frankly there's more support than you'd think.




who are the cops? The cops are just more working class people, only they are recruited by the state, trained by the state and indoctrinated by the state to protect the States interests.

Cops are working class people in the same way scabs and snitches are working class people: they're class traitors and collaborators and deserve nothing but resentment and harassment from workers. When it comes time to get serious, they tend to defend the interests of their bosses, or they stop being cops. So until a cop stops being a cop, fuck 'em.


So in true Bourgeois fashion, workers are pitted against workers at these protests, and violence, if not used very carefully, can end up as workers driving wedges between workers.

The bigger the wedge I put between myself and the cops, the better.

[More Fire for the People]

The use of peaceful protest is an effective method in realizing the objective goals of the working class & dehumanized. However, two roadblocks emerge in this kind of tactic.

The first is that, despite efficacy of peaceful protest to achieve temporal objectives, the ability of peaceful protest to shatter the rule of the bourgeoisie is ineffectual. The smashing of the bourgeois order requires rebellion — the unrestrained unleashing of repressed desires & needs — and here peace is nothing compared the therapeutic violence of destructive creativity and creative destruction.

The second roadblock is that the less an opposing government(s) conceives of groups of the population as ‘humans’ the more they are to use ‘illegal’ methods — torture, rape, execution, firebombing, etc. — as was the case in the Congo and Vietnam. In such a situation, violence is a necessity for the dehumanized because it is their only defense.

[SpikeyRed]

Fair points Hopscotch.

Black Coffee Black Metal I think you kinda missed my point, or mis-read my basis.

I am well aware of the issue of Bourgeois media and such, but what I was getting at when I said "Anti-Left" propaganda, was that, if a small group of 'hardcore' leftists are running around using violence, and it is not sanctioned by a larger, class-conscious majority, and all that the masses see is Violent people running around with the tags of leftists this can only be counter-productive in that it can very well alienate the masses from class-conscious groups and make them repudiate at the idea of being class conscious, because

Whether we like it or not, the majority of the the Proletariat are in the hands of the Bourgeois media and to run around perpetrating class interests simply by being violent towards Cops and their bosses without first building wider class consciousness (And I don't think Violence dose this) is simply not helpful. Education needs to come before this. A movement must preceed the violence.

As for my point about Cops being working class, it was not so much the cops themselves I was refering to, I wrote my point badly, but, working class people have working class friends and family generally, yes? And, when someone assualts your friend\familly member, you resent them don't you? So while cops may be as bad as scabs, they're friends\familly arn't neccesairly class traitors, just because they're friends with a cop. Hence if you brutalize one member of the class, then, you have the very real potential to galvanize whole social GROUPINGS of the class.
Dose that make more sense?

[bcbm]

I got your point, and addressed it the first time around:

"As for workers supporting it or not, when they organize and find themselves under attack, they'll resort to the same tactics. In the mean time, I'm not worried about how my actions are perceived, though frankly there's more support than you'd think."

We build ties and our "image" with other workers by helping them in their struggles and expressing solidarity, not by trying to play nice all the time with our enemies.

[Connolly]

They contributed to the general climate of unrest during the period. As long as nobody dies, who cares? Blow shit up.

Jasus you dont beat around the bush. Well said! :D

[Janus]

It really depends on the composition not necessarily the character of the protest. Though violent protests are more likely to attract attention and coverage, they're unlikely to achieve anything if they're isolated and weak. Protests in general are meant to be symbolic events but if they can generate enough numbers and attention, then that's when they can potentially become more.

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:32 am
It really depends on the composition not necessarily the character of the protest. Though violent protests are more likely to attract attention and coverage, they're unlikely to achieve anything if they're isolated and weak. Protests in general are meant to be symbolic events but if they can generate enough numbers and attention, then that's when they can potentially become more.
In the usa, the Tube is no longer even marginally hospitable to dissent so attention is hard to get, and the media and the State control the "official headcounts."The numbers game works against you even if they admit to say 500,000 for one afternoon in an empire of 300,000,000. It really isn't that impressive.

The Washington Mall is presently being filled in with new buildings. (The West end where the old Naval Observatory stands has been turned over to the State Security apparatus for a new facility.) This development will eventually put an end to massive Washington demonstrations.

[Janus]

In the usa, the Tube is no longer even marginally hospitable to dissent so attention is hard to get, and the media and the State control the "official headcounts."The numbers game works against you even if they admit to say 500,000 for one afternoon in an empire of 300,000,000. It really isn't that impressive.
Yet the mainstream media does still report on protests particularly the larger and violent ones. And if you wanted to look past that, what about all the other media sources? In this technological age of ours, information sharing and uploading have increased to the extent that just about anyone with access to the Internet can almost instanteously upload or transmit data, news, and opinions through the web. That's how many of us get the news concerning strikes and other actions or events that the mainstream media either ignores or are too biased against. It doesn't matter if the mainstream media doesn't report on it because someone else most likely will.

[abbielives!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:45 am
I run into people that state peaceful protests work and point to the 1960's as an example. When I think about it, wasn't the ruling class around the world shitting their pants after revolution in Paris (in May 1968) was narrowly avoided? Didn't charge come because the ruling class became scared of their workers, then the ruling class become more confident they took them away?

do we have socialism? no? then it wasn't effective

next time people ask if it was at lest effective at ending the war point out to the m that it was the the violent resistance of the viet-cong that caused public sentiment to rise against the war and finally to drive america out

the events of paris 68' were hardly peaceful...

[CornetJoyce]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 04:27 am

In this technological age of ours, information sharing and uploading have increased to the extent that just about anyone with access to the Internet can almost instanteously upload or transmit data, news, and opinions through the web. That's how many of us get the news concerning strikes and other actions or events that the mainstream media either ignores or are too biased against. It doesn't matter if the mainstream media doesn't report on it because someone else most likely will.
If it "doesn't matter" whether the big media broadcast it, that means that the vast majority are downloading etc. so it's the same as being broadcast into every living room and bar in america as Abbie and Jerry counted on. Do you have any figures on that?
Are you aware that a substantial number of us don't have broadband yet?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What exactly do we mean by "peaceful protests"? The point at which most protests and revolutions turn violent is the point when the bourgeoisie orders its footsoldiers to open fire on the working class.

It would be great if we could simply walk into government buildings and tell bourgeois politicians that the working class is taking over and they are kindly invited to fuck off. But that will never, ever happen. When we cross a certain line, they open fire. And then the question becomes, do we fight back?

A "peaceful protest" is basically a protest whose members have decided they will not fight back against police aggression - which is frankly quite stupid. The most that such a protest could ever achieve is pressuring the bourgeoisie into adopting a few reformist measures to save itself from a true revolution.

[Mariam]

From personal experience: peaceful protest do not work at least here in Bahrain!
Each of those intentionally peaceful protest turn out to be a disaster of its own kind..it just never works..thats way Bahrain is breaking the records of protests coz people seem to never get sick of it..starts peacefully and ends up with tear gases, burning cylinders, breaking into houses, smashing cars, and of course injuries and the usual causalities among citizens or police forces.
A peaceful protest sounds like an oxymoron to me.

[Janus]

If it "doesn't matter" whether the big media broadcast it, that means that the vast majority are downloading etc. so it's the same as being broadcast into every living room and bar in america as Abbie and Jerry counted on.
No, obviously, mainstream media is much more popular than alternative media. My point was that things have changed quite dramatically since the pre-Internet days when information was exclusively garnered from conventional television and newspaper sources. These days, through the Internet, one is exposed to much more information, views, and opinions-a direct result of technological transformation. Yeah, it's less likely that the majority of the people will hear about some obscure event through the alternative media sources but at least it's out there; something which can not be said of the climate just a few decades ago.


Do you have any figures on that?
Are you aware that a substantial number of us don't have broadband yet?
You're missing my point. Yes, I'm aware that a large number of people do not have broadband connections but the majority of people in industrialized nations do have some sort of internet access. As such, they have access to information and connections that few people could've dreamed of in the pre-Internet age. Currently, one does not need to rely on mainstream media sources these days to become famous or get/transmit their ideas or information when all they need is an Internet connection, and that I think is undisputable.