Protesting methods...

[maverick]

How far would you go in protesting? Do you feel that it is okay to break the law or cause civil disorder to get your point across? Do you feel that mass peaceful protests and civil disobeidence is a better method with a more profound effect? Does civil disorder have a profound negative effect and cause too many issues, etc.?

I'm in favor of more peaceful-oriented protests, and think violent ones are generally negative and unnessecary, in free societies. I though can sort of understand if an issue was an important enough or big enough as to take a more direct or aggressive approach which could have a possible positive effect.

What do you guys think?

[Dóchas]

i think your right about the peaceful events but you cant be too peaceful remember you have to get your message across and make the onlookers aware of what your protesting for/against i think the odd rock or bottle thrown is ok but i think molotovs is a bit over the top and people will just think your hooligans looking for trouble. i also think that if you act intimidatingly with a large group of fellow comrades with balaclavas or masks etc is a good way of making people aware that you mean business.

have you been in any protest etc recently?

[rocker935]

I think that both forms of protest have their place. But until you gain enough support, stick to peacful. Beware, sometime peacful protest is illegal too. And just because its non-violent doesn't mean it can't be destructive.

[The Feral Underclass]

It depends what was necessary at the time. Obviously, at some point in social upheaval or class struggle you are going to have to break the law in order to meaningfully challenge the state, but it should always be for a reason with an objective in mind. All protests of this nature should be properly organised and co-ordinated because if you are arrested you will need support; that's a very important thing to remember.

[bayano]

wait, i just re-read the initial post, and you say in "free societies". well, isn't our analysis generally than none of the societies we live in are "free"? in that case, your point would be moot. we could have all diversity of tactics that we want, from the non-violent civil disobedience to what you call civil disorder (which also requires definition).

sure, in countries when there are pseudo-legitimate elections, radical struggle can be more easy in some ways and more difficult in ways that require bringing people into movements that consistently engage in non-legal activities, but countries like bolivia, ecuador, peru, greece, south korea are among the great many where militant struggle in the streets have seen widespread popularity despite elections. and fundamentally, can we assume that we all agree that pseudo-legit elections do not a free society make?