I think you’ll find that many (but not all) successful movements are driven by the potent pairing of a legitimately pissed off populace backed by capital.
I generally agree, but I also think it depends on the capital. There are definitely losers (in the winning/losing sense) in the business world even just two months into the second Trump regime.
I see what you are saying, but the issue of having billionaires funding and supporting the movement is something most protest movements can’t count on.
Of course. A leftist protest will never have support from the owner class.
The tea party protests were certainly astroturfed, funded by the coke Brothers etc. but they were also real. They were composed of real people with real grievances.
I don’t think they would admit their actual motivations even to themselves, but it wasn’t a fake movement in the sense that the crowds were fictional. Thousands and tens of thousands of people were showing up and calling reps and voting in primaries.
That movement really started in 2014 with the killing of Michael Brown, but your point stands. Still, I can’t call that too much of a victory since the point of the protests was to stop violent racially biased policing, and all we got were cameras. Better than nothing I suppose.
Historically if peaceful protests are ignored long enough, the protests cease to be peaceful. That almost always backfires against the protestors because it’s so easy for the media to turn public opinion against them. The average citizen isn’t willing to sacrifice their peace and security unless there is an immediate tangible benefit to them.
We need a new tactic. Something the powers that be don’t have an answer for already. I’m from Chicago and during the pandemic there was a phenomenon called flash mobs that the police struggled to address. Large groups of people would arrange online a time and location, commit crime, and flee before authorities could react. Sometimes they would show up, beat up and rob whoever was on the street, and disappear onto public transportation. Other times they would hit high value corporate targets like the Gucci or Prada stores. Dozens of people would rush in, seal everything not nailed down, and escape.
I have to wonder hypothetically what would happen if this tactic was applied to banks. The money is insured by the government, so the public wouldn’t be losing anything. But the public HATES the banks and wouldn’t offer them sympathy. It would be even better if some of the stolen money was redistributed to the needy. Just wishful thinking on my part.
Has any protest made a damn bit of difference in the US for the last 20 years? 30? 40?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
AstroTurf project funded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy conservative groups. Not a real protest
I think you’ll find that many (but not all) successful movements are driven by the potent pairing of a legitimately pissed off populace backed by capital.
That’s the rough part of where we are now. Capital isn’t on our side. If the economy tanks hard, maybe that will change.
I generally agree, but I also think it depends on the capital. There are definitely losers (in the winning/losing sense) in the business world even just two months into the second Trump regime.
Ah yes, no true scottsman would protest for the billionaires!
I see what you are saying, but the issue of having billionaires funding and supporting the movement is something most protest movements can’t count on.
Of course. A leftist protest will never have support from the owner class.
The tea party protests were certainly astroturfed, funded by the coke Brothers etc. but they were also real. They were composed of real people with real grievances.
I don’t think they would admit their actual motivations even to themselves, but it wasn’t a fake movement in the sense that the crowds were fictional. Thousands and tens of thousands of people were showing up and calling reps and voting in primaries.
Protests are very successful in increasing awareness in disengaged citizens.
If the news covers it, sure. But they aren’t covering the protests that are happening.
That’s for sure. We also leave cell phones at home or in the car. NYPD has stingrays at every protest. Just bring your ID and some cash.
Define “a bit”
Bodycameras on law enforcement were widely adopted after the George Floyd Protests.
That movement really started in 2014 with the killing of Michael Brown, but your point stands. Still, I can’t call that too much of a victory since the point of the protests was to stop violent racially biased policing, and all we got were cameras. Better than nothing I suppose.
I agree that it is absolutely inadequate.
No. Therefor, what is the next logical step?
Historically if peaceful protests are ignored long enough, the protests cease to be peaceful. That almost always backfires against the protestors because it’s so easy for the media to turn public opinion against them. The average citizen isn’t willing to sacrifice their peace and security unless there is an immediate tangible benefit to them.
We need a new tactic. Something the powers that be don’t have an answer for already. I’m from Chicago and during the pandemic there was a phenomenon called flash mobs that the police struggled to address. Large groups of people would arrange online a time and location, commit crime, and flee before authorities could react. Sometimes they would show up, beat up and rob whoever was on the street, and disappear onto public transportation. Other times they would hit high value corporate targets like the Gucci or Prada stores. Dozens of people would rush in, seal everything not nailed down, and escape.
I have to wonder hypothetically what would happen if this tactic was applied to banks. The money is insured by the government, so the public wouldn’t be losing anything. But the public HATES the banks and wouldn’t offer them sympathy. It would be even better if some of the stolen money was redistributed to the needy. Just wishful thinking on my part.