Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2005 @ 06:21 PM CDT

bushy IS shaking in his boots. he fled DC for colorado.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2005 @ 10:11 PM CDT

Mass protests:

+help spread alternative ideas to people who have not been exposed to them before

+show the government how many of "their" citizens really do hate their policies

+help us anarchists and leftists make friends/connections and learn from each other

+show the rest of the world that not everyone here is an idiot

And I don't know about the rest of you, but seeing that there are all these people willing to stand up and oppose bullshit- even if its just by taking over some streets and shouting until we cant shout anymore- is one of the only things that keeps my outlook on the future from being completely pessimistic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2005 @ 11:51 PM CDT

I don't think so. The minor things that mass mobilizations create are offset by the way they disempower large numbers of people. You can count me as one serious activist who is tired of the "march on Washington" bullshit and am willing to speak up about these wastes of our resources

Chuck0

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 07:20 AM CDT

I see where you are coming from, but if it were not for being exposed to anarchism at these events, I may have never become an anarchist, and I'm sure there are many more people who got their first exposure in the same way and are now anarchists and activists.

It is hardly a waste of resources for me because I have nothing else to do today anyway except go to work (right!). And I will be out at my local Food Not Bombs tomorrow participating in another kind of activism.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 02:04 PM CDT

I think everyone should watch the recently released Weather Underground documentary, not so much for the Weather Underground, but to hear the ciritques/conclusions the activists were giving of themselves by the end of the 60's.

Most of those who participate in the current anti-war protests are too young to know what really happened in the anti-war movement (as am I), others may have forgotten. We are given, by popular history, mainstream media, and much activist media, a much more positive spin on it. What we don't hear about, especially from the first two sources, is the internal conflicts over whether the mass protests were worth it. It was this conflict that led those far more critical of the effectiveness of the mass marches to take control over the weakened SDS, weakened because many had lost hope in the same old shit. Those who led soon became the Weather Underground and the SDS was no more.

Remember, this was 35 years ago. Apparently, we are poor at passing on lessons learned. And if "we" aren't, we're doing a poor job of presenting alternatives as others lead each other down the same failed road.

If we should be adopting techniques from any group during that period, we'd probably be better off looking at (not worshipping or recreating of course) the Black Panthers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panthers/

Mass protests rely on numbers for a measure of effectiveness. Relying on numbers mean organizers spend a great deal of time promoting the event and trying to get as many people out as possible. What they do not care about, is the sacrifice people must make to attend. They must give up considerable amount of time, as many are coming from out of the area, and money. They may have to ask for days off from work. They lose money from not working, getting to the protest location, staying in the protest location, and returning home. This is why far more (mostly white) young people (and aging hippies) attend, because they have more disposable income, most likely do not have a serious career, if even working at all, do not have a family to worry about, etc. etc.

People attending must also have blind faith that the event will turn out well. It's not going to storm. They will enjoy their time there. The sacrifice they have to make will be worth it in the end.

Whether they want to admit it or not, they also rely heavily on media coverage. After all, what really is the point if no one your protest is aimed at is at the location (the President is in the hurricane area)? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

When very little sound is made, if any, activists have to find any lame excuse to justify such sacrifice on their part and others. Like a person stated above, this sacrifice was worth it because we get to see other people don't like the war either, get to mingle with such types, etc. I don't know where you live, but I get that kind of interaction everyday.

Opposition to the war is everywhere, the problem is what can we do about it that is actually effective.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 02:10 PM CDT

"I don't know where you live, but I get that kind of interaction everyday. " I mean with people pretty much everywhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 10:26 PM CDT

The situation is the opposite of what your describing. The media line is "amss protests dont work, and jus turn people off.

The right wind media want people to beleive that mass protests on washington for civil rights, anti-war etc. were all a waste of time

Dont buy it.

I agree with the points put above, and its kind of obvious. I and practiclaly everyone i know in the social justice movement has been inspired by somehting that went on during a mass protest in Washington DC... Martin Luther King jrs speeches, Million Worker style things, even ANSWERS flawed protests are ususally a catalyst. This type of stuff WROKS and it WORKS well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 09:06 AM CDT

During all of the struggles you mentioned, mass protests did not happen in a vacuum. Had we only had some peaceful protests in DC during the civil rights movement, what would the incentive for government change be? That they were unaware blacks were unhappy about being second class citizens? The protests kind of annoyed them? The peacefulness scared them into making changes they didn't support? I don't mean to imply large protests are completely pointless, I just think they can be nearly ineffectual to very influential. These large anti-war protests are way at the bottom, and numbers are the only thing they have going for them. You know what got more airtime than the 100k person march Saturday, Cindy Sheehan being arrested Monday. Yeah, the media sucks, blah blah blah. See the Daily Show last night? Do they have an agenda against the anti-war movement too because they didn't present the story the way those who organized and participated wanted? If you didn';t see it, it's hilarious. They made fun of the marathon long speeches and how so many speakers put dumb chants into their speech.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 02:09 PM CDT

The Daily Show take on the protests was hilarious. If we can't laugh at ourselves sometimes, then we need to get a sense of humor. We also need to find some people who can talk on stage without sounding like leftists.

Chuck0

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 12:40 AM CDT

Pure strawman. no one is implying that protests alone can do anything, but the obvious point it protests HELP CREATE the envirenment around which social change happens

btw. there were many excellent and interesting speeches at the protest along with some laughably bad ones. I know white middle class people worship the Daily show, but that doesnt change their idiotic right wing slant whenever they mock the third world or progressive movements here, and really tht has nothing to do with the subject

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 12:46 AM CDT

God, how I love sanctiomonious leftists who can't enjoy one of the most anti-authoritarian TV shows on cable. Right-wing? Have you ever watched the show? Jesus fucking christ, can we buy our comrade a sense of humor?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 10:33 AM CDT

The "slant" you perceive is a "common sense" slant. Because most of the world doesn't see the protests as the more hopeful protesters see them doesn't mean they have a right- wing slant. It's not the DS's job to portray every left-leaning protest positively (in that same report, they also ridiculed the counter-protest on Sunday). Since when were they supposed to be a propaganda machine for ANSWER or any other group involved in the protests?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 08:25 PM CDT

People should admit that the mass antiwar protests in San Francisco and Washington have turned into circuses. People should really pay more attention to their presentation and not just hold up any goddamn sign.

And we need to have a sense of self-deprecating humor about ourselves, which the Daily Show is pointing out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 23 2005 @ 09:59 PM CDT

Are that you delusion? He doesn't give a damn how many people protest. Please.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 11:44 AM CDT

There's nothing wrong with mass protests per se. Its just that right now, they are so completely regulated by liberal idiots as to be totallly worthless.

These people need to be confronted about their 'peace nazi' bullshit, and smack them in the face with the fact that, other than getting their picture in the paper, they aren't acccomplishing SHIT.

They are trying to re-enact the 60's without risking their $60,000 job and its really pissing me off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 01:24 PM CDT

We've been saying that for almost 4 years now. Blame others ("liberals," "peace 'nazis,'" etc.), present no alternative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 01:38 PM CDT

It's time to start building a better alternative. Join the Anti-Authoritarians Against the War Network e-mail list:

http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/aa-antiwar

We can organize something better than marching in circles.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 24 2005 @ 06:52 PM CDT

There's a time and a place. I voted "yes" they're a waste of resources, but my vote might be different at another time. The polls have made it clear that people are increasingly against the war. Right now resources would best be spent working with people in the gulf coast. That would've been a helluva statement for all that energy to be devoted in that direction. Solidarity, you know. Oh well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2005 @ 10:53 AM CDT

well, I think it's impossible to speak for "large numbers of people" who these protests purportedly disempower. I for one am an anarchist and am actually empowered by against 200K people "marching in circles" in the nations capital, I wonder how much more effective other tacits that critics are proposing?

Smashing a window/snake mahuge turnouts for protests like this. of course, they are one tactic of many that can and should be used.

If the criticism isrching around in circles dressed in identical clothse?

sorry to sound so critical or cynical.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 10:43 AM CDT

Just a point of information: there were NOT 200,000 people at the 9/24 protests. There were less than 100,000. The organizers of the march are known for their outlandish estimates of crowd sizes at their protests. Your webmaster has attended some of these demos and has engaged in some research on this topic. Always assume that the estimate at an ANSWER event is 3x higher than the actual numbers.

C.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2005 @ 12:14 PM CDT

The problem with anarchists in these events is that they don't present a visible alternative. Sure, they march 'harder' and 'tougher' than liberals, but as far as politics go, their "anti-war" isn't articulated much differently than the "anti-war" politics of any number of other groups. A's need to start distancing and seperating themselves from these liberal parasites, and present a wholly new set of politics, not some beefed up liberalism.

For example, lets start using the term 'internationalist' again. Let's visibly (in signs and in other media) call out the shit of the commies who are all for war when its the red army trashing afghanistan, or the liberals who thought yugoslavia was cool.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 25 2005 @ 04:53 PM CDT

Yeah, nothing pisses me off more than anti-war messages that assume good intentions or a simple mistake of any imperial war. I was at an antiwar demo in the midwest, which had a good turnout and diverse speakers, but I cringed every time somebody mentioned the Iraq war "tarnishing" the image of US and our purported ideals of democracy and freedom. I honestly think that these people who say that don't have a "liberal" political agenda, they are just ignorant.

but I suppose that's what happens as the movement becomes more mainstream, and more 'regular' people take part.

there is room for us "extremists" to move things to the left, as in the 60's....because the mainstream will at least have to move that way to coopt such ideas (the idea that MLK's "success" would not have been possible, except for it represented a much more palitable alternative to the radical movements)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Sunday, September 25 2005 @ 05:36 PM CDT

I agree that anarchists, for the most part, aren't creating a viable alternative. There is a time and place for all of the tactics we use, but we aren't exactly doing all of the hard organizing work like we were doing on anti-globalization issues. People respect other people who do practical things, do hard organizing, and accomplish things. We are at a point now--what with liberals being pissed off at the Democrats and progressives not knowing what to do--where we can step up, set an example, and inspire people to more effective action.

Chuck0

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2005 @ 09:55 AM CDT

"Much better to continue to let the media give the vast majority of Americans the impression that there is no opposition to the actions of our government."

The media, and I'm sure most of us are referring to television media since the protests were mentioned in most newspapers, loves polls, and they regularly show polls that clearly indicate a majority of Americans do not support the war or the president.

The media does not have a hard agenda against people opposed to the war, there are definitely conflicts of interest, but I think the bigger problem is that television media is pure entertainment. Everything they do is for entertainment. If they think covering one story will bring them more viewers, such as (non-catastrophic) hurricanes or celebrity scandals or whatever, then lesser stories, they'll go with that.

So, this weekend, several things are working against the demonstrations. 1) Staff at the news outlets is severely cut on the weekends. Most get Saturdays and Sundays off. Less staff means they'll have less people to send out to cover different stories. 2) A major hurricane hit, which for a while was category 5. Big stuff. They devote all their resources to covering that. Footage of hurricane destruction as it's occuring and after, emotional stories from people who suffered, continuing the Katrina scandal, etc. 3) All of this trumps a boring march in DC, no matter how many people are there. That's just the way the media works. Does that mean we should cater our protests to the television media? Of course not. But we have to understand the way it works, and it isn't as simple as having a purely ideological agenda.

"Public demonstrations, when they are accompanied by grassroots action (which this one unfortunately is mostly not) actually have been an effective tool for social change. Civil rights marches, anyone?"

This is a grassroots demonstration (the Democratic Party didn't put it on did they?), it's just led predominately by an authoritarian group. All protests are not the same. We can't just look back at history in a split second, notice there were some marches, things also changed, and conclude marches in the most general sense were the primary cause for that change, and therefore will have similar results if repeated in any form.

During the civil rights movement, far more was going on than peaceful demonstrations. Many also felt the demonstrations were pointless at that time, it's just popular history glorifies the MLK's, a few marches, and some acts of civil disobedience, and does not tell us all of what happened.

If you want those in power to change, they must feel their jobs are on the line, people's faith in the government is being severely undermined, etc. They must feel threatened (not physically). So, should we ask ourselves, are these protests doing that? The idea of these protests is that numbers will show the politicians America does not support them. This is fine if a) you're appealing to politicians to change, and b) we don't have polls to show what most people feel, or c) we have polls, but the numbers show most people support the policy/action.

Then you say, I understand, but we're protesting differently. Some spraypainted and some of us threw rocks at the cops. Congratulations. In this protest, what does that really mean? It means 500 (we always exaggerate our numbers don't we) out of 100,000 people did some minor, predictable things. It got a mention on the DC indymedia, and here of course, but that's it. No one cares. Sure, it may have been the most exciting few moments of that dreadfully boring day for those involved, but let's not fool ourselves about the impact.

And outreach? I think the best outreach is being the ones doing the hard work, behind the scenes, making things happen. Outreach by appearing at a protest to spread our ideas and pamphlets turns us into another weirdo fringe group in most people's eyes. Sure, some will find it interesting, others will start avoiding us like the plague or take shit just to be nice, then throw it away later.

"But the purpose of these mass demonstrations is not to persuade the governement, it's to persuade the silent majority of citizens that they are not alone in their beliefs, and to encourage them to become involved."

To become involved in what? More of these exciting and highly effective marches in DC? Electing another war mongering politician in a few years?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 10:31 PM CDT

Why are you singling out the answer protests?! Who ever said this poll was about the recent protests? the person youre responding to was talkign about mass protest in general

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 03:23 AM CDT

Chuck0 said, ". . .We are at a point now--what with liberals being pissed off at the Democrats and progressives not knowing what to do--where we can step up, set an example, and inspire people to more effective action."

The activities that that really encourage me coming out of the North American anarchist community are the Hurricane victim solidarity campaigns and the No Borders campaigns in the South.

Certainly, we can do likewise concerning (anti-imperialst, and anti-state) anti-war activities. In the SW, anarchists are engaging in what we are FOR. Even in the protests against the Minutemen, anarchists are demonstrating what we are FOR, No Borders.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 06:17 AM CDT

I'm not particularly sure anarchists ought to be for anything--at least not yet, in condtions of imposed questions of the social reality (war, work, race, gender...etc) We are a negation.

"To become involved in what? More of these exciting and highly effective marches in DC? Electing another war mongering politician in a few years?"

Exactly. But what is a negation manifest? What is experiments in freedom? What is revolt. Most of us don't know becuase the Leftists are right, we are privileged, and for the most part don't exist in an industrial society with modern forms of oppression--material conditions. We are not, as of yet fighting for our survival (divorced of course from the ELF perspective.) And the folk-artists at crimethinc HQ are right, and so was ol' Raul, we are fighting for our lives. To own our selves, and be self-determined in what ever individual or collective form that may take. But still, when was the last time most of us (US anarchicos) we're physically threatened by the state or capital (minus our own participation in rowdy demos)?

I think we are wrong to imagine disarticulating the state and history shows our folly in Russia and Spain at least. So what if we can make the busses run on time if it's the busses existence that is problematic. Our task is ruthless, terrible, merciless universal creation and destruction (not necessarily in that order.) Now, we need something to call our own. We need time and space to dream, and experiment. Where is that?

I think it may be in a new contradiction--a counter economy, similar to black market as well as foraging and for those who do, cultivation. But this will be a genuine risk, not mere lifestylism. Ours would be life-insurgent.
Every non-taxed, stolen, bartered, grown desire or need can be done in gatherings (small and large) and every gathering a potluck. This is not a solution, but a new problem, but one we could own, instead of the parody of resistance, and resignation we now are engulfed in.

Keep an open ear and be ready to gather; discuss these posibilities if you see this as a problem worth getting into.

Anarchists, we need a negation worth holding on to--worth fighting for and living for. We need a an experiment that raises tension, created ruptures and elaborates on all our past projects. What is a way to live that finds it's self at odds will the existant world? Why is that world better than looking at porn on the internet and working, drinking, and being secure?

-t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 02:00 PM CDT

Cemender (who 't' was responding to) writes:

't' said, ". . .We are a negation."

Speak for yourself, anarchists are a large group. I am certainly in solidarity and in the same camp as you, but am suggesting an alternative to this very attitude.

We have to move beyond being a mere negation of a negation. You can not show love through anti-hate.

"But still, when was the last time most of us (US anarchicos) we're physically threatened by the state or capital (minus our own participation in rowdy demos)?"

Wow! That is, wow! I am going to be blunt. You demonstrate a level of ignorance and privilege beyond that which I can relate with.

You speak in a lot of abstractions, that seem senseless. We need practical change. Also "lifestylism" is a red herring.

Some one else stated, ". . .Rather our role is to help articulate their daily problems and relate them in a broader social context, empowering them to create change."

I sorta' agree. My role is to articulate my understanding of the broader social context, empower myself and my community to create change, serve as an example for others, and open myself up to learning and mutual understanding with others.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 03:36 AM CDT

Cemender, "We have to move beyond being a mere negation of a negation. You can not show love through anti-hate."

I'm not sure we can call solidarity and photo-ops, love. Also I'm more interested in a genuine love that grows out of "anti-hate" as it were...I'm not particularly sure we are nothing more than social constructs.

"But still, when was the last time most of us (US anarchicos) we're physically threatened by the state or capital (minus our own participation in rowdy demos)?"-me

"Wow! That is, wow! I am going to be blunt. You demonstrate a level of ignorance and privilege beyond that which I can relate with."-you

I'm not going to get super butt-hurt about this, but calling out 'privilege' becuase i state a pretty obvious truth, that most of the US anarchists are honkies, service class, 20 somethings seems a bit ridiculous. If that's not your experience, word. But don't pretend that white kids are some kind of aberation for the US anarchism. And don't pretend that the material condions for most are easily met. Certainly an excluded multitude exists even here, but our experience is not that of the non-citizen, or non-first worlder.

My perspective is one of projectual life that seizes, discovers and elaborates on freedom. Sure, break down the spectacle or whatever at the authentic place of social war--our work places, school, the market, the club, conerts, shows, bars, cafes etc. But I'm interested in seizing right here and now space and time to experiement with freedom, and a means of survival that can negate my work for the global economy.

"Rather our role is to help articulate their daily problems and relate them in a broader social context, empowering them to create change."

Who is this 'they' you're speaking of? Are you seperate from the rest of the excluded and exploited? If so why in the hell would you have a desire to destroy the social order? Get off with that guilt, moralism, do-gooder shit.

The problematics for US anarchicos isn't an attitude. It is a lack of deeds, and disarticulation of freedom. Moreover it is The World's (civilization,hierarchy, and domintion) intervention in our social realtions.

-t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: john crayon on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 08:49 AM CDT

There was a lot of liberal/reformist b.s. that went on at the march, but one thing happened that was really interesting:

As you all know, ANSWER always runs the rallys and produces these (usually) excrutiatingly boring speakers, scores of which drone on for hours while thousands of people stand around waiting to march/protest/whatever. Anyway, the rally went on FOREVER and people were getting really fed up with just standing there, so they began to chant "march, march!"

The head ANSWER guy then starts pathetically pleading with the crowd, saying "come on - we're going to march soon. just a few more speakers." And then, something great happened - people started leaving and marching on their own. They just disregarded ANSWER and their authoritarian control over the proceedings and went off to march.

Now, it's definitely debatable whether or not marches like this one have any effect, but when those people refused to listen to their self-appointed "leaders" and took to the streets, it reminded me of a quote from Ghandi. (I'll probably get it wrong, but it's something like this.)

"My people are leading - I must follow."

In other words, the people have spoken: democracy in action. It was a small moment of mass anarchism amidst a whole lot of liberal bullshit.

It also really showed the true colors of ANSWER and their Stalinist buddies when they tried to stop the gathered throngs from marching without being told to do so. I think that moment alone says a lot about the libertarian strains that run through even the most moderate of anti-war protestors and that's really something that anarchists can use as a starting point to attract people to our movement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: john crayon on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 08:52 AM CDT

...and by "that moment," i mean the moment when the people began marching on their own, regardless of what ANSWER told them to do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2005 @ 11:03 AM CDT

"I'm not particularly sure anarchists ought to be for anything--at least not yet, in condtions of imposed questions of the social reality (war, work, race, gender...etc) We are a negation."

That's the biggiest piece of middle-class bullshit I've ever heard. Go call your self a nihilist and get over your angst elsewhere. Leave us alone. Anarchism is a distinct political philosophy that promotes a distinct form of organization (one free of coercion and hierarchy - which can include anything from communist to primitive individualist). Other political groups also have distinct philosophies, the difference is that we are anarchists and not Commies because we think we are right.

It's exactly this bullshit attitude that keeps anarchism confined largely to middle class youth who largely have no idea what the ideas represent. The majority of people don't need to 'create something worth fighting', it's called capitalism. And its certainly not anarchists role to do that for them. Rather our role is to help articulate their daily problems and relate them in a broader social context, empowering them to create change.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 28 2005 @ 01:45 PM CDT

Compare the feedback on a news topic related to last weekend's protests from this site to this site:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/28/124717/957

1) Similar debate from a mostly Democratic/liberal audience.
2) Some of the critiques actually sound more radical, well thought out, than what has been posted here. Those defending them on that site using the same sort of rhetoric those defending them here use.

A lot of interesting points, like Republicans put little to no effort into protests, yet they're the force dominating this country today. Instead of spending time, money into organizing protests, they spent time and money into influencing the media. What has a larger impact? A large protest once a year that gets ignored, or having significant influence over the media that people are exposed to all day, everyday? Another point, does the fact it took 7 years for the U.S. to withdrawal from the time the the mass Vietnam protests really began suggest they were highly effective? The Vietnam War didn't end until 74, with far greater casualties than the Iraq war, plus there was a draft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 04:07 AM CDT

Weird. My intended message keeps being detect as SPAM. I have no idea why.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:31 AM CDT

Send me your message and I'll check it against the spam word list. I've tightened that list lately in order to stem the tide of comment spam.

The other comment about the Republicans focusing on the media is an important one. More people have come out against the war as a result of reading anti-war articles in the media than they have as a result of demos. In other words, if people would donate more money to Counterpunch, Infoshop, Dissident Voice and Indymedia, we could have a bigger voice and impact that some bad speakers at an ANSWER rally.

Chuck
chuck@mutualaid.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 07:30 PM CDT

Cemendur writes:

". . . Republicans put little to no effort into protests, yet they're the force dominating this country today. Instead of spending time, money into organizing protests, they spent time and money into influencing the media. What has a larger impact? A large protest once a year that gets ignored, or having significant influence over the media that people are exposed to all day, everyday?"

Its worth noting that the ruling class does not just 'influence the media'. The corporate media is a fundamental organization of the ruling class.

William Sargent in 'Battle for the Mind: The Mechanics of Indoctrination, Brainwashing and Thought Control' wrote, "Politicians, Priests, and psychiatrists often face the same problem: how to find the most rapid and permanent means of changing a man's (sic) beliefs." Those behind the corporate news, sitcoms, education system, and commercials - public relations specialists, "journalists", spin doctors, "teachers", textbook writers, psychiatrists, etc.- fullfill nearly the same role in our society as priests did in pre-industrial state societies. They have nearly the same 'function'.

"Another point, does the fact it took 7 years for the U.S. to withdrawal from the time the the mass Vietnam protests really began suggest they were highly effective? "
Excellent point.

"The Vietnam War didn't end until 74, with far greater casualties than the Iraq war, plus there was a draft."

An excellent case has been made that it was the Vietcong resistance that bore the bulk of burden of ending the Vietnam War.

(Chuck0, "I did not copy my previous message. If you're reading this, then my new one went through. If it happens again, I'll send you an email.")

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: thelung on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 09:17 PM CDT

After this past weekend, I have realized Chuck0 is right.The current form of mass protest in DC is totally useless. It COULD be effective, but not the way it is done now. It would have to be more like the Orange Revolution protests we saw last winter in Ukraine, than a bunch of liberals complaining about every issue under the sun, and proposing no solutions other than "everyone should vote next election guyz!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Thursday, September 29 2005 @ 10:51 PM CDT

What's really perplexing is how hot most liberals are to get rid of Bush, but they won't do anything to remove him from office. Many countries around the world have seen relatively peaceful changes in government. Why isn't Moveon and those groups organizing daily protests in the streets?

Guess that's why I'm an anarchist and not a liberal.

C.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 07:17 PM CDT

Well, of course the Viet Cong bore the burden of ending the war. I don't know any rational argument against that statement.

the only other thing that have historical ended imperials wars are actual civil wars at home (i.e. revolution)

no protesting, no breaking glass, no marching in circles or otherwise, no pepole dressing up in black, are going to end this war;

and i think that we all know that, but are perhaps too unorganized, uncommitted, or afraid to actually take the risks and do what needs to be done to end it.

However, the russian people got their country out of an imperial world war, by marching, but all their marches were armed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Admin on Monday, October 03 2005 @ 01:05 AM CDT

[ Reply to This | # ]