if protests did nothing, they wouldn't be forbidden in China and Russia and every other autocratic society
Also there's the American protest, where the opposing political party mounts a counter protests and politicians let them fight amongst each other. Then there's the French protest, where they set the barbecue on the tram tracks and walk in milions for days.
Not all protests are equal
Yeah they shoot us when we try to protest like the French? Kinda tired of this comparison because it's not apples to apples. America's protest laws are not kind and they're getting worse.
Laughs in Hong Kong, or any other major protest in the last decade.
Only ones that can materially disrupt things.
A protest with a permit or with permission is a parade.
Even those can still have some benefit - it can act as a networking opportunity for people to meet each other and plan other events / get involved in other ways, it can give a morale boost to people considering giving up, etc.
Sometimes. It depends on a lot of factors. Protests can convince people to change their mind, it has happened in the past and does happen on some situations these days as well. Protests can also have negative effects as well, considering things like where, when, and how a protest is carried out can either change people's minds or entrench them even more in their own opinion.
At the end of the day, the outcome of a protest is just as unpredictable as what a person will do in ten years. Or even the next hour, really.
Hmmm, ig it works if people in charge are actually someone who are willing to accept their mistakes and change their minds, which does not seem to be the case for the situation in question
Protests rarely have a fast rate of changing political situations. Take a look at the suffragette movement. There is also a big difference of success between peaceful and violent protests.
Both the women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement in the US were significantly fueled by protests. It takes more than protests, but protests can play an important part.
Notably, these movements had effective protests because they actually tried to force a change with their matches. The civil rights movement marching through Selma was to a registration office, because they were being denied the right to vote, and they were effectively saying "go ahead, tell us all no, all at once."
Suffragettes not only demonstrated but worked together to convince their husbands to embrace the movement, and even that only happened because Wilson had a stroke and his wife effectively ran the office while he recovered.
Modern protests are skipping the most important step. They're obstructing, being seen, but not actually trying to accomplish anything specific. Or if they are, their objective with each protest is so obscured by the media as to be rendered moot. What good did blocking traffic for half an hour do, other than to sour people to your cause?
Every time a person is killed by a cop, fucking get 500 people to go to the police station responsible and have every single person demand the footage of the killing. One after another. Inundate then with requests, clog up their operation, get fucking arrested if you have to.
Protesting alone doesn't accomplish anything, unless you protest with some teeth.
Building off this, people have to look at more than just the protests. "Radicals" shape the Overton Window, think Malcom X.
In a world where nobody protests and nobody is participating in radical activism, nothing changes. In a world where there are protests but still no radical activism, there is usually no change, though the media and capitalists will feign care and "listen to the issues". When the protesters become the moderates, the ruling class finally cedes some power to stop social revolution.
In a world where there are only radical activists, no moderate protesters or passive bystanders, there would be social revolution, monumental change. This has happened before, and it's why the ruling class concedes changes as the overton window becomes more radical.
To a lot of people this looks like "protests work!" but it's not the protests primarily, it's the threat of social revolution, led by the radicals and supported by the new moderate position of protesting against the status quo.
Farmers protested all over Europe recently and got what they wanted, which is to get rid of latest environmental regulations (that would have enforced an end of subsidies on diesel, reduction of nitrates use in fertilisers etc).
Yeah, but farmers have a powerful lobby and they produce our food. So they got some power behind their words.
Preceding the Iraq War, there was the largest worldwide protest in history to try to stop the war from happening.
Protests are helpful at showing public sentiment, but they rarely change policy.
MLK was assassinated after he started focusing on class issues. The FBI tried to threaten him with an anonymous letter telling him to kill himself.
The Stop Cop City protestors in Atlanta are being charged with terrorism.
Fred Hampton. Gandhi. Leftist governments that won’t bend to fascist/capitalist countries’ bidding. Edward Snowden, Julian Assange. Real threats are “reasoned with,” and if that fails, neutralized.
Immediately after the UK anti-war protests, I remember seeing how shaky Tony Blair was in a sabre-rattling speech (The same day or a day after), knowing that 1million people had hit the streets to disagree with what he was saying.
So they are acknowledged by politicians.
Policy on the looming war did not change, due to back-scratching alliances between the countries involved. The USA was shouting 'jump'. The result, Allies: 'how high'.
I think they can work, but only when certain pieces are there. The protest must have:
For example, civil rights and women's right to vote had some governmental support. The protests had well defined goals, and helped raise awareness and support for those people already in government to enact change.
On the other hand, the 1% protests a few years ago, and more recently, BLM, had ambiguous goals. Without clear goals, no existing government support could be identified. And there was no financial incentive for others to act. The protests raised awareness but ultimately had little real effect unfortunately.
I do wonder if things have changed though. I think public shaming helped enact some changes in the past, but no one has shame anymore.
Yes because:
There is a visible action taking place. You are standing for something you believe in. This gives other people who may lack confidence or opportunity something to notice.
Those in authority cannot claim what they do is an unopposed position.
Those you are protesting on behalf of, even if they are going through hell, know that someone somewhere is not prepared to let their circumstances go unnoticed.
Those you are protesting against know that someone sees what they are doing.
Maybe if the person who’s actions are being protested against are reasonable. When protesters are met by military forces and detained in trumped up charges of terrorism, then they don’t work until there looks to be consequences for the person/group being protested.
As a rule of thumb if you have the military on your side protests get crushed. Look at Egypt for an example of what happens once the military gets involved.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain](The Battle of Blair Mountain) is a good example on the US end. Striking US mine workers crushed by the US military on US soil. You could argue that it was one of many events that led to labor protections, but it wasn’t the inviting event and those protections came more than a decade later.
Yes, mobilization is a strong message to government in democracy. It says we do not like the direction, we are going and we will vote you out or cause more disruption. In my town we mobilized in front of our MP's office due to the partial privatization of medcial aid. Our MP ended up changing his vote and siding against his party, as it was the will of the people. Participation in democracy is a powerful tool.
You need to use your protests as recruiting grounds for more direct pressure on your government. You should establish or join a lobbying organization and recruit volunteers. You will have these people write letters to the editor, solicit for donations, call and write to your representatives, and schedule in-person meetings with government officials.
Standing on the street and yelling by itself is not enough, you need to become a part of the establishment to affect change, but you can grow your organization by finding people who have proven to be motivated. A protest is a great place for that sort of thing.
Just like boycotts, you need to have many many people joining and supporting the cause to actually make an impact within the world and the community, otherwise it’s not very impactful and govs could easily do any to prevent it from happening aka silencing ppl.
Though that saying, ppl shouldn’t be made to feel guilty for not doing so, if certain circumstances prevent them to do so eg disability, addiction, lack of options etc etc cuz unfortunately in the world we live in today, capitalism plays a huge part in our society today, therefore there’s is no “truly” ethical consumption in the world we are in today.
Read up on the civil rights movements or how women got the right to vote.
Protests 100% work
History shows that protests worked either when the vast majority of the population striked, or when they were violent.
I am quite disillusioned that gathering in a single square for a few hours with some signs will ever change anything.
Only when there's enough people that it's bordering revolution. Note how many national guard were not only deployed, but actually found themselves in gun battles (over civil rights), it was nuts by today's norms.
Note, 100% can work, but don't work 100%.
There were plenty of less peaceful groups too. So I guess they 100% worked too.
Some, but not all.
Just remember, if the protest is peaceful and easy to ignore then nothing will probably get done. You must disrupt the flow.
Absolutely, they provide the police with bodies they can beat with impunity.
I think the best way to put it is that protests can be effective only when they present a credible threat of some sort against the people who have the power to make changes to whatever the protest is about. That threat may be direct violence, it may be electoral change, or it may be something else, but a credible threat of some sort is absolutely required.
Protesting against Israel, therefore, is of little use in most situations. The protesters pose no credible threat to Israel, so their decisions aren't going to change. And the protesters generally are not representing much of a credible threat against their own governments either, so their own governments are also not moved to change.
Protest toppled a couple of leaders during the Arab spring. Even with Israel, Biden has started sanctioning West bank settlers and sends veiled threats about respecting life. It is not much, but without protests, we wouldn't even see that.
No, protests can't enact policy in democratic countries. Voting can, boycotts can, and strikes can. You can organize all of the three as part of a protest, but it's a lot more work than shouting with a fancy sign, and a lot less fun to do.
Effective to the degree they have a material impact on the economy and psychological impact on the powerful and their lackeys. I would argue many of the BLM protests had an effect, if minor, because many cops quit and many cities still have fewer cops than they did before due to difficulty hiring.
Blocking commerce, looting, and arson of empty buildings have significant economic and psychological impacts. From an American perspective, successful social movements like, the suffragettes, civil rights movement, anti-slavery activists, and workers rights groups all engaged in such strategies. It wasn't until well after that these movements were sanitized to be "non-violent".
Only if it hurts their bottom line
Or if guillotines are involved, ask the French.
Netanyahu and also Trump to some extent have made guillotine seem pretty reasonable
Protests generally don't change policy, although politicians may use them as justification for something they already want to push through.
Sometimes.
You mention the specific example of Israel which is literally the most complicated conflict in the entire world. Most people are already aware that it is happening, all the arguments on both sides of that are very well known, there is not really anything novel that can still be said about it. So protests about it (on any side) are not going to have a lot of effect.
Depends. If they're focused on specific demands and done at the right time combined with direct advocacy, they can do a lot to affect change.
Absolutely protests change the world.
It works when a government already sympathetic to the cause is in office
Protest movements against hostile state apparati usually have to get a bit more....intense, before they get change.
Difference between the civil rights movement and the Egyptian Arab Spring uprising
I recently looked up the history of a 1969 civil rights protest at the college I went to, and found a newspaper article tracing changes at the school right through to the current day.
A big difference is they were protesting decisions at a university. It may have been a general movement across the country but it was really a large local protest against a local entity. The protests against Israel are generally not in Israel, and even if the goal is to change one or more supporting country’s policy, the protests really aren’t that big relative to the whole country or its government.
I think the protests are still too small, given the scale at which they’re trying to influence a change
There have been more criticisms from governments as time has gone on - Brazil in particular has been in the news today for it.
South Africa has taken actions as well. And even if these two countries didn't do this because of protests, they help to encourage protests in other places, to help to change more minds.
You can never know exactly what a protest accomplishes, that's one of the ways they are so easy to minimize.
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!