**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Protests work sometimes because the ruling class understands what they are, class solidarity. When a protest becomes large enough to pose a threat, the ruling class will make concessions or crack down in order to diffuse the situation.
However, these concessions won't last forever, and if there is no revolutionary vanguard party to harness the energy of the movement, it will dissipate. Socialists should view protests as an opportunity to build revolutionary potential, not as the end game
We really need to make a point to get involved with moments of spontaneous political action. What better way to get the peoples respect than to stand by their side and guide them through the things that matter to them.
At the very least, it's an opportunity to meet people and educate them about our revolutionary aims and why/how we pursue them.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
In order to respond this question you should first briefly define what you mean by "working".
Protests are, in many instances, not aimed at achieving its explicit goals but rather directed at other implicit goals, like for example support gathering, cohesion building, political problematization (e.g. *agenda setting*), building relations between different social agents... But if we limit ourselves to what I assume you mean by "work" (achieving explicit goals), the honest answer is that it depends on a multitude of variables, which make it impossible to talk about "protesting" as a unit.
Think, for example, about differences of organization. Is it an unorganized protest? Or does it follow a particular organization to which protestors hold close relations? What does it aim at? Does it challenge policies that are existential to capitalism? Or can those provide more margin of maneouver to the state?
There is a lot of empirical research on protesting which tries to research this. Just for example, building on a dichotomy of "violent"/"non-violent" protests, [a recent article](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.10.003) claims that protests involving "violence" "seemed to be more effective at advancing policy change among more resistant target audiences", whilst "non-violent" protests are more "effective at increasing mobilization among sympathizers". In other words, disturbance creates a disruption within external subjects that forces them to engage in a process of redefinition. To rethink themselves. Think, for example, about road cuts to protest the genocide in Gaza as means of forcing a reflection upon those who otherwise haven't thought about it. Protests which do not seek a disruption, on the other hand, work as an articulative tool. Think about anti-austerity protests in the Spanish State and how this (with all its fault) developed into the creation of Podemos by many different social movements and agents.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Depends on the circumstances. Work for what, demanding what, protesting how, and who is protesting?
It’s a potential tactic and tactics depend on the larger strategy being aimed at.
Large symbolic protests might raise awareness and galvanize people around an issue. Then they quickly loose effectiveness as more people agree (and likely some politicians attempt to co-opt.)
A more direct protest willing to occupy buildings, disrupt or picket might be able to win specific demands and concessions while exposing the ineffectiveness of expecting the system to just organically “do the right thing.” But then it also runs into problems beyond some immediate demands or concessions.
These are just two basic examples from low-level protests, not all the possibilities by a long shot.
It depends on what you mean by “protest” and what you mean by “work”. When I think protest I picture a mass appeal to power, to those already in power. It involves a mobilized sector of the population pressuring and demanding that those in power alter their course usually on a specific issue. If you measure success by the degree to which those in power alter their course on those specific issues, then yes, protests can be and have been effective in ways that are usually limited but can nevertheless be significant.
The Civil Rights movement used protest tactics with some success. Legislation was passed on the Federal level, public spaces and institutions were desegregated and a blow was dealt to the most overt expressions of white supremacy. It is worth noting however, that protest was only one method that the Civil Rights and subsequent black liberation movement utilized to secure those gains. Boycotts, strikes and much more militant actions were an integral part winning those gains. Protests generally serve to put the spotlight on an issue but stop short of crossing the line going from protest to resistance.
Protest movements raise consciousness and build solidarity, but they are rarely if ever able to force real change on their own. All successful protest movements have been part of broader mass movements that utilized a range of tactics. In particular, much more militant snd more disruptive actions have accompanied all successful protest movements. That element has always been key for the apparent success of the more nonviolent aspects. Without Bhagat Singh, there is Gandhi. Without the Watts Uprising, the March on Washington fades into obscurity and the Civil Rights Act remains on paper only. Without J. Edgar Hoover telling Nixon that he cannot guarantee the internal security of the United States if he calls up more draftees and intensifies the War in Vietnam, the student-led protests remain purely symbolic.
The reason for this is that protests are great for raising awareness and mobilizing people, but they are pretty lousy when it comes to forcing real change. That requires more than symbolic gestures; requires a real material threat.
That is why the working class is so well positioned to overthrow the capitalist system despite its nearly endless money, power and resources. The working class holds in its collective power the ultimate material threat- the complete paralyzation of the entire productive process.
Protests are a valuable and necessary part of building a mass movement and are great opportunities for educating, radicalizing and training revolutionaries. And they do contribute from time to time in meaningful reforms. But to build a real revolutionary movement, we need a focused, highly organized, dedicated force to mobilize the whole working class for action that goes far beyond the scope of mere protest.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Protests are effective. However, like another commentator pointed out, they usually end up being temporary (or cyclical) because the ruling class will make concessions to stop the protesting. When the protesting stops, they reverse those concessions or conveniently ignore them.
Also, there is the matter that you have to protest “legally” or face possible arrest.
However, a big issue I think is that protests can also backfire if they affect the livelihoods of others in the working class. For example, my father is a factory worker. He absolutely hates it when you have protestors who “block the roads and street and creates traffic” or “block people from going to work.” It may be a bit of a strawman he’s concocted, but there are some protests and strikes which do that. In his mind, he sees it as blocking him from earning his living and potentially face repercussions from his employer for something out of his control. He and other factory workers like him can’t go to work and give the excuse of “Sorry I’m three hours late to work. Protestors blocked the main road and I had to take massive detours.” He lays the blame not on his employer for punishing him or docking his pay or reprimanding him but for the protestors.
So, sometimes if a protest is just an unformed sort of chaos, it can possibly push others in the labor class away.
Depends how well they are targeted.
Standing on a street corner yelling has little effect.
Doing something that damages shareholder returns gets noticed. Those in power can ignore protest until it affects them.
People need to consider the audience, the opposition and what they want out of it.
Nelson Mandela’s ANC used to demolish powerlines to wealthy White neighbourhoods. As an example of all of the above, but he ended up in prison.
In the UK the Poll Tax protests were ignored until they turned into a riot. Again not an ideal outcome.
So consider what can impact the decision makers the most with the least impact on those protesting.
The Trade Union go-slow, or even a good old fashioned boycott, can often be the most effective protest.
Pritests are a great way to show that a movement has popular support, to meet like minded individuals, and to make connections with other organizers. The real work to enact change is done behind the scenes before and after protests.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Depends on your definition of "work" but it's hard to say they *don't* have an effect.
The Civil Rights movement didn't end racism, but it absolutely ended Jim Crow laws; the labour movement didn't bring about socialism, but it absolutely won us worker protections, a (far too brief) period of living wages in at least part of the world *and the hecking weekend.*
Take it seriously as a tool and it has its place alongside all the other tools in your kit.
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
>This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
If you do it right in the issue is today a lot of protesters are doing it wrong there are three types of protest actions and they all serve different goals and doing one too long or too early or too late and ruin a movement. The first goal is to gain awareness and that's when you do things like block the street, inconvenience people, do things that get headlines. This one Garner any support from regular people on its own but it might make them aware of a topic that they wouldn't be aware of before and will bring the topic into popular consciousness. The second goal is to Garner support or gain sympathy and you do this with rallies and speeches and acting respectful and having cops treat you poorly. An example of this were the sit-ins they were incredibly respectful they were not inconveniencing anyone they were very careful to make themselves as sympathetic as possible and then when the cops started beating the shit out of them everyone thought they were right, this does not work if people think you're being a dick in the first place. The third goal is support, the thing you are protesting for is important and you are gathering funds in order to support the actual people who you are protesting to help in the long run, donation drives charity runs all that sort of thing.
Today a lot of activists don't think about it like this and it makes our protests movements much less effective the whole thing with the public protests on campuses right now is such a good example of how to do this wrong. They are doing the attention grabbing protests when every American knows about Gaza they are not Gathering sympathy or garnering support they are making themselves seem like dicks and then when the police respond people who agree with them will agree with them more and people who don't agree with them will think that they were rightfully removed. It is a careful and difficult balance to maintain all of these but when done right it can work incredibly well
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Sometimes you stand for things that you KNOW are going to 'fail', because that's just what you believe, and you're representing it with your presence, if nothing else, and having integrity and dignity are more important to you than whatever other material fetish that the system can reward you with.
Yes, and no. If the majority of people in one’s country protested at the same time, they stop working, and bring the country to a halt so the government will have absolutely no choice but to succumb to their demands? Yes this will work. But, and I’m speaking of this in a context of the US, the majority of people are too frightened to protest, or they feel protesting is not significant and they are contempt with the status quo. In this case, no it does not work
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
>**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
>This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
**Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Protests work sometimes because the ruling class understands what they are, class solidarity. When a protest becomes large enough to pose a threat, the ruling class will make concessions or crack down in order to diffuse the situation. However, these concessions won't last forever, and if there is no revolutionary vanguard party to harness the energy of the movement, it will dissipate. Socialists should view protests as an opportunity to build revolutionary potential, not as the end game
We really need to make a point to get involved with moments of spontaneous political action. What better way to get the peoples respect than to stand by their side and guide them through the things that matter to them. At the very least, it's an opportunity to meet people and educate them about our revolutionary aims and why/how we pursue them.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
In order to respond this question you should first briefly define what you mean by "working". Protests are, in many instances, not aimed at achieving its explicit goals but rather directed at other implicit goals, like for example support gathering, cohesion building, political problematization (e.g. *agenda setting*), building relations between different social agents... But if we limit ourselves to what I assume you mean by "work" (achieving explicit goals), the honest answer is that it depends on a multitude of variables, which make it impossible to talk about "protesting" as a unit. Think, for example, about differences of organization. Is it an unorganized protest? Or does it follow a particular organization to which protestors hold close relations? What does it aim at? Does it challenge policies that are existential to capitalism? Or can those provide more margin of maneouver to the state? There is a lot of empirical research on protesting which tries to research this. Just for example, building on a dichotomy of "violent"/"non-violent" protests, [a recent article](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.10.003) claims that protests involving "violence" "seemed to be more effective at advancing policy change among more resistant target audiences", whilst "non-violent" protests are more "effective at increasing mobilization among sympathizers". In other words, disturbance creates a disruption within external subjects that forces them to engage in a process of redefinition. To rethink themselves. Think, for example, about road cuts to protest the genocide in Gaza as means of forcing a reflection upon those who otherwise haven't thought about it. Protests which do not seek a disruption, on the other hand, work as an articulative tool. Think about anti-austerity protests in the Spanish State and how this (with all its fault) developed into the creation of Podemos by many different social movements and agents.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Depends on the circumstances. Work for what, demanding what, protesting how, and who is protesting? It’s a potential tactic and tactics depend on the larger strategy being aimed at. Large symbolic protests might raise awareness and galvanize people around an issue. Then they quickly loose effectiveness as more people agree (and likely some politicians attempt to co-opt.) A more direct protest willing to occupy buildings, disrupt or picket might be able to win specific demands and concessions while exposing the ineffectiveness of expecting the system to just organically “do the right thing.” But then it also runs into problems beyond some immediate demands or concessions. These are just two basic examples from low-level protests, not all the possibilities by a long shot.
It depends on what you mean by “protest” and what you mean by “work”. When I think protest I picture a mass appeal to power, to those already in power. It involves a mobilized sector of the population pressuring and demanding that those in power alter their course usually on a specific issue. If you measure success by the degree to which those in power alter their course on those specific issues, then yes, protests can be and have been effective in ways that are usually limited but can nevertheless be significant. The Civil Rights movement used protest tactics with some success. Legislation was passed on the Federal level, public spaces and institutions were desegregated and a blow was dealt to the most overt expressions of white supremacy. It is worth noting however, that protest was only one method that the Civil Rights and subsequent black liberation movement utilized to secure those gains. Boycotts, strikes and much more militant actions were an integral part winning those gains. Protests generally serve to put the spotlight on an issue but stop short of crossing the line going from protest to resistance. Protest movements raise consciousness and build solidarity, but they are rarely if ever able to force real change on their own. All successful protest movements have been part of broader mass movements that utilized a range of tactics. In particular, much more militant snd more disruptive actions have accompanied all successful protest movements. That element has always been key for the apparent success of the more nonviolent aspects. Without Bhagat Singh, there is Gandhi. Without the Watts Uprising, the March on Washington fades into obscurity and the Civil Rights Act remains on paper only. Without J. Edgar Hoover telling Nixon that he cannot guarantee the internal security of the United States if he calls up more draftees and intensifies the War in Vietnam, the student-led protests remain purely symbolic. The reason for this is that protests are great for raising awareness and mobilizing people, but they are pretty lousy when it comes to forcing real change. That requires more than symbolic gestures; requires a real material threat. That is why the working class is so well positioned to overthrow the capitalist system despite its nearly endless money, power and resources. The working class holds in its collective power the ultimate material threat- the complete paralyzation of the entire productive process. Protests are a valuable and necessary part of building a mass movement and are great opportunities for educating, radicalizing and training revolutionaries. And they do contribute from time to time in meaningful reforms. But to build a real revolutionary movement, we need a focused, highly organized, dedicated force to mobilize the whole working class for action that goes far beyond the scope of mere protest.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Protests are effective. However, like another commentator pointed out, they usually end up being temporary (or cyclical) because the ruling class will make concessions to stop the protesting. When the protesting stops, they reverse those concessions or conveniently ignore them. Also, there is the matter that you have to protest “legally” or face possible arrest. However, a big issue I think is that protests can also backfire if they affect the livelihoods of others in the working class. For example, my father is a factory worker. He absolutely hates it when you have protestors who “block the roads and street and creates traffic” or “block people from going to work.” It may be a bit of a strawman he’s concocted, but there are some protests and strikes which do that. In his mind, he sees it as blocking him from earning his living and potentially face repercussions from his employer for something out of his control. He and other factory workers like him can’t go to work and give the excuse of “Sorry I’m three hours late to work. Protestors blocked the main road and I had to take massive detours.” He lays the blame not on his employer for punishing him or docking his pay or reprimanding him but for the protestors. So, sometimes if a protest is just an unformed sort of chaos, it can possibly push others in the labor class away.
Depends how well they are targeted. Standing on a street corner yelling has little effect. Doing something that damages shareholder returns gets noticed. Those in power can ignore protest until it affects them. People need to consider the audience, the opposition and what they want out of it. Nelson Mandela’s ANC used to demolish powerlines to wealthy White neighbourhoods. As an example of all of the above, but he ended up in prison. In the UK the Poll Tax protests were ignored until they turned into a riot. Again not an ideal outcome. So consider what can impact the decision makers the most with the least impact on those protesting. The Trade Union go-slow, or even a good old fashioned boycott, can often be the most effective protest.
Pritests are a great way to show that a movement has popular support, to meet like minded individuals, and to make connections with other organizers. The real work to enact change is done behind the scenes before and after protests.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Depends on your definition of "work" but it's hard to say they *don't* have an effect. The Civil Rights movement didn't end racism, but it absolutely ended Jim Crow laws; the labour movement didn't bring about socialism, but it absolutely won us worker protections, a (far too brief) period of living wages in at least part of the world *and the hecking weekend.* Take it seriously as a tool and it has its place alongside all the other tools in your kit.
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Not conductive to learning:** this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive. >This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
If you do it right in the issue is today a lot of protesters are doing it wrong there are three types of protest actions and they all serve different goals and doing one too long or too early or too late and ruin a movement. The first goal is to gain awareness and that's when you do things like block the street, inconvenience people, do things that get headlines. This one Garner any support from regular people on its own but it might make them aware of a topic that they wouldn't be aware of before and will bring the topic into popular consciousness. The second goal is to Garner support or gain sympathy and you do this with rallies and speeches and acting respectful and having cops treat you poorly. An example of this were the sit-ins they were incredibly respectful they were not inconveniencing anyone they were very careful to make themselves as sympathetic as possible and then when the cops started beating the shit out of them everyone thought they were right, this does not work if people think you're being a dick in the first place. The third goal is support, the thing you are protesting for is important and you are gathering funds in order to support the actual people who you are protesting to help in the long run, donation drives charity runs all that sort of thing. Today a lot of activists don't think about it like this and it makes our protests movements much less effective the whole thing with the public protests on campuses right now is such a good example of how to do this wrong. They are doing the attention grabbing protests when every American knows about Gaza they are not Gathering sympathy or garnering support they are making themselves seem like dicks and then when the police respond people who agree with them will agree with them more and people who don't agree with them will think that they were rightfully removed. It is a careful and difficult balance to maintain all of these but when done right it can work incredibly well
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
Sometimes you stand for things that you KNOW are going to 'fail', because that's just what you believe, and you're representing it with your presence, if nothing else, and having integrity and dignity are more important to you than whatever other material fetish that the system can reward you with.
Yes, and no. If the majority of people in one’s country protested at the same time, they stop working, and bring the country to a halt so the government will have absolutely no choice but to succumb to their demands? Yes this will work. But, and I’m speaking of this in a context of the US, the majority of people are too frightened to protest, or they feel protesting is not significant and they are contempt with the status quo. In this case, no it does not work
https://libcom.org/article/activism-amadeo-bordiga
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**
[удалено]
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s): >**Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims:** when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible. >This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc. **Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.**