we had a No Kings protest that brought out ~75K people, Puerto Rican Fest Parade (it actually lasts like a week 😂) and a sold out Sox Stadium for the pope’s address with no major incidents. I was also at the Women’s March in DC in 2017. A million marchers all entirely peaceful. It can absolutely be done correctly. As to whether these peaceful demonstrations move the needle, hard to say. I think the power of the Civil Rights movement was, (unfortunately) in the contrast witnessed by tv viewers of the passivity of protesters in the face of cruel and brutal beatings, being sprayed with fire hoses, etc. That turned the tide. Are we up for it? That’s the question.
Circling back to this, I have no answers but Heather Cox Richardson answers the question "Why do we protest in America?" in an interesting way, so JVL & all could give a listen. It's at 31:43 in her Politics Chat June 10 video.
You don’t get into it here specifically, but I want to bring the Indivisible movement’s approach into the scope of your framework.
Indivisible has explicitly called for nonviolence, in line with your thinking. But they have also opted, thus far, to protest only where their actions are less likely to interfere with the authoritarianism against which they allegedly stand. See, e.g., the decision to hold No Kings events on 14 June everywhere *but* the one city where the aspiring King DJT the First will be reviewing a military parade from aloft, Fuhrer style.
Those old enough to recall the GWB years may remember that during that time, protesters chafed at the administration’s innovation to dedicate any opposition to “free speech zones,” tidy pens of protest cordoned off well away from where they risked interfering with the arrival of whichever dignitary to whatever official ceremony was the subject of the opposition’s objection. As a result, news cameras might grab some b-roll of the protesters, but their objections were unlikely to register with or move anyone with any actual power to register the backlash as a political consequence and rethink their position. The first amendment was nominally respected, but neutered. Such protests had little chance of being effective.
By ceding the most contested ground in the nation to the budding authoritarian, Indivisible has essentially made the entire country into a “free speech zone” writ large. Hobbyist activists can march without fear in blue cities around the country, but in the heart of the republic tyranny will take root unimpeded. This should bring shame to these organizers. They have designed a “resistance of least resistance.”
I am not persuaded by the argument that protesting a military parade in DC could be misread as not merely anti-monarch, but anti-military. Anyone afraid of taking this position should refresh their recollection of the Founders’ thoughts about standing armies: TLDR, they identified them as probably the greatest corrupting force working against a functional republic and the source of the downfall of virtually all free states across history. There is a reason Article I sec 8 prohibits the Congress from appropriating funds to the army for any period longer than 2 years and that the 2nd Amendment identifies well regulated state militias as necessary for a free state’s security. Our country is not meant to be celebrating its army’s 250th anniversary. In fact, that such an anniversary exists should signal as clearly as anything else in the news that the system the nation’s founders envisioned is fundamentally broken.
It is, of course, also deeply wrong that such a celebration should be conflated with the commander in chief’s birthday. For anyone keeping score by comparison to other points in history, it is worth noting that the Third Reich did not hold a large scale military parade in honor of Hitler’s birthday until 1939. If Trump is allowed to enjoy his birthday bash with no opposition in sight, how could it not go to his head?
Just as bank robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is, protestors should be in DC because that’s where the tyranny is. More people marched in Shanghai in 1989 than were at Tienanmen Square, but the world heard about Tienanmen because that’s where the people stood against the tanks. Amelia Boynton didn’t turn around at the Pettus Bridge for fear of a confrontation with the police — she marched toward Montgomery because that’s where the power was. Patriots who wish to prevent the rise of authoritarianism in the US must come to terms with the fact that not to meet this moment with *actual resistance* is to tacitly accept the clear and predictable outcome. Such resistance may certainly be nonviolent, but it cannot be sheepish. It must be provocative. It cannot merely take the form of a sea of signs, however concise or clever, waving in a feckless mass far from the seat of power and studiously avoiding confrontation.
Those of us who traveled from North Carolina to DC for the Hands Off rally on The Mall considered doing a repeat for June 14th. We decided against it, not because we were afraid of the DC police but because of who the SPECTATORS for Trump's parade were likely to be. Think January 6th. Many in attendance will most certainly be armed and easily triggered. In addition, we understood that a counterprotest in DC itself might only serve to amplify the media attention to Trump's obscene birthday bash. It seemed better to stay in our home towns and assist with turning out our citizenry for our local No Kings rallies. Regional media does give coverage to protests, contrary to what Parrhizzia believes. Perhaps he spends too much time on Fox. I never go there. Parrhizzia should go to DC on his own and sass some of the MAGAheads who will be there and see what happens.. Good luck with that
Let us all turn out for Democracy this Saturday. The nation will be watching. We will return to DC soon and reclaim our nation's capital for the American people.
This is a clear articulation of the reasoning behind ceding the contested ground to the pro-authoritarians. I disagree, for the reasons I laid out in my original post. The fact that the state has outsourced to private actors the violence it might unleash on protestors does not make it any less critical to demonstrate opposition to the abuse of power.
I understand that no one wants to be the person standing closest to the tank when it starts to roll toward the crowd. But if no one steps forward to take that position, the tank rolls past unimpeded.
Jefe... I appreciate your passion and courage. However, I was not referring to tanks, marching soldiers, or cordons of DC police. I was referring to the MAGAhead militia types who are likely to be in DC on Saturday, armed and ready for trouble. I live in North Carolina. In 1979 the Communist Workers Party activists in Durham decided to hold a Death to the Klan rally in Greensboro on a weekend when the Klan was planning to march. Five of the guys were shot dead by the Klan members. Messing with militia crazies is like kicking a rabid dog. Don't do it.
I am gay and I was in DC for World Pride this past weekend. It will be interesting to see which parade draws the bigger crowd, Pride or Trump's vulgar display. ........ Another consideration that I did not mention: it is better not to have any of us in DC next weekend if there would only be a minimal turnout compared to the previous Hands Off and No Kings rallies. Let's manifest RESISTENCE in our home towns. I totally support Indivisible's decision not to be in DC on Saturday.
We need the "hobbyist activists" to get the numbers up to 3.5% of the public.
My take is that there needs to be a certain mix of protest tactics. And also that it is not always the same mix. You kind of can't know.
But my part in this is the hobbyist activist who demonstrates to encourage regular semi-apathetic busy people like me that they should take a second look at what is going on, and consider doing something to express their disapproval, without having to worry that if they go to a protest they are going to get hurt, or they won't be able to show up to work bc they got arrested.
Heather Cox Richardson Politics Chat June 10 video at 31:43:"Why do we protest in America?" pretty much expresses how I feel about it, although I do think that small amounts of stronger activities will play a beneficial role at some point.
I hear you. Does it change your thinking at all to consider what conclusion the busy, semi-apathetic people are likely to draw when the split screen that they see on Saturday is: one one side, a relatively chaotic scene of disorganized masses of protestors waving mismatching signs; and on the other, military might marching through streets flanked by white marble buildings, showcasing crisp precision and order?
I was very relieved. But honestly, I feel like that’s due more to us getting lucky than to any grand strategic coup by the protest organizers. If the parade had been more impressive (and, now that it’s normalized and T has been mocked for its wimpiness, I would bet that next time it will be) then I think my points all stand. What did you think?
I really don't know what conclusion they are likely to draw. I'll think on it a bit. Are you thinking the alternative screen to the military might with precision and order would be protesters confronting the tanks etc in the parade?
I need to read your comments over as I'm kind of muddled over who has said what at this point lol, but another thing I thought of is that I think that one never has to call for violence.
There are people out there who are going to do it anyway, and there are MAGA who will react back to it.
My statement is that I'm against violence because it is wrong. I don't want people who are working for the things I believe in to be violent. Antifa is stupid and to my mind, just a bunch of baristas and bike messengers at play. (I lived a long time in SF Bay Area.) The things that replace violent revolutions are often worse than the original thing being protested.
If things are really messed up, violence will happen, and it will scare lots of people, and there will be all kinds of reactions, and if we are lucky, some of them will be productive. Remember Rodney King: Can't we all get along?
I have also had these thoughts:
If I recall, the Civil Rights movement was actually highly organized, and organized specifically to create disturbing visual images.
I remember learning during the Arab Spring that there was actually a sort of "Color Revolution School" that the Egyptian activists had been working with for at least a year prior. There's a guy who wrote books that the Serbians based the project on. Possibly the CIA helped.
Didn't the Russian revolution actually start to really move for the people because the govt was so harsh on regular protesting people that the army got on their side?
I actually disagree with JVL's premise that protesting is not a "let a thousand flowers bloom" situation.
I think when all kinds of things are happening it sets up a dynamic moving system, and if we are lucky, we hit the right mix that makes something shift. Unexpected things emerge out of complex systems.
The goal I think hobbyist activists like me can achieve is to get people who have been Trump supporters, but not heavy duty MAGA, and now are feeling like he is doing a bad job, to start telling their Republican Congress people that they don't like what is happening. Congress is one of the things in place to stop this. It might not work, but it is a thing to try.
“If I recall, the Civil Rights movement was actually highly organized, and organized specifically to create disturbing visual images.”
This is exactly my point. The current protest movement seems organized specifically *not* to create such images.
And on this vector, do you still feel that Tienanmen failed? It clarified, more firmly than virtually anything else could, the nature of the ruling regime. Note that China had to essentially build its own internet to control the dissemination of this image because of its fear of the image’s power. The regime recognizes that awareness of this incident among the body politic is an existential threat. The decision globally to prioritize economic interests and ignore such human rights abuses is an indictment of capitalism more than a mark of the demonstrators’ failure.
"organized specifically *not* to create such images."
I think it is more like it is organized to insulate it more fully from the possibility that a disturbing image could be interpreted as instigated by mal-intentioned radical left lunatics. It's just a bunch of silly old white people! Or maybe I shouldn't say it is organized to be that way as such. That is just how it is playing out so far. I do like that POC are staying home a lot. I think that is wise. But I would bet that has changed now even in this section (the indivisible section). Things evolve.
My main point is that many kinds of protest is likely better than figuring out what the best kind of protest is. The anti-MAGA version of flooding the zone? Idk.
Your description of how Tienanmen succeeded is sobering.
My thoughts ran as far as to: "I think the most striking image would be if a crowd of my fellow hobbyist activists end up being brutally beaten by US Marines." Dark JVL style moment, but not without some truth to it. I don't know. I'm feeling pretty down about it all after an interchange with a MAGA friend.
I can't find anybody who doesn't believe in the MAGA reality or the Dems/never Trumpers reality. I can't find anybody who is able to see a bigger picture. I don't know if I am able to see a bigger picture.
Still gonna go to the biggest city near me and hold my dumb sign. Faith is what you have when you don't believe.
General rule: if you make plans for AFTER the "protest" you are attending, then you aren't attending a protest - you are going for a nice walk with friends while holding a sign.
I know that trump lost the Midwest because of the trump train running the campaign bus off the road. The reason is trump kept priming his voters that if he lost in 2020 the fix was in. I think it is a bad thing because Trump is good at preconditioning arguments. We as a nation know we have a lot of illegal immigrants. But most people don't mind if they do jobs like pick crops out in the field. But what work are they doing inside of LA. I remember reading about an illegal doing accounting work for I think it was 12 an hour. If you graduated and took on debt to become an accountant and this person is undercutting your wage you might be a little upset. So I might support the raids. On the other hand I don't like doing dirty jobs so the immigrants willing to do the dirty work I might be fine with. Trump wanted a confrontation, and he got one.
I think calling everything a protest is mushy and confusing. Define what you mean by “protest.” Also, define what you mean by “benefit.”
I don’t consider J6 to have been a protest. I believe it was a bonafide attempt at overturning the election and overthrowing the government. To me, that is an insurrection, not a protest.
The civil rights movement, on the other hand, like the Independence movement in India, were exactly what we call them - movements, which included various forms of protest against the governments, but were more than that. They had mature, disciplined, and spiritually committed leaders who were not trying to get elected to public office; defined goals; and a clear moral foundation and framework. They were a result of, a response and reaction to the injustice and immorality of the state, but the goals were not pursued in a reactionary way. At least that is my understanding of the civil rights movement. I don’t know enough about the India independence movement to say more than that, and I could be wrong.
My point is that we use the same language to describe what to me are rather dissimilar things. We call it all protest. And I suppose technically it all is. But I find it more useful to make some distinctions, at least in my own mind.
I think it’s a matter of the offensive vs defensive narrative of the protest that determine the efficacy of the violent vs non violent imagery — the Jan 6 was a movement of grievance against deep state bureaucratic elites by the undeservingly downtrodden MAGA - here the protesters are the victims offensively taking back power and the violence is justified in the eyes of their supporters with similar resentments. In the anti-ICE narrative, the protesters are defending against the ICE aggressors and thus a nonviolent and defensive posture is more aligned with those who would be sympathetic to this cause.
JVL, I’m so tired of seeing his photos of the burned car for the non-USA flag or whatever other violence you cherry pick out of the photos. The photogd are taking pictures of that because that’s their job. It’s just like the news. Only the real crap makes the headline. Why don’t you go? Find some pictures of the crowds that are just marching along? For all we know MAGA folks have infiltrated. You already know that when Trump accuses his opponents of certain acts, it’s certain that that’s what he’s doing.
I challenge you to go through the photo coverage in the LA Times, hardly a MAGA news outlet. The photo at the top of JVL's post is *fairly typical*. I can't post the photos from the LA Times coverage here, but I did make a small collection. We should not fall into the same Jan. 6 MAGA fallacy about "protetst being mostly peaceful". They were not (in either case). Riots are riots, let us stop pretending otherwise.
So all non-violent protests fail. Most violent protests fail.
And the term “worked” is quite subjective.
For example, right now, gay people around the country are celebrating Pride month. Pride is a commemoration of the StoneWall Riot, that was extremely violent (“who threw the first brick at police?”) Yes, gay people had lovely colorful matches, but they also rioted regularly, had a militant wing, AND FOUGHT BACK when police came for them.
In 2020, during the George Floyd protests, at first, Derek Chauvin and his murderous colleagues faced no charges. The people REALLY protested. To calm down the protest, Chauvin was charged with trivial charges. The people protested more. Finally the AG can in and charged Chauvin AND the others with murder. The protest worked.
In 2000, a group of Republican hacks violently attacked a polling place in Miami, where a recount was underway. The people recounting the vote stopped out of fear. They never restarted the recount, SCOTUS ruled that they shouldn’t restart the recount, and Bush won, which was a disaster for the country. That riot worked.
I could go on.
Non-violent protests fail. Only violent protests have ever worked.
Two good examples for certain, but I would argue that the entirety of the Black Lives Matter protests were a matter of winning the battle and losing the war.
The Black Lives Matter protest failed BECAUSE it became non-violent.
A few months ago, JVL wrote a triad called: “How to Think (and Act) Like a Dissident Movement” where he argues that the collective power and energy of the masses should be given to politicians, to encourage and support them to stand up to Trump.
I called bullshit, because that’s exactly what happened with Black Lives Matter.
As I mentioned, it was violent protest that eventually had Chauvin charged with murder.
But then, it became a mass, non-violent protest, which, as JVL suggested, became a political process (instead of protest), between Senator Booker and Senator Scott.
That was its demise. Now as a Congressional Senate process, between two black conservatives, it stalled, and then died.
During that slow dying, the conservative language spin doctors got to work; smearing every Democrat with the tag they wanted to “defund the police”.
And it worked.
Senator Scott’s final coup de grace was an announcement saying that HE refuses to “defund the police”.
And that’s how the world’s biggest protest movement ended, with a slogan.
This slogan was used as a club against democrats for the next FOUR YEARS. Incredible.
The problem was when the violent protesters gave DC politicians a veto over the outcome of the protest.
It should have stayed violent if it had wanted to succeed. Look at the entirety of US history and tell me I’m wrong.
What if, after “the shot heard round the world”, a couple of US politicians had gone to King George in England to negotiate better terms for the colonies?
Would the United States ever have gained independence?
1. To politely register your dissatisfaction about a subject with the authorities. You feel you’ve done your bit, and the authorities casually ignore you. This has been the story of every single non-violent protest.
2. To change the situation, to fight back against tyranny, to REALLY show them that there ARE more of us than them, to make them understand we will not tolerate the situation any longer. In short: to scare them enough that change occurs.
People often confuse and conflate the two. They are radically different.
During the Vietnam war era, when there were many protests, there was one that had a huge effect on turning emotional support away from the government's position. The Kent State massacre, where multiple college student protesters were fired on by the Ohio National Guard, resulted in 4 unarmed students being killed and 9 injured.
I have no idea what would resonate with Republicans. What is too much, or too far a voter who elected someone who tried to over turn the elections? Republicans will have to have their agenda enacted and applied, and after fours years, better yet two years, they can decide if its what they wanted, Hopefully, the rest of us will have something left to build on when the dust settles.
The No Kings rally heads advise that when a few protesters get violent, we peaceful should sit down where we are so that officers can easily ID just the rioters.
Great! What a smart strategy. What about people who are openly engaging in violence. There is a video of folks openly throwing rocks at passing ICE and police cars. How to dissuade such people from engaging in this behavior?
From the Bulwark: 'In his speech last night, Newsom was unequivocal: If you’re using protests as a pretext to indulge in violence, you’re not with us."'
This is specifically a reference to provocateurs (as opposed to victims of police violence against protestors.)
What's your position on provocateurs specifically?
Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?
"What's your position on provocateurs specifically? Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?"
I apologize to you Joan, I was flippant and glib, and I did not answer this question, and I should have. That is on me.
Allow me to rectify that.
If you see someone you think is a provocateur or someone engaged in violence, do NOT approach that person. They could be, in increasing order of danger, a person having a mental health crisis, which would put you into physical danger. They could be a right-wing provocateur, like a boogaloo boy, which would put you into physical danger. Worst of all, they could be an undercover cop, which could put you into SERIOUS physical danger.
Do not sit down next to the provocateur as a signal to the police, as that would only significantly increase your physical danger. Do not talk to the provocateur, as that would put you into physical danger, and for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT RESTRAIN THE PROVOCATEUR, because they could kill you.
Instead, walk directly away from who you think is a provocateur. Go and find a protest organizer. They are very nice. They are trying to help you have a successful protest. Explain the situation to them, and ONLY to them. Let them deal with it - they know what they are doing, you do not. You will NOT get in trouble if you are seen talking to a protest organizer.
Then return to your protest. Remember, you are a protester, not a policeman.
The worst thing you could do is approach a policeman and point out who you think is a provocateur. First of all, policemen do not like being approached at protests; you are putting yourself in physical danger if you do so (see video below). If any other protesters see you talking to a policeman and pointing out individual protesters, you are putting yourself in physical danger from your fellow protesters.
Have solidarity with the people protesting with you. If you see a problem, go to a protest organizer, not to the police.
Remember: protest organizer: friend. Policeman: not a friend. Do not let your ideological priors put you in danger.
I really appreciate the engagement with someone who does try to defend their position substantive way,
rather than offering "I agree to disagree.", which I think is an admission that the person is at a loss to defend their position but choose to hold it any way.
Your responses to me here and below are definitely giving me a more nuanced appreciation of the dilemma that JVL raises.
These sound like really sensible suggestions - but they don't solve the problem of whether the agitators will be appropriatly dealt with by event officials so as to difuse them and the harm they could cause to people around them who didn't sign up for that.
In the spirit of that caveat, can you indicate what kind of training protest organizers have? One time I spotted people along the side of a peaceful procession that I was participating in. These "sideliners" were taking photos that appeared to be trained on individual protesters, and they appeared to have professional equipment even. This looked like part of a doxing effort. I called an organizer's attention to this and the only response was a shrug and a polite smile. It seems like they could have at least used their bullhorn to warn people about the photographers on the sidelines
This speaks to a concern about whether when attending a "peaceful" event the participants can trust the the event officials along the route to be well-trained to responsd effectively and appropriately.
In the situation that an event official have strongly suspects a certain person is a provocateur - say in particular the less serious case that the suspect does not appear armed but might be throwing objects and releasing noxious gases -
What would be an appropriate response of a well-trained event official? leave them alone since they might be one of these dangerous people you speak of? and the monitor could put theirselves at risk of attack.
Another set questions not yet answered (and here expanded upon and further clarified] but which I think are really important - even more important than the one you have answered so far:
What do you think of provocateurs who agree with the theme and objectives of what had been promoted as a peaceful organized protest then show up to such protests with intent to trigger or participate in violence?
Is this a responsible moral moral behavior? . And then, are such people who use the the crowd for cover so as to reduce risk or prosecution, immoral by any standard?
In light of the preceding two questions you can understand why It is very strange to me that elsewhere you said it is the "naive protester" who is "dangerous", implying that provocateurs are "less dangerous" or "not dangerous" (which is it)?.
Such behavior certainly endangers people who in good faith attend what they believe for good reason is a low-risk event, who lack the training you speak of, ,and whose attendance could have terrible repercussions for themselves and/or their loved ones were they to get caught up in violence that was initiated by an agitator (e.g. were they to get "kettled" and arrested - or worse.
If your response is "never does one have a good reason to believe an event will remain peaceful and people should not attend any protest event if they are not trained and equipped to deal with violence"
then this response is seriously problematic, s
For one, are you not implicitly telling untrained people to stay away from even permitted events organized to be peaceful unless they are prepared for a non-peaceful event? If everyone follows this advice, then I suspect any public protest movement will remain miniscule and completely ineffective?
I will just add that I have to judge your response above as possibly coming from a person who supports the behavior I suggest is immoral
(i.e. would be agitators attending and potentially stirring up violence at events billed as peaceful and having a high attendance of old people, children, family people, working class people who feel they can't afford to be jailed, and illegal immigrants or relatives of illegal immigrants. )
Please don't take offense. I think it is a reasonable suspicion.
I am not asking you to confirm or deny, but just letting you know that I have a suspicion that colors my interpretation of all of your responses so far. I makes me think you may have a bias in how you interpret historical exampls etc. I noticed you did not mention examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful - with all or nearly all the violence from the civilian size being associated with an outside groiup (e.g. Black Panthers
I am reaching the conclusion that JVL's dilemma is not strictly resolvable but I think it reprehensible for a provocateur to use a crowd cover for violent acts, unless they are certain that everyone who as it risk of getting kettled or worse is an informed colleague of the agitator - or has the training you consider an imperative for participation in protests.. [I walked in the Seattle 1990 WHO protests by the way - first time I have encountered such agitators - very interesting what they were doing and I am glad I didn't listen to their guidance].
OK, I will continue to respond as if you are acting in good faith.
You ask a series of questions about how to police "provocateurs".
If you think the protest organizers are NOT doing a good enough job policing the protest, then I suggest you lay down your protest sign, put on a uniform, and pick up a gun and a badge. Then you can police protesters as you see fit.
I was quite explicit in my previous answer: if you are at all worried about an individual, walk directly away from them, and speak to a protest organizer. That's it. You've done your duty. Continue with your own protest, or quit the protest.
(In answer to your specific point: photographing people at a protest is Constitutionally protected behavior. The protest organizer had no power to stop them, and I think you know that).
You ask about "peaceful" vs "non-peaceful" protests. Let's be clear about what's happening: you are protesting wildly illegal autocratic acts by a criminal president. If you think that even a "permitted" protest against such a President will be peaceful, then either your naivete or bad faith is showing. You are not just challenging authority, you are challenging an authoritarian. It won't be the "provocateurs" who will run you down with armored horses, or turn Israeli skunk-water on you, or arrest you en masse.
It will be the authoritarian. You should worry about them first. Provocateurs or not, the authoritarian will come for you. They prefer, but do not need, a pretext.
The police will, and have, beaten up old people, children, family people, and working-class people. The act of being at the protest is a direct challenge to their authority. They will not tolerate it, no matter what privilege you believe will protect you. Again, they shot a nice, white, lady reporter who was not a provocateur. They used horses to trample a man on the ground, and when he tried to run away, they threw him to the ground, and beat him. So who was the 'provocateur' in those cases?
You asked why I did not mention "examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful". I didn't mention them because there are no such non-violent mass movements. You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent"?
This is whitewashing history.
A more accurate way to think of the civil rights movement is as a low-level civil war between Federal and State authorities on one side, and Black Power / Civil Rights on the other side. It had all the hallmarks of such a conflict: overt surveillance and sabotage, widespread violence, legal repression, paramilitary policing, armed resistance, and political radicalization.
You're probably aware of the famous Frederick Douglass quote:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Now, most people can only quote the first sentence, "Power concedes nothing without a demand, " which is true.
But look at the second last sentence: "...these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both"
Words AND/OR blows.
Yes, the civil rights movement and all other successful movements that brought about change had "words," but they also had "blows."
A more recent example is the prosecution of Derek Chauvin and his fellow murderers, which ONLY occurred because of violent protests. Violent protests have been a part of every step of progress in US History. There have been no successful "peaceful only" protests.
If you disagree, please list successful "peaceful only" protests.
I'm afraid to tell you that if Trump IS an authoritarian, peaceful protest alone will not remove him. At best, he will laugh at you. At worst ... well ... look at Putin.
There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence There is no way to prove that the violence was necessary to explain the prosecutions. Try to prove that the people instigating violence in the BLM movement were committed to the BLM movement and weren't just opportunistic anarchists or - at best, but still in the cowardly category -uninvited sympathetic provacateurs.
"There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence"
You are asking me to prove a counterfactual history, which is tough. But I think I CAN prove what you ask.
(I am writing this up now with much more detail, but here is a preview).
Timeline of events:
May 25, 2020 – George Floyd's Death
George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis during an arrest by police officer Derek Chauvin. A bystander video capturing the incident rapidly spread online, igniting public outrage and peaceful protest.
May 26, 2020 – Protests Begin in Minneapolis
Peaceful protests continue at the site of Floyd's death, awaiting an announcement about Chauvin and others being arrested and prosecuted.
But instead of prosecutions. Chauvin and three other officers were fired by the Minneapolis Police Department. Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced that “Four responding MPD officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been terminated. This is the right call.”
That was it; that was "the call". The 4 were fired. End of story. That's what NON-violent protest had achieved. The 4 would have been able to rejoin the police at a different precinct.
In response, mass violent protests broke out in Minneapolis, leading to instances of property damage and confrontations with police.
May 27, 2020 – Nationwide Demonstrations
Protests spread to cities including Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York City. While demonstrations in these other cities remained peaceful, some areas experienced clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
Protests in Minneapolis continued to grow in violence.
May 28, 2020 – Escalation in Minneapolis
The Minneapolis Police Department's 3rd Precinct was set ablaze during intense protests. Governor Tim Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard to assist in restoring order.
May 29, 2020 – Charges Filed Against Chauvin
Three days after the firings, the prosecutor, Mike Freeman, charged ONLY Chauvin with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, a slap on the wrist.
Because these charges were perceived to be inadequate, protests continued, with some turning violent in cities like Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
May 30–31, 2020 – Intensified Protests and Unrest
Demonstrations occurred in over 140 U.S. cities. While many were peaceful, several cities, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia, reported looting, arson, and violent clashes.
Numerous cities imposed curfews, and over 20 states activated the National Guard.
June 1–2, 2020 – Continued Demonstrations
Protests persisted nationwide, with a mix of peaceful marches and isolated incidents of violence.
Law enforcement's response, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, drew criticism from civil rights organizations.
June 3, 2020 – Upgraded Charges and Additional Arrests
Responding to that mass violent protest, not only in Minneapolis but nation wide, Attorney General Keith Ellison elevated Chauvin's charge to second-degree murder. For the first time, the three other officers involved were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.
After June 3, 2020
Following the announcement on June 3, 2020, of upgraded charges against Derek Chauvin and the charging of the other three officers involved in George Floyd's death, there was a notable shift in the nature of the protests across the United States.
According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), after June 3, the majority of demonstrations continued to be peaceful, with approximately 93% of the over 7,750 events between May 26 and August 22, 2020, involving no serious harm to people or property.
So there it is: initially, there was a non-violent protest. The result? The four were fired, but no charges. Then the violent protest began. The result? Minimal charges. The protests escalated and spread. The result? Real charges are brought by a serious prosecutor.
You cannot begin to tell me that Ellison would have brought the June 3 charges if there had been ONLY non-violent protest. That had been tried, and no charges were forthcoming.
Qualified Immunity
But now we get to the part that really falsifies your claim. After June 3, the protests became as you wish: non-violent.
There was still something required: the ending of national qualified immunity for cops. But that was now placed in the hands of Senators Scott and Booker. No more violent protests on the street, only non-violent protests and a "political process".
And what happened? Well, the Senate drew out "negotiations" till September 25, nearly 4 months later, when Scott killed it with the following statement: "I'm not going to participate in reducing funding for the police after we saw a major city after major city defund the police."
That is how the largest protest movement in world history died—because violent and non-violent protest (words and blows) became only non-violent protest and a political process.
You ask me, "You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent":"
Please stop insinuating that I believe that peaceful protests will necessarily be free of violence. Such protest could occasion one-sided violence, but this is unlikely unless agitators are present. Two way violence is almost assured if agitators are present.
The fact that violence COULD occur at a peaceful protest does not excuse the behavior of provocateurs.
I notice you still haven't answered my fair and VERY IMPORTANT question about whether uninvited agitation is moral.
I think your stance is immoral. If you disagree, then you need to do a better job defending your position that agitation at peaceful protest is not immoral, and that the "dangerous" people at such protest are NOT the agitators.
I think it is really ridiculous so say that the people who show up to a peaceful protest with a protest sign but with no weapons and no protective equipment are the "dangerous" ones. I am one of these people.
Agitation leads to more people getting hurt.
Agitators who attend a No Kings event tomorrow are the dangerous ones.
They are a danger to all the people nearby. It is audacious that you would blame me if I get hurt as a result of your agitation - especially if you did not warn me and EVERY OTHER PERSON IN ATTENDANCE of your presence and your intent, so that they had fair warning that the level of risk of violence is elevated.
The only way to be a "moral" agitator is to stay away from peaceful protests, and make sure no-one is around who does not understand what is planned. So anyone who might get hurt or arrested is forewarned and chooses to be there anyway.
I get the appeal of taking the cowardly approach and using the crowds at a peaceful protest as cover.
If everyone follows your advice (don't go to any protest - even peaceful protests - unless you are prepared for violence, with appropriate training and equipment), then very few people will attend peaceful protest events.
If everyone follows your advice there will be no mass turnout as is needed now if there is any hope to save our country from what looks like will be a brutal fasism.
If you don't agree that agitation at peaceful protests is immoral and cowardly, then please explain.
To argue that even peaceful protests can get violent is not an valid answer.
If you chose not to answer I can understand why not,
Since I cannot imagine how you can defend the behavior as moral.
If you do respond, I expect it will be more of the same e.g. All successful movements were violent. The naive people are the dangerous ones.
If you want to carryout the violence that you think is essential for a successful movement - then show some true heroism
Go organize your own protest, Don't infiltrate a peaceful event.
Put your life and liberty on the line.
Engage in civil disobedence without infringing on someone else who did not agree to be part of your heroism.
You’re looking for danger in the wrong place. You’re already turning on your own side, rather than expressing solidarity.
Will there be “provocateurs”? Maybe.
But much more likely will be false flag attacks by the authorities or right wing counter protesters who want to see violence.
Do you know about the umbrella man? What about the boogaloo boys? No? Never heard of them? You should.
But they’re there just to give the pretext for the authorities to unleash on everyone, anyone who deigns to defy their authority.
The nice, white, pretty, female Australian reporter was shot by the LAPD. Was she an instigator? Was she violent? I could show you a 1000 videos like that.
It is the police who bring real violence. You don’t understand that. And that is naively dangerous.
Parrhizzia -I am sorry you have had to experience violent protest situations. It does matter tremendously how one responds if subjected to violence from authorities at the current protests. I hope you stay away because you do appear to be a person who will act out violently. Please understand such behavior plays into Trump's hand and weakens the power of the protest movement.
“It does matter tremendously how one responds if subjected to violence from authorities at the current protests”
That’s not only where you’re wrong Joan, but dangerously naive.
And honestly, I place the blame at the feet of institutions like The Bulwark and Indivisible sending you in when you aren’t ready. I hope they’re not doing it intentionally.
There were a number of aspects to the civil rights movement, of which non-violence was only one.
But even under non-violence, they TRAINED for the violence for months. They assumed it would come. They knew what to do when it came. They practiced.
You are walking in untrained, assuming that your privilege, your age, your sex, your skin color will protect you.
It won’t.
You assume that if YOU are not unruly, that if you protest “the right way”, the police won’t attack you.
If the authorities: Trump and Stephen Miller, get it in their head to make an example of you, things will become violent, no matter what you do, no matter if you “sit down” or “walk away”.
You need to be prepaired for when the cops open fire with rubber bullets. What do you do when they pepper balls hit you? How do you stop tear gas? If the cops spray bear spray in your eyes, what’s the best way to wash it out? If the cops grab one of your group and start beating them in front of you, what will you do? Pull them out? Fight the cops? Or “sit down”?
Because that’s what happens at a protest which the authorities take seriously.
If that doesn’t happen, then the authorities don’t see you as a threat, and will ignore you - which begs the question: why the hell did you do it in the first place? For self-satisfaction virtue signaling?
Well, first of all we know from his first term that Trump very much wants both protests and military crackdowns, and he's nothing if not consistent. So we should assume at all points that he is trying to engineer a crackdown and assume that whether or not he is successful will depend on both public sentiment and the decisions of individual unit commanders at the moment of truth.
Second, I think that posting AOC's picture was pretty on the nose -- without a movement leader to bring democratic (and Democratic) opposition to trump into focus, we should expect that these protests will remain disorganized and -- using your utilitarian political lense here -- dumb/unproductive.
But, with a strong leader to drive a message and assign lieutenants to help lead and organize the movement, that could really work.
Also I do think that the violence of Trump's "protests" have "worked" for the same reason that the KKK was allowed to get away with so much of their BS for so long. Whether they admit it or not, the hardest deepest core of their movement is authoritarian and racist and they very much believe in violence to achieve their aims, and they're unified around that. Libs, Dems, Normals, whatever, are in no way as organized, unified or violent, and that's why it doesn't work in the other direction.
Republicans are bad people and okay with political violence as long as it helps them. Democrats as a whole an on average are too moral and humane to be okay with political violence
I’m seething here beside myself. What trump wants most is more conflict in LA. Please tell some of the talent to have a concert in LA in support of immigration that the national guard and marines and protesters can enjoy together. Trump and his hump, Hegseth would have them gone the next day.
I’ll just say that today in Chicago,
we had a No Kings protest that brought out ~75K people, Puerto Rican Fest Parade (it actually lasts like a week 😂) and a sold out Sox Stadium for the pope’s address with no major incidents. I was also at the Women’s March in DC in 2017. A million marchers all entirely peaceful. It can absolutely be done correctly. As to whether these peaceful demonstrations move the needle, hard to say. I think the power of the Civil Rights movement was, (unfortunately) in the contrast witnessed by tv viewers of the passivity of protesters in the face of cruel and brutal beatings, being sprayed with fire hoses, etc. That turned the tide. Are we up for it? That’s the question.
Don’t forget the women’s suffrage movement. The 19th amendment was first introduced in 1878 and was finally ratified in 1920, 42 years later.
I'd pay extra for a pod of JVL reading The Triad to us every day.
Circling back to this, I have no answers but Heather Cox Richardson answers the question "Why do we protest in America?" in an interesting way, so JVL & all could give a listen. It's at 31:43 in her Politics Chat June 10 video.
You don’t get into it here specifically, but I want to bring the Indivisible movement’s approach into the scope of your framework.
Indivisible has explicitly called for nonviolence, in line with your thinking. But they have also opted, thus far, to protest only where their actions are less likely to interfere with the authoritarianism against which they allegedly stand. See, e.g., the decision to hold No Kings events on 14 June everywhere *but* the one city where the aspiring King DJT the First will be reviewing a military parade from aloft, Fuhrer style.
Those old enough to recall the GWB years may remember that during that time, protesters chafed at the administration’s innovation to dedicate any opposition to “free speech zones,” tidy pens of protest cordoned off well away from where they risked interfering with the arrival of whichever dignitary to whatever official ceremony was the subject of the opposition’s objection. As a result, news cameras might grab some b-roll of the protesters, but their objections were unlikely to register with or move anyone with any actual power to register the backlash as a political consequence and rethink their position. The first amendment was nominally respected, but neutered. Such protests had little chance of being effective.
By ceding the most contested ground in the nation to the budding authoritarian, Indivisible has essentially made the entire country into a “free speech zone” writ large. Hobbyist activists can march without fear in blue cities around the country, but in the heart of the republic tyranny will take root unimpeded. This should bring shame to these organizers. They have designed a “resistance of least resistance.”
I am not persuaded by the argument that protesting a military parade in DC could be misread as not merely anti-monarch, but anti-military. Anyone afraid of taking this position should refresh their recollection of the Founders’ thoughts about standing armies: TLDR, they identified them as probably the greatest corrupting force working against a functional republic and the source of the downfall of virtually all free states across history. There is a reason Article I sec 8 prohibits the Congress from appropriating funds to the army for any period longer than 2 years and that the 2nd Amendment identifies well regulated state militias as necessary for a free state’s security. Our country is not meant to be celebrating its army’s 250th anniversary. In fact, that such an anniversary exists should signal as clearly as anything else in the news that the system the nation’s founders envisioned is fundamentally broken.
It is, of course, also deeply wrong that such a celebration should be conflated with the commander in chief’s birthday. For anyone keeping score by comparison to other points in history, it is worth noting that the Third Reich did not hold a large scale military parade in honor of Hitler’s birthday until 1939. If Trump is allowed to enjoy his birthday bash with no opposition in sight, how could it not go to his head?
Just as bank robbers rob banks because that’s where the money is, protestors should be in DC because that’s where the tyranny is. More people marched in Shanghai in 1989 than were at Tienanmen Square, but the world heard about Tienanmen because that’s where the people stood against the tanks. Amelia Boynton didn’t turn around at the Pettus Bridge for fear of a confrontation with the police — she marched toward Montgomery because that’s where the power was. Patriots who wish to prevent the rise of authoritarianism in the US must come to terms with the fact that not to meet this moment with *actual resistance* is to tacitly accept the clear and predictable outcome. Such resistance may certainly be nonviolent, but it cannot be sheepish. It must be provocative. It cannot merely take the form of a sea of signs, however concise or clever, waving in a feckless mass far from the seat of power and studiously avoiding confrontation.
Those of us who traveled from North Carolina to DC for the Hands Off rally on The Mall considered doing a repeat for June 14th. We decided against it, not because we were afraid of the DC police but because of who the SPECTATORS for Trump's parade were likely to be. Think January 6th. Many in attendance will most certainly be armed and easily triggered. In addition, we understood that a counterprotest in DC itself might only serve to amplify the media attention to Trump's obscene birthday bash. It seemed better to stay in our home towns and assist with turning out our citizenry for our local No Kings rallies. Regional media does give coverage to protests, contrary to what Parrhizzia believes. Perhaps he spends too much time on Fox. I never go there. Parrhizzia should go to DC on his own and sass some of the MAGAheads who will be there and see what happens.. Good luck with that
Let us all turn out for Democracy this Saturday. The nation will be watching. We will return to DC soon and reclaim our nation's capital for the American people.
This is a clear articulation of the reasoning behind ceding the contested ground to the pro-authoritarians. I disagree, for the reasons I laid out in my original post. The fact that the state has outsourced to private actors the violence it might unleash on protestors does not make it any less critical to demonstrate opposition to the abuse of power.
I understand that no one wants to be the person standing closest to the tank when it starts to roll toward the crowd. But if no one steps forward to take that position, the tank rolls past unimpeded.
Jefe... I appreciate your passion and courage. However, I was not referring to tanks, marching soldiers, or cordons of DC police. I was referring to the MAGAhead militia types who are likely to be in DC on Saturday, armed and ready for trouble. I live in North Carolina. In 1979 the Communist Workers Party activists in Durham decided to hold a Death to the Klan rally in Greensboro on a weekend when the Klan was planning to march. Five of the guys were shot dead by the Klan members. Messing with militia crazies is like kicking a rabid dog. Don't do it.
I am gay and I was in DC for World Pride this past weekend. It will be interesting to see which parade draws the bigger crowd, Pride or Trump's vulgar display. ........ Another consideration that I did not mention: it is better not to have any of us in DC next weekend if there would only be a minimal turnout compared to the previous Hands Off and No Kings rallies. Let's manifest RESISTENCE in our home towns. I totally support Indivisible's decision not to be in DC on Saturday.
We need the "hobbyist activists" to get the numbers up to 3.5% of the public.
My take is that there needs to be a certain mix of protest tactics. And also that it is not always the same mix. You kind of can't know.
But my part in this is the hobbyist activist who demonstrates to encourage regular semi-apathetic busy people like me that they should take a second look at what is going on, and consider doing something to express their disapproval, without having to worry that if they go to a protest they are going to get hurt, or they won't be able to show up to work bc they got arrested.
Heather Cox Richardson Politics Chat June 10 video at 31:43:"Why do we protest in America?" pretty much expresses how I feel about it, although I do think that small amounts of stronger activities will play a beneficial role at some point.
I hear you. Does it change your thinking at all to consider what conclusion the busy, semi-apathetic people are likely to draw when the split screen that they see on Saturday is: one one side, a relatively chaotic scene of disorganized masses of protestors waving mismatching signs; and on the other, military might marching through streets flanked by white marble buildings, showcasing crisp precision and order?
So what did you think of the split screen?
I was very relieved. But honestly, I feel like that’s due more to us getting lucky than to any grand strategic coup by the protest organizers. If the parade had been more impressive (and, now that it’s normalized and T has been mocked for its wimpiness, I would bet that next time it will be) then I think my points all stand. What did you think?
I really don't know what conclusion they are likely to draw. I'll think on it a bit. Are you thinking the alternative screen to the military might with precision and order would be protesters confronting the tanks etc in the parade?
Perhaps; or, at a minimum, lining the sides of the parade route with signs of opposition (eg No Kings, Respect Due Process)
I need to read your comments over as I'm kind of muddled over who has said what at this point lol, but another thing I thought of is that I think that one never has to call for violence.
There are people out there who are going to do it anyway, and there are MAGA who will react back to it.
My statement is that I'm against violence because it is wrong. I don't want people who are working for the things I believe in to be violent. Antifa is stupid and to my mind, just a bunch of baristas and bike messengers at play. (I lived a long time in SF Bay Area.) The things that replace violent revolutions are often worse than the original thing being protested.
If things are really messed up, violence will happen, and it will scare lots of people, and there will be all kinds of reactions, and if we are lucky, some of them will be productive. Remember Rodney King: Can't we all get along?
I have also had these thoughts:
If I recall, the Civil Rights movement was actually highly organized, and organized specifically to create disturbing visual images.
I remember learning during the Arab Spring that there was actually a sort of "Color Revolution School" that the Egyptian activists had been working with for at least a year prior. There's a guy who wrote books that the Serbians based the project on. Possibly the CIA helped.
Didn't the Russian revolution actually start to really move for the people because the govt was so harsh on regular protesting people that the army got on their side?
I actually disagree with JVL's premise that protesting is not a "let a thousand flowers bloom" situation.
I think when all kinds of things are happening it sets up a dynamic moving system, and if we are lucky, we hit the right mix that makes something shift. Unexpected things emerge out of complex systems.
The goal I think hobbyist activists like me can achieve is to get people who have been Trump supporters, but not heavy duty MAGA, and now are feeling like he is doing a bad job, to start telling their Republican Congress people that they don't like what is happening. Congress is one of the things in place to stop this. It might not work, but it is a thing to try.
“If I recall, the Civil Rights movement was actually highly organized, and organized specifically to create disturbing visual images.”
This is exactly my point. The current protest movement seems organized specifically *not* to create such images.
And on this vector, do you still feel that Tienanmen failed? It clarified, more firmly than virtually anything else could, the nature of the ruling regime. Note that China had to essentially build its own internet to control the dissemination of this image because of its fear of the image’s power. The regime recognizes that awareness of this incident among the body politic is an existential threat. The decision globally to prioritize economic interests and ignore such human rights abuses is an indictment of capitalism more than a mark of the demonstrators’ failure.
"organized specifically *not* to create such images."
I think it is more like it is organized to insulate it more fully from the possibility that a disturbing image could be interpreted as instigated by mal-intentioned radical left lunatics. It's just a bunch of silly old white people! Or maybe I shouldn't say it is organized to be that way as such. That is just how it is playing out so far. I do like that POC are staying home a lot. I think that is wise. But I would bet that has changed now even in this section (the indivisible section). Things evolve.
My main point is that many kinds of protest is likely better than figuring out what the best kind of protest is. The anti-MAGA version of flooding the zone? Idk.
Your description of how Tienanmen succeeded is sobering.
I also was thinking: Wait...but Tienanmen didn't work.
My thoughts ran as far as to: "I think the most striking image would be if a crowd of my fellow hobbyist activists end up being brutally beaten by US Marines." Dark JVL style moment, but not without some truth to it. I don't know. I'm feeling pretty down about it all after an interchange with a MAGA friend.
I can't find anybody who doesn't believe in the MAGA reality or the Dems/never Trumpers reality. I can't find anybody who is able to see a bigger picture. I don't know if I am able to see a bigger picture.
Still gonna go to the biggest city near me and hold my dumb sign. Faith is what you have when you don't believe.
Strong agree.
I'm going to steal the term "Hobbyist activists".
General rule: if you make plans for AFTER the "protest" you are attending, then you aren't attending a protest - you are going for a nice walk with friends while holding a sign.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thebulwark/p/what-do-trump-and-these-rioters-have?r=3hh94p&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=124751456
Trump supporters by and large are ok with confrontation/violence that’s why their movement was/is(?) successful.
I know that trump lost the Midwest because of the trump train running the campaign bus off the road. The reason is trump kept priming his voters that if he lost in 2020 the fix was in. I think it is a bad thing because Trump is good at preconditioning arguments. We as a nation know we have a lot of illegal immigrants. But most people don't mind if they do jobs like pick crops out in the field. But what work are they doing inside of LA. I remember reading about an illegal doing accounting work for I think it was 12 an hour. If you graduated and took on debt to become an accountant and this person is undercutting your wage you might be a little upset. So I might support the raids. On the other hand I don't like doing dirty jobs so the immigrants willing to do the dirty work I might be fine with. Trump wanted a confrontation, and he got one.
I think calling everything a protest is mushy and confusing. Define what you mean by “protest.” Also, define what you mean by “benefit.”
I don’t consider J6 to have been a protest. I believe it was a bonafide attempt at overturning the election and overthrowing the government. To me, that is an insurrection, not a protest.
The civil rights movement, on the other hand, like the Independence movement in India, were exactly what we call them - movements, which included various forms of protest against the governments, but were more than that. They had mature, disciplined, and spiritually committed leaders who were not trying to get elected to public office; defined goals; and a clear moral foundation and framework. They were a result of, a response and reaction to the injustice and immorality of the state, but the goals were not pursued in a reactionary way. At least that is my understanding of the civil rights movement. I don’t know enough about the India independence movement to say more than that, and I could be wrong.
My point is that we use the same language to describe what to me are rather dissimilar things. We call it all protest. And I suppose technically it all is. But I find it more useful to make some distinctions, at least in my own mind.
The American civil rights movement was EXTREMELY violent.
Yes, but the violence was instigated by those who were against civil rights and done against the people, not vice versa.
But who instigated the violence?
I think it’s a matter of the offensive vs defensive narrative of the protest that determine the efficacy of the violent vs non violent imagery — the Jan 6 was a movement of grievance against deep state bureaucratic elites by the undeservingly downtrodden MAGA - here the protesters are the victims offensively taking back power and the violence is justified in the eyes of their supporters with similar resentments. In the anti-ICE narrative, the protesters are defending against the ICE aggressors and thus a nonviolent and defensive posture is more aligned with those who would be sympathetic to this cause.
JVL, I’m so tired of seeing his photos of the burned car for the non-USA flag or whatever other violence you cherry pick out of the photos. The photogd are taking pictures of that because that’s their job. It’s just like the news. Only the real crap makes the headline. Why don’t you go? Find some pictures of the crowds that are just marching along? For all we know MAGA folks have infiltrated. You already know that when Trump accuses his opponents of certain acts, it’s certain that that’s what he’s doing.
I challenge you to go through the photo coverage in the LA Times, hardly a MAGA news outlet. The photo at the top of JVL's post is *fairly typical*. I can't post the photos from the LA Times coverage here, but I did make a small collection. We should not fall into the same Jan. 6 MAGA fallacy about "protetst being mostly peaceful". They were not (in either case). Riots are riots, let us stop pretending otherwise.
Riots are the only thing that works.
Which ones "worked". Be specific.
So all non-violent protests fail. Most violent protests fail.
And the term “worked” is quite subjective.
For example, right now, gay people around the country are celebrating Pride month. Pride is a commemoration of the StoneWall Riot, that was extremely violent (“who threw the first brick at police?”) Yes, gay people had lovely colorful matches, but they also rioted regularly, had a militant wing, AND FOUGHT BACK when police came for them.
In 2020, during the George Floyd protests, at first, Derek Chauvin and his murderous colleagues faced no charges. The people REALLY protested. To calm down the protest, Chauvin was charged with trivial charges. The people protested more. Finally the AG can in and charged Chauvin AND the others with murder. The protest worked.
In 2000, a group of Republican hacks violently attacked a polling place in Miami, where a recount was underway. The people recounting the vote stopped out of fear. They never restarted the recount, SCOTUS ruled that they shouldn’t restart the recount, and Bush won, which was a disaster for the country. That riot worked.
I could go on.
Non-violent protests fail. Only violent protests have ever worked.
Two good examples for certain, but I would argue that the entirety of the Black Lives Matter protests were a matter of winning the battle and losing the war.
Because ::::::gestures vaguely around:::::::::::
The Black Lives Matter protest failed BECAUSE it became non-violent.
A few months ago, JVL wrote a triad called: “How to Think (and Act) Like a Dissident Movement” where he argues that the collective power and energy of the masses should be given to politicians, to encourage and support them to stand up to Trump.
I called bullshit, because that’s exactly what happened with Black Lives Matter.
As I mentioned, it was violent protest that eventually had Chauvin charged with murder.
But then, it became a mass, non-violent protest, which, as JVL suggested, became a political process (instead of protest), between Senator Booker and Senator Scott.
That was its demise. Now as a Congressional Senate process, between two black conservatives, it stalled, and then died.
During that slow dying, the conservative language spin doctors got to work; smearing every Democrat with the tag they wanted to “defund the police”.
And it worked.
Senator Scott’s final coup de grace was an announcement saying that HE refuses to “defund the police”.
And that’s how the world’s biggest protest movement ended, with a slogan.
This slogan was used as a club against democrats for the next FOUR YEARS. Incredible.
The problem was when the violent protesters gave DC politicians a veto over the outcome of the protest.
It should have stayed violent if it had wanted to succeed. Look at the entirety of US history and tell me I’m wrong.
What if, after “the shot heard round the world”, a couple of US politicians had gone to King George in England to negotiate better terms for the colonies?
Would the United States ever have gained independence?
No, the founding fathers fought till it was won.
This is incorrect. Please listen to Heather Cox Richardson Politics Chat June 10 video at 31:43:"Why do we protest in America?"
Heather Cox Richardson is a liar.
There’s two reasons to “protest” in America:
1. To politely register your dissatisfaction about a subject with the authorities. You feel you’ve done your bit, and the authorities casually ignore you. This has been the story of every single non-violent protest.
2. To change the situation, to fight back against tyranny, to REALLY show them that there ARE more of us than them, to make them understand we will not tolerate the situation any longer. In short: to scare them enough that change occurs.
People often confuse and conflate the two. They are radically different.
Thank you for your response.
During the Vietnam war era, when there were many protests, there was one that had a huge effect on turning emotional support away from the government's position. The Kent State massacre, where multiple college student protesters were fired on by the Ohio National Guard, resulted in 4 unarmed students being killed and 9 injured.
I have no idea what would resonate with Republicans. What is too much, or too far a voter who elected someone who tried to over turn the elections? Republicans will have to have their agenda enacted and applied, and after fours years, better yet two years, they can decide if its what they wanted, Hopefully, the rest of us will have something left to build on when the dust settles.
The No Kings rally heads advise that when a few protesters get violent, we peaceful should sit down where we are so that officers can easily ID just the rioters.
Great! What a smart strategy. What about people who are openly engaging in violence. There is a video of folks openly throwing rocks at passing ICE and police cars. How to dissuade such people from engaging in this behavior?
Y'all have never been to a real protest and it shows.
Sit down if you like - the police horses will trample you. Wanna see video of that?
https://youtu.be/O7E5q5smXKM?si=nE3yH1f2LuLF566b
You can try and walk away if you like - but the police will already have "kettled" you in.
Be violent, don't be violent, it doesn't matter, because the cops will still beat and arrest you, and the media will label you as violent.
Protest ... REAL PROTEST ... is a contact sport. It's not polite, and it isn't played by Queensberry Rules.
From the Bulwark: 'In his speech last night, Newsom was unequivocal: If you’re using protests as a pretext to indulge in violence, you’re not with us."'
This is specifically a reference to provocateurs (as opposed to victims of police violence against protestors.)
What's your position on provocateurs specifically?
Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?
"What's your position on provocateurs specifically? Do you have any suggestions on what peaceful protesters can do to block these people from indulging in violence?"
I apologize to you Joan, I was flippant and glib, and I did not answer this question, and I should have. That is on me.
Allow me to rectify that.
If you see someone you think is a provocateur or someone engaged in violence, do NOT approach that person. They could be, in increasing order of danger, a person having a mental health crisis, which would put you into physical danger. They could be a right-wing provocateur, like a boogaloo boy, which would put you into physical danger. Worst of all, they could be an undercover cop, which could put you into SERIOUS physical danger.
Do not sit down next to the provocateur as a signal to the police, as that would only significantly increase your physical danger. Do not talk to the provocateur, as that would put you into physical danger, and for the love of all that is holy, DO NOT RESTRAIN THE PROVOCATEUR, because they could kill you.
Instead, walk directly away from who you think is a provocateur. Go and find a protest organizer. They are very nice. They are trying to help you have a successful protest. Explain the situation to them, and ONLY to them. Let them deal with it - they know what they are doing, you do not. You will NOT get in trouble if you are seen talking to a protest organizer.
Then return to your protest. Remember, you are a protester, not a policeman.
The worst thing you could do is approach a policeman and point out who you think is a provocateur. First of all, policemen do not like being approached at protests; you are putting yourself in physical danger if you do so (see video below). If any other protesters see you talking to a policeman and pointing out individual protesters, you are putting yourself in physical danger from your fellow protesters.
Have solidarity with the people protesting with you. If you see a problem, go to a protest organizer, not to the police.
Remember: protest organizer: friend. Policeman: not a friend. Do not let your ideological priors put you in danger.
https://youtu.be/FoFFUlAWr50?si=GOxnyw-X5klhioWV
Thank you for this thoughtful reply.
I really appreciate the engagement with someone who does try to defend their position substantive way,
rather than offering "I agree to disagree.", which I think is an admission that the person is at a loss to defend their position but choose to hold it any way.
Your responses to me here and below are definitely giving me a more nuanced appreciation of the dilemma that JVL raises.
These sound like really sensible suggestions - but they don't solve the problem of whether the agitators will be appropriatly dealt with by event officials so as to difuse them and the harm they could cause to people around them who didn't sign up for that.
In the spirit of that caveat, can you indicate what kind of training protest organizers have? One time I spotted people along the side of a peaceful procession that I was participating in. These "sideliners" were taking photos that appeared to be trained on individual protesters, and they appeared to have professional equipment even. This looked like part of a doxing effort. I called an organizer's attention to this and the only response was a shrug and a polite smile. It seems like they could have at least used their bullhorn to warn people about the photographers on the sidelines
This speaks to a concern about whether when attending a "peaceful" event the participants can trust the the event officials along the route to be well-trained to responsd effectively and appropriately.
In the situation that an event official have strongly suspects a certain person is a provocateur - say in particular the less serious case that the suspect does not appear armed but might be throwing objects and releasing noxious gases -
What would be an appropriate response of a well-trained event official? leave them alone since they might be one of these dangerous people you speak of? and the monitor could put theirselves at risk of attack.
Another set questions not yet answered (and here expanded upon and further clarified] but which I think are really important - even more important than the one you have answered so far:
What do you think of provocateurs who agree with the theme and objectives of what had been promoted as a peaceful organized protest then show up to such protests with intent to trigger or participate in violence?
Is this a responsible moral moral behavior? . And then, are such people who use the the crowd for cover so as to reduce risk or prosecution, immoral by any standard?
In light of the preceding two questions you can understand why It is very strange to me that elsewhere you said it is the "naive protester" who is "dangerous", implying that provocateurs are "less dangerous" or "not dangerous" (which is it)?.
Such behavior certainly endangers people who in good faith attend what they believe for good reason is a low-risk event, who lack the training you speak of, ,and whose attendance could have terrible repercussions for themselves and/or their loved ones were they to get caught up in violence that was initiated by an agitator (e.g. were they to get "kettled" and arrested - or worse.
If your response is "never does one have a good reason to believe an event will remain peaceful and people should not attend any protest event if they are not trained and equipped to deal with violence"
then this response is seriously problematic, s
For one, are you not implicitly telling untrained people to stay away from even permitted events organized to be peaceful unless they are prepared for a non-peaceful event? If everyone follows this advice, then I suspect any public protest movement will remain miniscule and completely ineffective?
I will just add that I have to judge your response above as possibly coming from a person who supports the behavior I suggest is immoral
(i.e. would be agitators attending and potentially stirring up violence at events billed as peaceful and having a high attendance of old people, children, family people, working class people who feel they can't afford to be jailed, and illegal immigrants or relatives of illegal immigrants. )
Please don't take offense. I think it is a reasonable suspicion.
I am not asking you to confirm or deny, but just letting you know that I have a suspicion that colors my interpretation of all of your responses so far. I makes me think you may have a bias in how you interpret historical exampls etc. I noticed you did not mention examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful - with all or nearly all the violence from the civilian size being associated with an outside groiup (e.g. Black Panthers
I am reaching the conclusion that JVL's dilemma is not strictly resolvable but I think it reprehensible for a provocateur to use a crowd cover for violent acts, unless they are certain that everyone who as it risk of getting kettled or worse is an informed colleague of the agitator - or has the training you consider an imperative for participation in protests.. [I walked in the Seattle 1990 WHO protests by the way - first time I have encountered such agitators - very interesting what they were doing and I am glad I didn't listen to their guidance].
OK, I will continue to respond as if you are acting in good faith.
You ask a series of questions about how to police "provocateurs".
If you think the protest organizers are NOT doing a good enough job policing the protest, then I suggest you lay down your protest sign, put on a uniform, and pick up a gun and a badge. Then you can police protesters as you see fit.
I was quite explicit in my previous answer: if you are at all worried about an individual, walk directly away from them, and speak to a protest organizer. That's it. You've done your duty. Continue with your own protest, or quit the protest.
(In answer to your specific point: photographing people at a protest is Constitutionally protected behavior. The protest organizer had no power to stop them, and I think you know that).
You ask about "peaceful" vs "non-peaceful" protests. Let's be clear about what's happening: you are protesting wildly illegal autocratic acts by a criminal president. If you think that even a "permitted" protest against such a President will be peaceful, then either your naivete or bad faith is showing. You are not just challenging authority, you are challenging an authoritarian. It won't be the "provocateurs" who will run you down with armored horses, or turn Israeli skunk-water on you, or arrest you en masse.
It will be the authoritarian. You should worry about them first. Provocateurs or not, the authoritarian will come for you. They prefer, but do not need, a pretext.
The police will, and have, beaten up old people, children, family people, and working-class people. The act of being at the protest is a direct challenge to their authority. They will not tolerate it, no matter what privilege you believe will protect you. Again, they shot a nice, white, lady reporter who was not a provocateur. They used horses to trample a man on the ground, and when he tried to run away, they threw him to the ground, and beat him. So who was the 'provocateur' in those cases?
You asked why I did not mention "examples where arguably successful mass movements were peaceful". I didn't mention them because there are no such non-violent mass movements. You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent"?
This is whitewashing history.
A more accurate way to think of the civil rights movement is as a low-level civil war between Federal and State authorities on one side, and Black Power / Civil Rights on the other side. It had all the hallmarks of such a conflict: overt surveillance and sabotage, widespread violence, legal repression, paramilitary policing, armed resistance, and political radicalization.
You're probably aware of the famous Frederick Douglass quote:
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Now, most people can only quote the first sentence, "Power concedes nothing without a demand, " which is true.
But look at the second last sentence: "...these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both"
Words AND/OR blows.
Yes, the civil rights movement and all other successful movements that brought about change had "words," but they also had "blows."
A more recent example is the prosecution of Derek Chauvin and his fellow murderers, which ONLY occurred because of violent protests. Violent protests have been a part of every step of progress in US History. There have been no successful "peaceful only" protests.
If you disagree, please list successful "peaceful only" protests.
I'm afraid to tell you that if Trump IS an authoritarian, peaceful protest alone will not remove him. At best, he will laugh at you. At worst ... well ... look at Putin.
Show me a successful movement that did not involve massive peaceful protests.
The prosecution of Derek Chauvin and his murderous colleagues is the most recent.
But that was not my point. I quoted Frederick Douglass, who said that a successful protest required both "words and blows."
Words alone never work, EVER, which is what you claim, but have presented no evidence to support.
Blows alone sometimes work, as in the case of Chauvin.
If you want to review the full history of successful protests in the US, words and blows are most likely to be effective—which is my position.
There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence There is no way to prove that the violence was necessary to explain the prosecutions. Try to prove that the people instigating violence in the BLM movement were committed to the BLM movement and weren't just opportunistic anarchists or - at best, but still in the cowardly category -uninvited sympathetic provacateurs.
"There is no way for you to prove that Chauvin etc. would not have been prosecuted if the protests were undiminished in size (which is to say, Global!) and free of violence"
You are asking me to prove a counterfactual history, which is tough. But I think I CAN prove what you ask.
(I am writing this up now with much more detail, but here is a preview).
Timeline of events:
May 25, 2020 – George Floyd's Death
George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis during an arrest by police officer Derek Chauvin. A bystander video capturing the incident rapidly spread online, igniting public outrage and peaceful protest.
May 26, 2020 – Protests Begin in Minneapolis
Peaceful protests continue at the site of Floyd's death, awaiting an announcement about Chauvin and others being arrested and prosecuted.
But instead of prosecutions. Chauvin and three other officers were fired by the Minneapolis Police Department. Mayor Jacob Frey and Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced that “Four responding MPD officers involved in the death of George Floyd have been terminated. This is the right call.”
That was it; that was "the call". The 4 were fired. End of story. That's what NON-violent protest had achieved. The 4 would have been able to rejoin the police at a different precinct.
In response, mass violent protests broke out in Minneapolis, leading to instances of property damage and confrontations with police.
May 27, 2020 – Nationwide Demonstrations
Protests spread to cities including Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York City. While demonstrations in these other cities remained peaceful, some areas experienced clashes between protesters and law enforcement.
Protests in Minneapolis continued to grow in violence.
May 28, 2020 – Escalation in Minneapolis
The Minneapolis Police Department's 3rd Precinct was set ablaze during intense protests. Governor Tim Walz activated the Minnesota National Guard to assist in restoring order.
May 29, 2020 – Charges Filed Against Chauvin
Three days after the firings, the prosecutor, Mike Freeman, charged ONLY Chauvin with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter, a slap on the wrist.
Because these charges were perceived to be inadequate, protests continued, with some turning violent in cities like Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
May 30–31, 2020 – Intensified Protests and Unrest
Demonstrations occurred in over 140 U.S. cities. While many were peaceful, several cities, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia, reported looting, arson, and violent clashes.
Numerous cities imposed curfews, and over 20 states activated the National Guard.
June 1–2, 2020 – Continued Demonstrations
Protests persisted nationwide, with a mix of peaceful marches and isolated incidents of violence.
Law enforcement's response, including the use of tear gas and rubber bullets, drew criticism from civil rights organizations.
June 3, 2020 – Upgraded Charges and Additional Arrests
Responding to that mass violent protest, not only in Minneapolis but nation wide, Attorney General Keith Ellison elevated Chauvin's charge to second-degree murder. For the first time, the three other officers involved were charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder.
After June 3, 2020
Following the announcement on June 3, 2020, of upgraded charges against Derek Chauvin and the charging of the other three officers involved in George Floyd's death, there was a notable shift in the nature of the protests across the United States.
According to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), after June 3, the majority of demonstrations continued to be peaceful, with approximately 93% of the over 7,750 events between May 26 and August 22, 2020, involving no serious harm to people or property.
So there it is: initially, there was a non-violent protest. The result? The four were fired, but no charges. Then the violent protest began. The result? Minimal charges. The protests escalated and spread. The result? Real charges are brought by a serious prosecutor.
You cannot begin to tell me that Ellison would have brought the June 3 charges if there had been ONLY non-violent protest. That had been tried, and no charges were forthcoming.
Qualified Immunity
But now we get to the part that really falsifies your claim. After June 3, the protests became as you wish: non-violent.
There was still something required: the ending of national qualified immunity for cops. But that was now placed in the hands of Senators Scott and Booker. No more violent protests on the street, only non-violent protests and a "political process".
And what happened? Well, the Senate drew out "negotiations" till September 25, nearly 4 months later, when Scott killed it with the following statement: "I'm not going to participate in reducing funding for the police after we saw a major city after major city defund the police."
That is how the largest protest movement in world history died—because violent and non-violent protest (words and blows) became only non-violent protest and a political process.
You ask me, "You think the Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was "non-violent":"
Please stop insinuating that I believe that peaceful protests will necessarily be free of violence. Such protest could occasion one-sided violence, but this is unlikely unless agitators are present. Two way violence is almost assured if agitators are present.
The fact that violence COULD occur at a peaceful protest does not excuse the behavior of provocateurs.
I notice you still haven't answered my fair and VERY IMPORTANT question about whether uninvited agitation is moral.
I think your stance is immoral. If you disagree, then you need to do a better job defending your position that agitation at peaceful protest is not immoral, and that the "dangerous" people at such protest are NOT the agitators.
I think it is really ridiculous so say that the people who show up to a peaceful protest with a protest sign but with no weapons and no protective equipment are the "dangerous" ones. I am one of these people.
Agitation leads to more people getting hurt.
Agitators who attend a No Kings event tomorrow are the dangerous ones.
They are a danger to all the people nearby. It is audacious that you would blame me if I get hurt as a result of your agitation - especially if you did not warn me and EVERY OTHER PERSON IN ATTENDANCE of your presence and your intent, so that they had fair warning that the level of risk of violence is elevated.
The only way to be a "moral" agitator is to stay away from peaceful protests, and make sure no-one is around who does not understand what is planned. So anyone who might get hurt or arrested is forewarned and chooses to be there anyway.
I get the appeal of taking the cowardly approach and using the crowds at a peaceful protest as cover.
If everyone follows your advice (don't go to any protest - even peaceful protests - unless you are prepared for violence, with appropriate training and equipment), then very few people will attend peaceful protest events.
If everyone follows your advice there will be no mass turnout as is needed now if there is any hope to save our country from what looks like will be a brutal fasism.
If you don't agree that agitation at peaceful protests is immoral and cowardly, then please explain.
To argue that even peaceful protests can get violent is not an valid answer.
If you chose not to answer I can understand why not,
Since I cannot imagine how you can defend the behavior as moral.
If you do respond, I expect it will be more of the same e.g. All successful movements were violent. The naive people are the dangerous ones.
If you want to carryout the violence that you think is essential for a successful movement - then show some true heroism
Go organize your own protest, Don't infiltrate a peaceful event.
Put your life and liberty on the line.
Engage in civil disobedence without infringing on someone else who did not agree to be part of your heroism.
Don't be a coward.
Don't cause collateral damage.
Be a hero.
"Please stop insinuating that I believe that peaceful protests will necessarily be free of violence."
By the definition of words, peaceful protests are free of violence.
"Agitation leads to more people getting hurt."
The goal of a protest is not to minimize "hurt" to the protesters, in fact, most protesters go to a protest knowing their is risk of hurt.
The goal of a protest is to affect change, even if there is a chance of harm.
*sigh*
You’re looking for danger in the wrong place. You’re already turning on your own side, rather than expressing solidarity.
Will there be “provocateurs”? Maybe.
But much more likely will be false flag attacks by the authorities or right wing counter protesters who want to see violence.
Do you know about the umbrella man? What about the boogaloo boys? No? Never heard of them? You should.
But they’re there just to give the pretext for the authorities to unleash on everyone, anyone who deigns to defy their authority.
The nice, white, pretty, female Australian reporter was shot by the LAPD. Was she an instigator? Was she violent? I could show you a 1000 videos like that.
It is the police who bring real violence. You don’t understand that. And that is naively dangerous.
Parrhizzia -I am sorry you have had to experience violent protest situations. It does matter tremendously how one responds if subjected to violence from authorities at the current protests. I hope you stay away because you do appear to be a person who will act out violently. Please understand such behavior plays into Trump's hand and weakens the power of the protest movement.
“It does matter tremendously how one responds if subjected to violence from authorities at the current protests”
That’s not only where you’re wrong Joan, but dangerously naive.
And honestly, I place the blame at the feet of institutions like The Bulwark and Indivisible sending you in when you aren’t ready. I hope they’re not doing it intentionally.
There were a number of aspects to the civil rights movement, of which non-violence was only one.
But even under non-violence, they TRAINED for the violence for months. They assumed it would come. They knew what to do when it came. They practiced.
You are walking in untrained, assuming that your privilege, your age, your sex, your skin color will protect you.
It won’t.
You assume that if YOU are not unruly, that if you protest “the right way”, the police won’t attack you.
They will.
https://youtu.be/QFeewU0HhNE?si=ypPmy74PzTHE2p6W
If the authorities: Trump and Stephen Miller, get it in their head to make an example of you, things will become violent, no matter what you do, no matter if you “sit down” or “walk away”.
You need to be prepaired for when the cops open fire with rubber bullets. What do you do when they pepper balls hit you? How do you stop tear gas? If the cops spray bear spray in your eyes, what’s the best way to wash it out? If the cops grab one of your group and start beating them in front of you, what will you do? Pull them out? Fight the cops? Or “sit down”?
Because that’s what happens at a protest which the authorities take seriously.
If that doesn’t happen, then the authorities don’t see you as a threat, and will ignore you - which begs the question: why the hell did you do it in the first place? For self-satisfaction virtue signaling?
Well, first of all we know from his first term that Trump very much wants both protests and military crackdowns, and he's nothing if not consistent. So we should assume at all points that he is trying to engineer a crackdown and assume that whether or not he is successful will depend on both public sentiment and the decisions of individual unit commanders at the moment of truth.
Second, I think that posting AOC's picture was pretty on the nose -- without a movement leader to bring democratic (and Democratic) opposition to trump into focus, we should expect that these protests will remain disorganized and -- using your utilitarian political lense here -- dumb/unproductive.
But, with a strong leader to drive a message and assign lieutenants to help lead and organize the movement, that could really work.
Also I do think that the violence of Trump's "protests" have "worked" for the same reason that the KKK was allowed to get away with so much of their BS for so long. Whether they admit it or not, the hardest deepest core of their movement is authoritarian and racist and they very much believe in violence to achieve their aims, and they're unified around that. Libs, Dems, Normals, whatever, are in no way as organized, unified or violent, and that's why it doesn't work in the other direction.
Republicans are bad people and okay with political violence as long as it helps them. Democrats as a whole an on average are too moral and humane to be okay with political violence
That's why it has been progressives, and not Democrats, that have advanced society with the loss of their blood.
I’m seething here beside myself. What trump wants most is more conflict in LA. Please tell some of the talent to have a concert in LA in support of immigration that the national guard and marines and protesters can enjoy together. Trump and his hump, Hegseth would have them gone the next day.