Has Protesting Become Too Easy?

[brooklynite]

Slate:

I spoke by phone with Tufekci, who grew up in Turkey, recently to discuss a range of protest movements across the globe. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed the threats Facebook poses to organized protest, the successes and failures of the resistance to Trump, and the best way to save Obamacare.

Now here’s the problem if you do things this way. In the past, if you wanted to hold a million-person march or a large march, say, the 1963 March on Washington, it took 10 years of sustained movement-building to get to the point where you could even think about it and then it took six months of organizing to be able to hold that march. When you see the people in Washington and the Mall in 1963 and if you’re a person in power, you look at that, and you’re thinking, “If they can pull this off, they have logistics, they have organizational capacity, they have collective decision-making ability, they sat together and figured all this out and hung together.”

When you look at the Women’s March, it’s clear the current president was annoyed by it, but putting that aside, if you’re a legislator or if you’re a person in power, you kind of know it came together very quickly. You know it came from a Facebook post. It doesn’t mean that the organizers didn’t do a lot of work. I’m not belittling anybody’s work. They did a lot of work. I marched myself. But it’s not the same length of time and the same building of capacities as the 1963 march. While it looks the same, it’s not signaling to the powerful the same thing because digital technologies are said to give us springs on our feet. That’s great, but that means that when you need to do the next thing, you don’t necessarily have the muscle.

I want to be clear: I don’t have any problem with people marching, calling, texting. Probably those are baseline acts to do because if you don’t do them, that probably signals weakness, but in this day in age, when there’s so many automated tools to help you call … I was just looking at one. You send them a text, they find your representative, they forward it. There are all these tools to automatically connect you to the congressperson. When it is easier it doesn’t convey the same threat. A lot of congresspeople are looking at it and saying, “You know what? This took them two minutes, and I don’t know if they’re going to work for three hours against me. I don’t know if they’re going to put in weeks.” The flooding them with phone calls kind of scares them, but they think it doesn’t mean the same thing it did before because there are all these tools to make it easier, and there’s a question of constituent versus nonconstituent calls.

[Zoonart]

1. Marches are feel good events.

AS a participant in marches in the Vietnam War era, and an organizer of marches in the 80's for Women's reproductive freedom, I can say that marches in the past were vastly more difficult to plan and execute. that does not mean that they were better.

However, if marches are all you have in your arsenal... you very quickly become a victim of your own success...ie: the Women's march. This march was so vastly successful that it will be difficult to top and anything less will be read as a weakening of the movement. There is usually a drop. off in enthusiasm after a march because folks feel like they have done their share. Actions need to follow.

Marches are an expression of dissent but NOT a true example. of the power of the people. The movement must branch out into more radical action in order to get attention, and by radical... I do not mean violent. Peaceful resistance can take many forms, from sit-ins to hunger strikes to general strikes, but the people have to put more than foot blisters on the line and I'm not certain that the will exists for this.

I would also like to see more central organizing voting out a list of demands and plan. of action to achieve goals. The movement as it exists is very far flung and not coordinated. The lack of leadership structure is what killed the Occupy movement. For example, it would be of great help is the current Indivisible movement held a national conference and voted out a platform.

[JayhawkSD]

2. These are not "protests."

You make your point, but with far too much indirection. Lasting one day, what we have today are, at best, "demonstrations." They are as sounding brass, filled with noise and fury, signifying nothing.

Occupy Wall Street, and the Dakota thing came closer to being a protest, lasting longer than a day, but they offered no threat to the power that they were protesting. "I will occupy your city park," or "I will occupy a piece of land that does not block your pipeline." The powers in both cases are not threatened, and the peaceful gatherings are eventually disbanded.

A "protest" offers a real threat to power. It promises that business will be brought to its knees, that power will be taken by force, that progress will be interfered with. It is long term and relentless. It is risky, even hazardous.

Facebook and Twitter are "a mile wide and an inch deep." They are easy, fast, and require neither thought nor commitment. They create a social environment that does not have the stomach for real protest; that can offer nothing more than ineffectual symbolism. Somebody babbles 140 characters of nonsense demanding that the government fix something, and 2 million people hit the "like" button.

Martin Luther King made it clear; we are many, we are relentless, and we will bring this society to a halt if we do not achieve justice, no matter how long it takes.

[Demsrule86]

8. So now our marches must be 'pure' as well...I would remind you that occupy which showed such

was a failure in the end. I suppose if everyone sat on their hands and waited ten years to build a movement...that would be so much better...rather than a quick response that has helped in every way including electorally.

[JayhawkSD]

13. I'm not sure where you got that I said anything about "purity."

And you don't need to "remind" me that occupy was a failure; I said as much in my comment. Nor did I say anything that be interpreted as "sitting on our hands and waiting to build a movement." Maybe you should actually read what I said before you jump on your keyboard to put me down.

I said that our present "protests" are weak and puny; that they offer no threat to power.

Please provide an example of a recent "quick response that has helped in every way including electorally."

[Demsrule86]

15. I think saying that the resistance in the form of marches is not working is not true and hurts us .

I tried to work with Occupy and wanted them to succeed, but there was no organization...just people who never showed up (mortgage actions) and who could not agree on anything...no clear leaders. I want the resistance to enable the Dems to take over the House that is my goal...we have a fascist wannabe in the White House and criticizing the only way we have to fight back seems self defeating. Trump is a danger to us all and our Republic...if I was rude or snide...I apologize.

[JayhawkSD]

16. So "resistance in the form of marches" is working?

And yet you cannot name an instance where such a march has proven effective.

And Democrats took over the house in 2006; and the Senate too. Oh what a victory. We were so thrilled. We were going to stop the war in Iraq, and roll back the Bush tax cuts. Instead we got "the surge" and extension of the Bush tax cuts, and renewal of the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act, and immunization of the telecoms. You think the next Democratic takeover of the House will be any better? I don't.

How does saying that "resistance in the form of marches" is not effective, which is clearly true, hurt us? Because the truth is painful perhaps? If the left would listen to that painful truth and let go of the easy, risk-free one-day marches that cost the protesters nothing and instead become willing to take a risk by picking up some pitchforks and axe handles and marching angry and threatening and making the power structure afraid, then change would happen.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Tufekci is right, but the Women's March is a poor example for his point

For one thing it wasn't just "a million people" coming together for a march, There were many millions of marchers, with marches happening in hundreds of places, some that have rarely ever seen a march of almost any size. It was also in the dead of winter. Except for cases of true people's revolutions, crowds that size don't happen in the dead of winter. Third, it happened at a time when depression was the wide spread sentiment after people were stunned by Trump winning. There was virtually no momentum leading into it. Four, the size of the women's march could be directly contrasted with the size of Trump's inaugural crowd, and it dwarfed it in DC alone, let alone around the rest of the world. Trump and his team had the full trappings of State, "a winning" political movement, a date fixed months in advance, and millions of dollars to spend on programming to pull people in etc.

So I would say that the Women's March scared the crap out of Republicans, but it is getting harder to get that reaction from protests alone.

[brooklynite]

4. I think the Women's Marches were an expression of anger, but not of will...

People were willing to express their opposition to the Trump Administration, but not with a focus of "what do we do next"? I know of several groups that evolved out of the Marches, which are trying to figure out next steps, for which there is not coordination that I've seen.

[Adrahil]

5. That's 'cause....

we're WAY too busy trying to figure out who is progressive enough.

[Demsrule86]

7. Honestly...I find your words disrespectful to me and other women... The woman's march was amazing.

The marches, and the town halls have helped...resistance always helps in these situations. We don't have ten years.

[Demsrule86]

10. There is coordination...and it is different in the states too ...I have adopted a swing district and

sent money already. It is a three hour drive, but I am committed to help with calls and in person canvassing when the time comes...my children will come with me...talk is cheap...look at what is available and make a difference.

[Demsrule86]

9. Thank you. I completely agree...I do think townhalls will have an effect as well

Also, some electoral wins...if we take Georgia or Montana...if we win the Governorship's...especially Virginia.

[Demsrule86]

6. The marches have had an impact...huge one...

fail to understand why we must do things as they have been done in the past.

[ismnotwasm]

11. Perhaps

I live in Seattle--a city that is constantly protesting. What they do, from immigration reform rally's to Black Lives Matter protests, is keep these issues in the media, in people's minds. If nothing else, protests are a medium for attention and while I fail to see how this is a negative in general, it is easy to drop the ball for the next step I think.

That being said, I am under the impression there are tons of newly political people young and elsewise --that were fairly apolitical prior to the election of Trump and now are galvanized.

There is something intrinsically repulsive about Trump, even though he did have his millions vote for him and his millions that still support him, he is the aesthetic equivalent of rancid oil. I'm not sure why--I can't stand him and his politics of course, but he is physically off putting in a way I can't quite break down. I can't be the only one.

[Demsrule86]

12. How nice that people sit around criticizing the women's march and other marches...

Those of us in the resistance are trying to make a difference and stop Trump...win some elections...what are you all doing other than criticizing people who are taking action? How will you make a difference? I doubt it will be by telling people the avenues open to us in this time of Republican control are not good enough. That somehow you (meant generically not you in particular) are all knowing and have a better plan? Actions speak louder than words. Show us your plan.

[JayhawkSD]

17. I had my time, and little sympathy for the current impasse

We knew in the labor union days how to demand change and make that demand stick. Labor unions did not wait for someone else to make the changes for us, we didn't wait for the government to pass laws. We did not leave our fate in the hands of 535 idiots in Washington. We took it in our hands.

We stood united at the factory gates with axe handles, pickaxes and hammers in our hands and told them their plant was shut down until they met our demands. It was illegal, but we didn't wait for anyone to pass laws legalizing it. They sent police to break us up and we faced them down. They sent strike breaking workers and we didn't let them in. That was illegal too, but the police could not prevent us from doing it. They sent armed police in large numbers and we told them to fire away; that they might kill us but that we'd take plenty of them with us. Scared the hell out of me much of the time, but we were angry.

Our demands eventually got met because they saw that they could not break us and eventually were afraid of us.

I'm too old now, but I know how it's done. I've done it. Today's generations do not have the stamina. They don't want it badly enough to be willing to risk the comforts they have. They'd rather complain and demand that somebody else fix what is wrong. I have no sympathy. You want change, then stand on your hind legs like a man and demand the change.

[treestar]

14. It means people take their time to show up

and do it. Modern technology helps us out in most things. It would be odd to think of it as a disadvantage. Maybe the change can come a lot faster.

Just sounds absurd, like, now we can contact them easier so they don't have to listen to us? What do we do then?