You want change?

[JackRiddler]

This might work:



(Caracas, Dec. 2007)

Nothing less. Crowds like this. Marching around DC. For days and weeks at a time.

No compromise on the message:

- Single-payer, universal health care

- Energy and transport conversion. That means solar and rail, above all.

- End the drug war. Decriminalize. Liberate prisoners. Pharmacy and treatment shall be the means of social control of this problem.

- Public campaign finance and free media access (as a condition of licensing) for everyone on a ballot.

- All bases abroad close, all troops home.

- Defense forces solely for defense of this country. 90 percent cut.

- Justice for all crimes of the state. No Machiavellian excuses for the criminals.

Get a crowd the size of those who showed up for the inaugural show back in DC next year, demanding peace and justice. More march, less speech. Maybe then you see change.

[elocs]

1. Nice thought, won't happen.

So a march like that should happen under Obama when it never remotely happened under Bush?

[bottomtheweaver]

3. It happened.

Half a million in Los Angeles in March 2006 to protest the proposed Sensenbrenner immigration crackdown:



Police used helicopters to come up with the crowd estimate. “I’ve been on the force 38 years and I’ve never seen a rally this big,” said Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr., incident commander for the rally.

And that was just one city!

Since Thursday tens of thousands of people have joined in rallies in cities including Milwaukee, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Atlanta, and staged school walkouts, marches and work stoppages.

The demonstrations are expected to culminate April 10 in a “National Day of Action” organized by labor, immigration, civil rights and religious groups.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11442705/

And let's not forget that it worked. The Sensenbrenner bill narrowly passed the House, but never made it out of the Senate.

[elocs]

9. It may have worked for one specific and narrow issue,

but I don't see it working for the 7 in the OP.

[JackRiddler]

10. How about two: Universal single-payer and no more wars?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

48. Can You Prove It Worked?

Can you even begin to show that this was why it didn't pass the Senate, or that it had been slated to pass the senate prior to this action being taken?

[JackRiddler]

4. There are obvious reasons why it should happen under Obama...

Under Bush, although 2000 was a flat-out coup and 2004 was rigged, the majority believed that the majority supported Bush. Three million people could have marched (and in fact they did, in Feb. 2003), knowing that Bush would dismiss them as a "focus group" and his regime would not move an inch to accommodate them.

Now mass marches might actually make a difference. The majority has chosen "change," and they know they are the majority, no matter what FOXCNNGEM$NBCPBS says. If you parse his words, it's true Obama didn't really promise much of it. But he certainly insinuated or inspired the feeling that he will deliver a great deal more than he's probably planning. And anyway, it's ALWAYS up to us: power has never conceded anything without demand, as Frederick Douglass said.

The people who hired Obama for this job know that at the very least, they want universal single-payer health care and no more foreign adventures. They also know that they are a majority.

A crowd like this can call Obama on his hype, and if he knows what's good for him politically, he'll have to respond -- given that he's not going to find a new base among the Republicans, hard as he is currently trying to do that.

Perhaps he even wants to see this - to be swept by popular pressure, to say he has to move a few inches to the left. Who can say? At any rate, the only way you're going to drive him to do anything progressive is to show that progressive really has support and power in it. That can only happen on the streets.

.

[elocs]

12. The key word and the biggest one in your post: "might". n

After 8 years of Bush and just a month into the Obama administration what we need are massive marches to get him to do our bidding? I don't think so.

[Donnachaidh]

23. oh yes

:thumbsup:

[Two Americas]

45. why not?

It happened under LBJ. I don't remember any of us being told we were "hurting the party" or being disloyal to the party, either, when we protested that war. The right wingers said we were hurting the country, yes, but hurting the party or politicians in the party? No. That seems ludicrous to me, but we read it hourly around here these days.

By the way, it is not a "nice thought" - where do you imagine that you will be safely ensconced and protected and insulated as you observe it? - it is the result of desperation.

Massive marches did happen under Bush, most notably the immigrant rights marches. The liberal activists did not support them, however, or even seem to pay much attention.

"It" always happens. Nothing special about America, and the peace and stability over the last 30 years have been based on illusions that could not last. One would have to be pretty aloof, insulated from reality, and in severe denial to so cavalierly dismiss the possibility of massive social upheaval. I think it is dead certain to happen, and I do not think it will be long in coming.

What is the source of this pervasive mentality - this fantasy that history is over, that things are stable, that it can't happen here? The TV political news programs? Are they peddling this - "don't worry, everything will be fine, nothing to worry about, it is just as it always was, nothing profound has changed, go about your business?"

[scarletwoman]

2. Yup, might work. Wish I knew how to make it happen. The Owner Class has done an excellent job of

keeping all the proles ignorant and blaming someone else for their problems.

Sadly, we're more likely to see misdirected anger striking out at the wrong targets than the kind of sense of unified purpose that would bring people together in such a way.

sw

[JackRiddler]

8. What's wrong with today's marchers?

An interesting critique of the present-day antiwar and other street-level movements:

1) Too much "unity"; too little confrontation...

2) Too old; where are the NAFTA kids?

3) Too organized; the "Mobe" should mobilize (i.e. logistics) - not set goals

4) Too much "bearing witness"; too little "we're going to shut this fucker down"

5) Too little pre-planning; D.C. is the place to swell numbers, after that Baltimore, Philly, NYC... Concentric Circles; go for the kids - they drag everyone else.

6) Too set piece; pro forma - it should be, "Bring your guitar and your motorcycle helmet"

7) Too little culture, or perhaps, just one kind of culture; let a hundred flowers bloom - make it a chance to meet America; turn it into a "festival".

Cool Wrong allies - Natural ally is Minister Farrakhan and the nation of Islam (which has turned out the largest street demonstrations in American history); it is a natural alliance; "What would it take, Mr. Minister?"*

PAGE ELEVEN

9) The role of socialists in American street demos is to drag out the numbers and to set an example by getting their heads busted FIRST... not to TALK (this is a socialist talking). Shut the fuck up. Let passion speak.

10) Too much talking in general... The crowd should MARCH... A LOT... They form the mass around which the various tribes can organize sallies and retreat back to... Time to march our ass off.

11) The cops and soldiers are not friendly... they may be an hour before and an hour after but not during... They are the face of the enemy.

12) Not nearly enough, "do your own thing"... need snake dancers, and people who want to sit down while chanting, and those who want to write slogans on the Justice Department and those who want to carry big signs saying "SHAME", and lots of pink people...

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=17717

* (NOTE: Please for the purpose of this argument ignore the Farrakhan part - I'm not cutting it because the guy who wrote it said it, so there it is)

.

[scarletwoman]

22. Interesting list. I agree with your bolding of #4, that seems to me to be the heart of the matter.

I don't know how much I agree with the rest, I'm still mulling it over to see how much of it really makes sense to me.

#9 strikes me as a necessity. Unless people are willing to actually CONFRONT Power, no street march is going to make any difference. The Civil Rights marchers knew they could very well be killed for showing up, they did it anyway. Same with Gandhi. If you're really "going to shut this fucker down" (#4), then you'd better be prepared for the pushback.

#12? Not sure I get it. Street theater for more attention? I'm thinking that a clear message and a clear sense of purpose is crucial. Isn't the whole point of mass action to remind the Owners that there are more of us than there are of them? I want to strike fear in their black hearts, not mount a street carnival.

Regarding Farrakhan, I've got no problem with him, I'm not some pants-wetting "liberal" who feels obligated to knee-jerk denounce him. And talk about someone who could strike fear in the hearts of the Owner Class! It's a rather delicious idea, imho.

Anyway, lots of interesting food for thought. Thank you.

sw

[JackRiddler]

27. I think the point of street theater is that there's nothing wrong with vitality...

joy, excitement... fun. As serious as the endeavor is, as dangerous as it can get, it should be joyful and liberating, not a church service with droning speakers. If you see what I mean.

Though I didn't write that list I've got no probs with the idea of Farrakhan in a coalition, just don't want this thread to go off into a distracting exchange over that. Fact is, what they want for the most part is exactly what we all should want: social justice and a roll-back of the warfare state. When they demand that, I've got no problems with it!

[scarletwoman]

30. Okay. As long as no innocent snakes get hurt. Seriously, I get your point about

vitality. And for sure, CAN the "droning speakers"!

Yes, we do need to come from a place of joy and life to counteract the forces of darkness and anti-life.

Social justice and a roll-back of the warfare state -- works for me. Thanks again for this thought-provoking thread.

sw

[bvar22]

34. Snake dancers and chanting?

I'm thinking Torches & Pitchforks.

[Usrename]

5. The anti-war demonstrations did nothing to stop the invasion of Iraq.

They were the largest demonstrations in the history of the planet. What makes you think this kind of display will change anything?

I don't get it. It didn't work before so it should make a difference now? Why?

[JackRiddler]

6. Are you saying the Obama administration will respond identically to Bush?

I'm naive enough to think there's a better chance now. And if not -- if Obama really is just Bush with brains, as some would have it -- then I want to know for sure. Don't you?

The only way you find out is by getting the numbers out. Until then, your voice will always be usurped by that of CNBCPBSCNNFOXABCMTV. They will announce to all of you what you supposedly think.

[Usrename]

38. You make a whole lot of sense.

Perhaps this administration would like to have huge demonstrations. If for no other reason than to provide some additional political cover. The louder we get from the left, the more he is able to maneuver. I think I get it now.

[blues90]

7. The only thing I do know is change will have to come form the people

So yes that might work but it would not be covered by the media unless the crowd began to take the capital building apart and remove all the decor , the news only covers chaos.

[Occam Bandage]

11. Didn't stop Iraq. Didn't end the Vietnam war a day earlier.

Big crowds of people only make politicians have to put in thicker earplugs.

[bottomtheweaver]

13. It made Nixon pull the plug finally, and look where that got him.

And he was lucky. Of course it only took eight years of protest and failure to accomplish even that. The weapons industry profits no matter who happens to "win."

[JackRiddler]

14. Vietnam? Of course the protests made a decisive difference...

Most significant is that the protests ultimately affected the soldiers.

Their non-compliance in the field (to the point of killing more than 300 officers in 1969-71 by Pentagon admission) is absolutely what forced the post-1968 shift to "Vietnamization" and, ultimately, withdrawal. Otherwise, how do you know Nixon, who bombed the neutral state of Cambodia into its darkest ages, would not have also bombed the North Vietnamese dikes, or sent more troops in, rather than withdrawing?

Popular protest absolutely made a difference in other ways. For one thing, it forced the government to end the draft. It also fed into a number of other protest movements with lasting consequences (feminism, LBGT).

Maybe even the same is true of Iraq: How do you know what measures the Bushistas would have tried out in 2004-2006, if there had been no resistance at all?

But the thing about your comment is, what are you really saying? Not to bother? Let Obama handle it and vote DLC forevermore?

WRT VIETNAM, PRIOR THREAD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3342610

Sir, No Sir! The soldiers who refused to be part of mass murder in Vietnam

One of the great documentaries of our time - focusing on how the genocidal war in Vietnam came to a standstill thanks to the resistance of the American soldiers themselves. A remedy for the Rambo myth. Order it today!

These are the veterans we should honor, above all others: The ones who risked themselves for the right reason.

Interview with director:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/09/david_zeiger.html

MJ: Did it take any effort to get the veterans to open up—the public conception of the Vietnam vet is of a man too pained to talk openly about his experiences.

DZ: Yeah, that’s a very big myth. In this situation that was not at all a problem. These are people whose stories had been suppressed and ignored since the war. They knew that their story was a story of the Vietnam War that needed to be told. For most of these veterans, it was more a matter of finally being able to tell their story, stories the overall zeitgeist was against being told. It was not a matter of reluctance.

SNIP

MJ: You mentioned that you were a civilian organizer at Fort Hood during the Vietnam War. At that time, was the civilian public widely aware of the GI Movement?

DZ: The evidence suggests that they were. As you see in the film, there were CBS Nightly News stories about the GI Movement. There is a segment in the film of Walter Cronkite talking about the GI underground press. In the state of Texas, where there was a very large anti-war movement in Austin and Houston, and the center of the Texas movement for a time was at Fort Hood. The armed forces demonstrations were major events for the whole state. I think people knew generally that there was opposition in the military, but they didn’t know the details or how widespread it was. But it was certainly more prominent than people remember it. It has been thoroughly wiped out of any histories of the war.

MJ: How visible was the GI Movement amongst American soldiers in Southeast Asia? Were they aware that their fellow soldiers were protesting the war on bases abroad and in the States?

DZ: Yes. The GI anti-war press was everywhere. Just about every base in the world had an underground paper. Vietnam GI was the first GI paper. It was sent directly to Vietnam from the U.S. in press runs of 5,000 and they were getting spread all over the place because they’d be handed from person to person. Awareness of the GI Movement was at different levels but it was still very widespread.

.

[bottomtheweaver]

15. Sometimes those who cannot remember the past

profit richly from repeating it.

[Fire1]

17. I think it drove LBJ nuts! LOL!

[JackRiddler]

16. Want to see more of this on Wall Street:

[anonymous171]

18. You can't hold together a coalition like that.

Sorry. We should probably do it one issue at a time, that way the movement will be more powerful and unified.

[JeffR]

19. If a crowd that size turned out in NYC or LA

the newspaper caption the next day - safely tucked away on page 7, BTW - would read: "A crowd estimated at 5,000 staged a brief protest downtown yesterday, tying up rush-hour traffic."

CNN & MSNBC might even make note of the event on their crawls, but probably not.

[JackRiddler]

20. And what if they sat down and didn't go away?

Dude! Look at your own sig line:

MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR.

Come on! What would he have said to your post?

[JeffR]

25. You might have misconstrued. My comment wasn't about the utility of protest

just about the obstinate agenda-driven indifference (or frequent outright hostility) of the media.

As to protesting, I say hell yes.

[LWolf]

21. I'd like to see it happen. nt

[Jkid]

24. How to get real change after elections.

While many people encourage the already politcally apathetic you to vote and to be involved, many do not tell you that the only way to get your campaign promises is to demand it. Voting is not enough, and protesting for the most part is sound and fury signifying nothing. Write to your representatives and your elected officials, because voting is never enough.

If your politicians refuse to care or listen to you, replace them yourself by running for public office.

[JimWis]

26. Don't know if it will work, but maybe that's what's needed. I like

your list, everyone one of them. Wouldn't it be great. K&R

[ProgressIn2008]

29. Yes, great list, isn't it? nt

[JackRiddler]

33. Thanks JimWis & Progressin2008!

[ProgressIn2008]

28. You hit the nail on the head with the days and weeks part. It can't be a Sat anti-war march

that can be ignored or belittled or downsized. You're right to bring up the civil rights movement. That idea, plus general, long term, widespread...

It's time for something different. It's time to camp out in the tens of thousands. Our government (and yes, that means Obama and his team too) are no longer accountable to the people... because we aren't holding them accountable. Time for some feet to hit the fire. They work for us. We gave up power. Time to take it back.

Great post.

[G_j]

31. a must

I don't think there is a choice

[Orwellian_Ghost]

32. That's what it will take

K&R

[JackRiddler]

35. bump

[Mari333]

36. I marched against the war in Iraq twice in huge crowds

didnt do a damned thing. and very little media coverage.

[snot]

37. Agree w/ some others above: we've HAD huge protests; but

1. Police have spied on activists in advance in order to successfully round up and detain huge numbers of them early in the game, thus throttling protest during the last two RNC conventions;

2. The media grossly under-reports them.

3. Until recently, most of us were working too hard to devote more than a day here and there. THAT seems to be changing, however . . .

[JackRiddler]

39. Consider this: Has anything else ever worked?

Eight-hour workday, civil rights, Vietnam withdrawal, gay rights... when did things ever just happen because they were the right thing? What happens at times when people aren't fighting for justice on the street? In the 1990s, how did you like NAFTA, "welfare reform," the Clinton crime bill, banking deregulation? Showing that the majority is center-left is only the first step. Now that majority has to actually get what it wants, because it will never happen just because politicians think it would be nice.

[snot]

41. The cyberstreet may be a better venue.

all I'm saying is, we've already had many&much more and more massive real-world street protests against Bush admin policies than ever happened against, e.g., the Viet Nam War; but they've had little perceptible effect. The oligarchs took a lesson from the 60's; they bought the media and put into place the other means necessary to minimize the efficacy of street protest.

I'm not saying we should stop protesting in the streets -- hell, I myself organized a peace demo just a few years ago -- but I DO think we have to think smart about this and perhaps figure out new ways, end-runs around their lately-so-far-successful throttlings.

"Eight-hour workday, civil rights, Vietnam withdrawal, gay rights... when did things ever just happen because they were the right thing?" -- Never, and always.

"What happens at times when people aren't fighting for justice on the street?" -- I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that's where the battleground is now; it may be in a cyberstreet.

"In the 1990s, how did you like NAFTA, "welfare reform," the Clinton crime bill, banking deregulation?" -- That's a long conversation, not completely on-topic.

"Showing that the majority is center-left is only the first step. Now that majority has to actually get what it wants, because it will never happen just because politicians think it would be nice." Politicians think it would be nice? That actually seems rather hopeful to me.

I think we agree that activism is essential, and I don't mean to denigrate street activism. My concern is that we've actually done a lot of it, with little result.

[readmoreoften]

42. Net activism is a tool for awareness but it can't shut down anything.

It works for civil rights issues but not for labor/economic "base" issues. The only power we have is to "shut it down". Can't "shut down" anything through internet posting and invariably creating a target market for advertising.

[snot]

43. So we have to do more than

just take to the streets. I totally agree, internet posting can help spread awareness but without more is toothless. What, exactly, do you suggest? You say we have to shut something down -- exactly what, and how?

[JackRiddler]

49. See list in #46...

It's more than just "take to the streets."

[JackRiddler]

46. I'm afraid we diverge totally here.

The cyberstreet is a great information and organizing tool.

But organizing means:
- strikes
- your money to co-ops, credit unions, alt businesses, organic farms
- setting up your own co-ops, community currencies, alt businesses, organic farms
- winning over your physical neighbors for other "commons" projects
- boycotts, including potentially the biggest one of all
- mass protests on the street
- sit-ins shutting down offices of bankers, military recruiters, politicians and other miscreants
- capturing all the TV time you can - use your imagination - through creative, non-violent means (since, face it: TV is still the King Medium, consensus reality is defined still by TV).

That's how anything worthwhile has ever been won against the machine.

But cyberprotest alone? What are you talking about? Sending e-mails to change.gov? Signing the e-petition? Without a real-world component? What does it mean?

[stuntcat]

40. energy change, Hells yeah

I've been to every anti-war march I could, I even protested Clinton's stuff.

Now I always go to the climate stuff too, I'm going on March 2nd to this- http://www.capitolclimateaction.org/ Hopefully it'll be huge.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. You want to discharge 100's of thousands of soldiers in the middle of the current economy.

That sounds like a horrible idea.

David

[JackRiddler]

47. You're absolutely right.

I think we need to send them into a new and bigger war. After all, that's the only thing that ever worked to get the economy moving right again, right?

Thank you for providing a very cogent argument for why the capitalist system is a disaster.

.

By the way: How many soldiers are there? Thanks to the volunteer army and our miraculous "revolution in military affairs" wherein most of the killing is by remote control, their total number is peanuts compared to historic figures. And for my part I'd rather see them come back as healthy and unemployed than as wounded or traumatized and unemployed (or in a box).

Bring'em home and put the military budget into productive uses that create many times as many jobs: energy conversion, transport conversion, infrastructural repair.

.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. I'd have to disagree to some extent.

Wars may help get a country out of a depression. I suspect though it is the manufacturing that was associated with past wars that have fueled the economies. Our country military exploits haven't created many manufacturing jobs. Thanks for your answer though.

David

[leftstreet]

50. I wonder if we'll see The Ruling Class take to the streets

A handful of rich fuckers refusing to budge from factory and store fronts until we all agree to work for $1 an hour.

They're getting so frantic over the breakdown of their precious Capitalism.

[dysfunctional press]

51. no compromise on the message? good luck getting enough supporters for your marches.

single-payer universal healthcare is about the only one with a legitimate chance at broad-based appeal to the populace.

and even THAT will have plenty of detractors as well.

one question re: ending the drug war- why do people think that legalizing even pot would get anyone currently serving time "liberated"? just because you make something legal now- it doesn't mean that they didn't violate the law at the time.

and what does 'transport conversion' mean? people like having personal vehicles, and they are here to stay.

[bottomtheweaver]

53. It passed the House in December. Then came the March demonstrations,

and that was the end the Sensenbrenner bill, which after several delays finally died in committee. And all the GOP corporate gasbags were gunning for it to, so I'd say this was a victory on a par with saving Social Security from Bushler's icy plane.

[JackRiddler]

54. Oh, I get it, you mean the immigration protests.

Thanks.