Yes? Repression alone doesn’t turn something into a real challenge to power. Liberal states routinely brutalize protests they know will remain contained. In 2020 millions marched, chanted, got beaten, posted photos, then went home and the system carried on largely unchanged: police power intact, imperial violence ongoing, no serious threat to state authority. That’s why much of the world sees Western “protests” as angry parades: emotionally intense, sometimes violently policed, but structurally safe. They function less as challenges to power and more as pressure-release valves for discontent that the system knows how to absorb and move past.
The point I’m making is that in using this cavalier language of “parade”, you are also trivializing protest efforts where people have suffered injury or imprisonment; and you justify this to me because they weren’t successful at challenging power, as if this means the risk and injury involved don’t matter. I’m plenty familiar with the arguments about the limited effectiveness of western protests and I think there is validity to that point of view. You can make that point without also throwing under the bus people who have put their lives on the line under unsafe circumstances and you can do it without arrogantly presenting your position as if it speaks for the precise viewpoint of billions of people across the world.
You’re arguing against a position I’m not taking. I’m not dismissing people’s suffering, courage, or risk; I’m rejecting the idea that suffering itself constitutes a challenge to power, or even a protest in any meaningful sense. Repression is not the same thing as leverage.
Western protests don’t “fail” in some tragic way, they’re never structured to succeed in the first place: no durable mass organization, no discipline, no concrete enforceable demands, no escalation strategy, and crucially no mechanism that makes the state fear consequences if it ignores them. Being beaten by cops inside a ritualized protest cycle the state fully understands and contains doesn’t change that.
And yes, from the perspective of the periphery, it’s hard to summon much sympathy when citizens of the core (whose governments operate the largest immiseration apparatus in human history, grinding the periphery nonstop, 24/7 365, with the ultimate orphan-crushing machine) can’t even mount protests that make the slightest material difference. That’s not arrogance or moral contempt; it’s a material critique of a protest culture designed as a pressure-release valve for the empire, not a threat to it, elevated in the West to near-biblical canon where peaceful, state-sanctioned parades are treated as the only legitimate form of politics outside of the ballot box.
Western protests don’t “fail” in some tragic way, they’re never structured to succeed in the first place: no durable mass organization, no discipline, no concrete enforceable demands, no escalation strategy, and crucially no mechanism that makes the state fear consequences if it ignores them.
It’s not your take itself that I’m calling arrogant. What I was calling arrogant was the phrasing that this is a viewpoint held by “much of the world”.
It does bother me to insist on framing it as a parade, even when talking about something that involves tear gas used against people. I associate parade with meaning celebration and good times. I understand not all protests are like this and perhaps for some of them, parade would be a more appropriate framing of them.
I hope it doesn’t come across like I am demanding sympathy. To me, it is more about recognizing appropriately the entirety of liberation struggle and avoiding falling prey to reducing it only to static characteristics, for lack of a better way to put it.
I will also admit I’m not in a great mood about any of this right now and that is affecting how I read things.
I hope it doesn’t come across like I am demanding sympathy. To me, it is more about recognizing appropriately the entirety of liberation struggle and avoiding falling prey to reducing it only to static characteristics, for lack of a better way to put it.
I think the most salient part of the point they’re making is that those protests/parades don’t have any positive material effect, that they are a pressure valve that protects the imperial core from more significant consequences. They’re acutely aware of the entirety of the global liberation struggle, and Western protest culture does not contribute positively to it.
To address the derisive tone of calling them ‘parades’… When people from the Global South give feedback or advice on this kind of thing, Western Leftists ignore them or patronize them. They dig their heels in and double down on the righteousness of their ineffective methods while a significant portion of them continue to uncritically agree with Capitalist media’s portrayal of any actual Socialist governments - In Pacific Asia, in the Sahel, in Latin America - as brutal dictatorships and problematic. Doing things like calling Western Protests ‘Angry Parades’ is a very effective filter when talking to Westerners to see if it’s actually worth discussing politics with them or if they’re more likely to yell at you for undermining the ‘Leftist Unity’ that was needed to get Kamala into the White House and save the world.
To address the derisive tone of calling them ‘parades’… When people from the Global South give feedback or advice on this kind of thing, Western Leftists ignore them or patronize them. They dig their heels in and double down on the righteousness of their ineffective methods while a significant portion of them continue to uncritically agree with Capitalist media’s portrayal of any actual Socialist governments - In Pacific Asia, in the Sahel, in Latin America - as brutal dictatorships and problematic. Doing things like calling Western Protests ‘Angry Parades’ is a very effective filter when talking to Westerners to see if it’s actually worth discussing politics with them or if they’re more likely to yell at you for undermining the ‘Leftist Unity’ that was needed to get Kamala into the White House and save the world.
The reality is if I was my old liberal self, I probably would have said nothing and let it slide. I challenged the other poster on what they said because I’m trying not to let things slide just because some aspect of what they said may have a good point, or I may not want to get into a back and forth that is an uncomfortable or unpopular to do.
And after all of this, I still think the original presentation comes off reductionist, though to give credit where it is due, further explanation has been provided in response to the challenge and I appreciate that. I think it was and is worth going into because we have gotten a more detailed discussion out of it, without it deteriorating (as far as I’m aware) into bad faith or bad feeling. It’s basically the antithesis of how it would have gone if this platform was like twitter. Thankfully, we have the space here to explain ourselves in detail.
On the “much of the world” phrasing: I’m not claiming a universal global consensus. I’m speaking from experience as someone from the periphery who has had the privilege to be able to travel across the periphery, where this is a recurring sentiment I’ve encountered again and again. “Much of the world” may be an exaggeration, but the underlying perspective is far from rare, especially among people whose political reference points are mass struggle, repression, and real confrontations with state power rather than liberal civil society rituals.
On calling them “parades”: I’m not implying joy or celebration. I use the term because these events are seemingly typically state-sanctioned or permitted, confined to approved routes, heavily policed yet managed, and highly choreographed from start to finish. The presence of tear gas or batons doesn’t negate that. Violence can occur entirely within a controlled script, and when the outcome is predictable dispersal rather than escalation or leverage, “parade” is an accurate structural description, not a moral slight.
And to be clear, this isn’t about denying complexity or flattening liberation struggle, it’s about refusing to romanticize impotence. Western protest culture elevates these managed spectacles into moral absolutes while systematically marginalizing forms of struggle that actually threaten power. That’s not neutral; it actively disarms movements by teaching people that symbolic display and sanctioned outrage are the peak of political action. Naming that isn’t disrespectful to those who suffer within these protests, it’s a necessary critique of a model that reproduces defeat while insisting it represents resistance.
If you’re not in a great mood, I get that. But the disagreement here isn’t about empathy; it’s about analysis. And analytically, a system that can absorb mass outrage, brutalize it, and still face no material threat is not being seriously challenged, regardless of how real the pain involved is. And as sad as it sounds a protest that doesn’t challenge power in any meaningful way is best described as a parade.
Western protest culture elevates these managed spectacles into moral absolutes while systematically marginalizing forms of struggle that actually threaten power. That’s not neutral; it actively disarms movements by teaching people that symbolic display and sanctioned outrage are the peak of political action. Naming that isn’t disrespectful to those who suffer within these protests, it’s a necessary critique of a model that reproduces defeat while insisting it represents resistance.
On the “much of the world” phrasing: I’m not claiming a universal global consensus. I’m speaking from experience as someone from the periphery who has had the privilege to be able to travel across the periphery, where this is a recurring sentiment I’ve encountered again and again. “Much of the world” may be an exaggeration, but the underlying perspective is far from rare, especially among people whose political reference points are mass struggle, repression, and real confrontations with state power rather than liberal civil society rituals.
FWIW, I would probably take no issue on the “much of the world” phrasing if you reference it as “based on my recurring experience with others in the periphery.” It makes it clear what your source is, while also still carrying a certain authoritative weight to it, to say that this is what keeps cropping up for you over and over. With the other phrasing, my bullshit meter goes off and I have to wonder if the person isn’t just pulling it out of their backside, no matter how much good faith I may or may not have in them as a person.
I use the term because these events are seemingly typically state-sanctioned or permitted, confined to approved routes, heavily policed yet managed, and highly choreographed from start to finish.
If you’re not in a great mood, I get that. But the disagreement here isn’t about empathy; it’s about analysis. And analytically, a system that can absorb mass outrage, brutalize it, and still face no material threat is not being seriously challenged, regardless of how real the pain involved is. And as sad as it sounds a protest that doesn’t challenge power in any meaningful way is best described as a parade.
Right and I understand the impotence of that and am not in disagreement there. However, I still don’t think parade is appropriate phrasing for every type of it. There is protest that probably fits that description well and then there is protest that is more spontaneous and faces more of a reaction and political repression than otherwise. That the state is willing to do violence in the face of any of it shows that it’s not all state-sanctioned and choreographed and some of it is at most the state grudgingly allowing it to a certain degree it finds acceptable.
I think it would be safe to say the liberal capitalist apparatus only wants to allow the “parade” style of protest. But I think it would be inaccurate to say that’s the only style that ever occurs. It may be fair to say they’re all impotent styles regardless, considering the seeming lack of any resultant change that holds as a broader challenge. But I still don’t think they all qualify as parade-like in the definition you use.
I’m not sure of the connection you’re making to that piece in this context, but I do agree it is a good one and have referenced it a number of times on here.
Thanks for your understanding, I hope your mood improves soon.
It does bother me to insist on framing it as a parade, even when talking about something that involves tear gas used against people. I associate parade with meaning celebration and good times. I understand not all protests are like this and perhaps for some of them, parade would be a more appropriate framing of them.
i “protested” my state’s governor over whatever bullshit they were up to 15 years ago and it was literally just a parade around the capitol building.
i have since seen “protests” that are even less efficacious than that. at least parades usually fuck up traffic for a couple hours.
Is Badempanada not aware of how large the anti-war protests in the US are?
Not to be mean but much of the world doesn’t really see American or really western “protests” as protests they’re more like angry parades
thanks this made me laugh
So the people in 2020 who were brutalized by cops for protesting police brutality, were those parade participants?
Yes? Repression alone doesn’t turn something into a real challenge to power. Liberal states routinely brutalize protests they know will remain contained. In 2020 millions marched, chanted, got beaten, posted photos, then went home and the system carried on largely unchanged: police power intact, imperial violence ongoing, no serious threat to state authority. That’s why much of the world sees Western “protests” as angry parades: emotionally intense, sometimes violently policed, but structurally safe. They function less as challenges to power and more as pressure-release valves for discontent that the system knows how to absorb and move past.
The point I’m making is that in using this cavalier language of “parade”, you are also trivializing protest efforts where people have suffered injury or imprisonment; and you justify this to me because they weren’t successful at challenging power, as if this means the risk and injury involved don’t matter. I’m plenty familiar with the arguments about the limited effectiveness of western protests and I think there is validity to that point of view. You can make that point without also throwing under the bus people who have put their lives on the line under unsafe circumstances and you can do it without arrogantly presenting your position as if it speaks for the precise viewpoint of billions of people across the world.
You’re arguing against a position I’m not taking. I’m not dismissing people’s suffering, courage, or risk; I’m rejecting the idea that suffering itself constitutes a challenge to power, or even a protest in any meaningful sense. Repression is not the same thing as leverage. Western protests don’t “fail” in some tragic way, they’re never structured to succeed in the first place: no durable mass organization, no discipline, no concrete enforceable demands, no escalation strategy, and crucially no mechanism that makes the state fear consequences if it ignores them. Being beaten by cops inside a ritualized protest cycle the state fully understands and contains doesn’t change that. And yes, from the perspective of the periphery, it’s hard to summon much sympathy when citizens of the core (whose governments operate the largest immiseration apparatus in human history, grinding the periphery nonstop, 24/7 365, with the ultimate orphan-crushing machine) can’t even mount protests that make the slightest material difference. That’s not arrogance or moral contempt; it’s a material critique of a protest culture designed as a pressure-release valve for the empire, not a threat to it, elevated in the West to near-biblical canon where peaceful, state-sanctioned parades are treated as the only legitimate form of politics outside of the ballot box.
💯 ^This. So much this. Very well said.
For those still lurking:
To try to clarify some things:
I will also admit I’m not in a great mood about any of this right now and that is affecting how I read things.
I think the most salient part of the point they’re making is that those protests/parades don’t have any positive material effect, that they are a pressure valve that protects the imperial core from more significant consequences. They’re acutely aware of the entirety of the global liberation struggle, and Western protest culture does not contribute positively to it.
To address the derisive tone of calling them ‘parades’… When people from the Global South give feedback or advice on this kind of thing, Western Leftists ignore them or patronize them. They dig their heels in and double down on the righteousness of their ineffective methods while a significant portion of them continue to uncritically agree with Capitalist media’s portrayal of any actual Socialist governments - In Pacific Asia, in the Sahel, in Latin America - as brutal dictatorships and problematic. Doing things like calling Western Protests ‘Angry Parades’ is a very effective filter when talking to Westerners to see if it’s actually worth discussing politics with them or if they’re more likely to yell at you for undermining the ‘Leftist Unity’ that was needed to get Kamala into the White House and save the world.
The reality is if I was my old liberal self, I probably would have said nothing and let it slide. I challenged the other poster on what they said because I’m trying not to let things slide just because some aspect of what they said may have a good point, or I may not want to get into a back and forth that is an uncomfortable or unpopular to do.
And after all of this, I still think the original presentation comes off reductionist, though to give credit where it is due, further explanation has been provided in response to the challenge and I appreciate that. I think it was and is worth going into because we have gotten a more detailed discussion out of it, without it deteriorating (as far as I’m aware) into bad faith or bad feeling. It’s basically the antithesis of how it would have gone if this platform was like twitter. Thankfully, we have the space here to explain ourselves in detail.
On the “much of the world” phrasing: I’m not claiming a universal global consensus. I’m speaking from experience as someone from the periphery who has had the privilege to be able to travel across the periphery, where this is a recurring sentiment I’ve encountered again and again. “Much of the world” may be an exaggeration, but the underlying perspective is far from rare, especially among people whose political reference points are mass struggle, repression, and real confrontations with state power rather than liberal civil society rituals.
On calling them “parades”: I’m not implying joy or celebration. I use the term because these events are seemingly typically state-sanctioned or permitted, confined to approved routes, heavily policed yet managed, and highly choreographed from start to finish. The presence of tear gas or batons doesn’t negate that. Violence can occur entirely within a controlled script, and when the outcome is predictable dispersal rather than escalation or leverage, “parade” is an accurate structural description, not a moral slight.
And to be clear, this isn’t about denying complexity or flattening liberation struggle, it’s about refusing to romanticize impotence. Western protest culture elevates these managed spectacles into moral absolutes while systematically marginalizing forms of struggle that actually threaten power. That’s not neutral; it actively disarms movements by teaching people that symbolic display and sanctioned outrage are the peak of political action. Naming that isn’t disrespectful to those who suffer within these protests, it’s a necessary critique of a model that reproduces defeat while insisting it represents resistance.
If you’re not in a great mood, I get that. But the disagreement here isn’t about empathy; it’s about analysis. And analytically, a system that can absorb mass outrage, brutalize it, and still face no material threat is not being seriously challenged, regardless of how real the pain involved is. And as sad as it sounds a protest that doesn’t challenge power in any meaningful way is best described as a parade.
Well said!
FWIW, I would probably take no issue on the “much of the world” phrasing if you reference it as “based on my recurring experience with others in the periphery.” It makes it clear what your source is, while also still carrying a certain authoritative weight to it, to say that this is what keeps cropping up for you over and over. With the other phrasing, my bullshit meter goes off and I have to wonder if the person isn’t just pulling it out of their backside, no matter how much good faith I may or may not have in them as a person.
Right and I understand the impotence of that and am not in disagreement there. However, I still don’t think parade is appropriate phrasing for every type of it. There is protest that probably fits that description well and then there is protest that is more spontaneous and faces more of a reaction and political repression than otherwise. That the state is willing to do violence in the face of any of it shows that it’s not all state-sanctioned and choreographed and some of it is at most the state grudgingly allowing it to a certain degree it finds acceptable.
I think it would be safe to say the liberal capitalist apparatus only wants to allow the “parade” style of protest. But I think it would be inaccurate to say that’s the only style that ever occurs. It may be fair to say they’re all impotent styles regardless, considering the seeming lack of any resultant change that holds as a broader challenge. But I still don’t think they all qualify as parade-like in the definition you use.
It’s alright not to be in a great mood, I’m not in a great mood either.
The key work here is Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture by Jones Manoel. The viewpoints in the book still hold up after six years, and age very well after one very concessionist 46th administration.
Read that a few years back hard to disagree with seeing what has happened to now.
I’m not sure of the connection you’re making to that piece in this context, but I do agree it is a good one and have referenced it a number of times on here.
Thanks for your understanding, I hope your mood improves soon.
i “protested” my state’s governor over whatever bullshit they were up to 15 years ago and it was literally just a parade around the capitol building.
i have since seen “protests” that are even less efficacious than that. at least parades usually fuck up traffic for a couple hours.
hard to say since he’s a ragebaiter. it’s maybe fair to ignore our anti-war protests since the government doesn’t pay attention to them either.
the only attention most protests require from the state is local police giving approval to when/where it happens
“protests”angry parades*