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 think where we’re talking past each other, I’m not claiming Western protest takes only one empirical form. There are broadly two recurring styles in my view. One is the riot: spontaneous, emotionally charged, sometimes violent, often met with sharp repression, but lacking durable organization, coherent leadership, concrete demands, or any capacity to sustain itself beyond the moment. The other is the parade: non-violent, usually permitted or tolerated, more organized on the surface, but structurally hollow, no leverage, no escalation strategy, no consequences for being ignored.
I focus on the “parade” not because riots don’t happen, but because parades are culturally and politically dominant in the West. They are normalized, celebrated, taught as the legitimate form of dissent, and elevated in the cultural zeitgeist as the model of “good protest.” That makes them far more analytically significant. They shape how people understand politics, what kinds of action are deemed acceptable, and crucially what kinds are ruled out in advance.
Neither form, however, really qualifies as protest in a meaningful political sense. Both lack what actually matters: mass organization, enforceable demands, and a credible threat of escalation if ignored or repressed. One burns hot and collapses; the other marches safely and dissipates. The state can absorb both without fear. That’s the core issue. The problem isn’t tone or terminology, it’s that Western protest culture is seemingly structurally incapable of converting mass discontent into anything other than showmanship.
There are broadly two recurring styles in my view. One is the riot: spontaneous, emotionally charged, sometimes violent, often met with sharp repression, but lacking durable organization, coherent leadership, concrete demands, or any capacity to sustain itself beyond the moment. The other is the parade: non-violent, usually permitted or tolerated, more organized on the surface, but structurally hollow, no leverage, no escalation strategy, no consequences for being ignored. I focus on the “parade” not because riots don’t happen, but because parades are culturally and politically dominant in the West. They are normalized, celebrated, taught as the legitimate form of dissent, and elevated in the cultural zeitgeist as the model of “good protest.” That makes them far more analytically significant. They shape how people understand politics, what kinds of action are deemed acceptable, and crucially what kinds are ruled out in advance. Neither form, however, really qualifies as protest in a meaningful political sense. Both lack what actually matters: mass organization, enforceable demands, and a credible threat of escalation if ignored or repressed. One burns hot and collapses; the other marches safely and dissipates. The state can absorb both without fear. That’s the core issue. The problem isn’t tone or terminology, it’s that Western protest culture is seemingly structurally incapable of converting mass discontent into anything other than showmanship.
This is such a banger of a comment that if you ever get the chance please flesh it out into a post/substack/essay series etc and also with what you propose should happen from a dialectical materialist perspective (with citations etc). Only if you ever get the chance/time.
(If the person you’re replying to reads this: please don’t take this personally from me against you. I too am still learning and your posts are always an interesting read.)
Thank you for your reply I would like to go much more in depth at some point as I find it to be a very interesting topic but for now I think I’ll simply point to a book and an essay that I feel each encapsulate part of the issue.
First is Guy Debord The Society of the Spectacle, this I feel brings to light the issue in advanced capitalist countries for spectacle to replace real action and interaction.
Second is Jones Manoel Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture, which I feel succinctly explains in some way why even the western left falls prey to the spectacular yet materially ineffectual parades and riots as opposed to real organized protest with mass organisation, concrete demands and an escalation plan.
As for “what is to be done,” as much as I’d love to simply say form a maoist guerilla force and overthrow your overlords, I don’t think the real answer is that interesting or that novel a concept even in the west. Politically meaningful protest (even in the West) has historically depended on mass organization, clear material demands, and a credible threat of escalation. During the civil rights movement, disciplined organizations like the NAACP and CORE coordinated sustained action, while local militant currents, such as the Deacons for Defense, made repression costly and instability plausible. Later organizations, including the Black Panther Party, built on these lessons, demonstrating how escalation coupled with strong organization could influence political outcomes. Without comparable structures, leverage, and escalation potential, protest tends to collapse into either brief outbursts or sanctioned displays, both of which the state can safely absorb.
It is likely we are talking past each other to some extent. Though I am curious to ask, what forms of resistance in history you think are good examples of not falling prey to this kind of thing (beyond just principles we could state like “political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”); maybe you have studied it more detail than I have and can provide insight. One that comes to mind for me is the IRA in Ireland.
One thing that does strike me as odd about the US is how gun-happy the culture is on the whole, yet the gun-happy culture seems primarily centered around the “right”, with the “left” being more likely to be shy of it. But this may be due to militant left struggle facing assassination and imprisonment (ex: The Black Panther Party) and largely leaving behind liberal pacifists to dominate the narrative.
I agree with you on the IRA, and more than that, I see it as a clear example of an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial movement that extracted real material gains from a vastly more powerful state. Whatever one thinks of its limitations or internal contradictions, the IRA and the broader republican movement forced the British state to negotiate, reshaped the political terrain in Ireland, and secured concrete concessions that would have been impossible through moral appeal or symbolic protest alone. It didn’t achieve everything it set out to, but it demonstrated decisively how mass community support, disciplined organization, clear objectives, and a credible capacity for escalation can make an occupying power unable to simply ignore resistance.
If I had to point to a broader analytical frame before listing examples, as I did elsewhere in this thread, I’d flag two texts that get at the underlying problem. Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle is useful for understanding how, in advanced capitalist societies, representation, spectacle, and performance replace real action and interaction. Politics becomes something to be seen rather than something that exerts force. Jones Manoel’s essay Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture is important for explaining why even the Western left internalizes this logic, mistaking visibility, suffering, and moral witness for power, and repeatedly reproducing forms of action that feel meaningful but are materially ineffectual.
Historically, politically meaningful protest, even in the West, has looked very different. It has depended on mass organization, clear material demands, and a credible threat of escalation. During the U.S. civil rights movement, disciplined organizations like the NAACP, SCLC, and CORE coordinated sustained campaigns, while armed self-defense formations such as the Deacons for Defense made repression costly and instability plausible. Later, the Black Panther Party took this further by combining political education, mass programs, and armed deterrence, precisely why it was met with assassination, infiltration, and destruction. A third example is the early labor movement. Strikes worked not because workers marched politely, but because organized labor could shut down production, disrupt profits, and escalate to militancy if ignored.
The difference between these cases and modern Western “parades” (a term I’ll continue to use because it best captures the structure) is decisive. Effective movements were not oriented toward spectacle, moral signaling, or catharsis. They were oriented toward leverage. They built durable organizations, articulated concrete demands, and created conditions in which ignoring them carried real costs. Contemporary Western “protests”, whether riots that burn out quickly or sanctioned marches that dissipate harmlessly, lack those fundamentals. That’s why they are absorbable. And that’s why, analytically, they function less as protests in the classical sense and more as managed expressions of dissent within a system that no longer fears them, angry parades rather than challenges to power.
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.
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.
I think where we’re talking past each other, I’m not claiming Western protest takes only one empirical form. There are broadly two recurring styles in my view. One is the riot: spontaneous, emotionally charged, sometimes violent, often met with sharp repression, but lacking durable organization, coherent leadership, concrete demands, or any capacity to sustain itself beyond the moment. The other is the parade: non-violent, usually permitted or tolerated, more organized on the surface, but structurally hollow, no leverage, no escalation strategy, no consequences for being ignored. I focus on the “parade” not because riots don’t happen, but because parades are culturally and politically dominant in the West. They are normalized, celebrated, taught as the legitimate form of dissent, and elevated in the cultural zeitgeist as the model of “good protest.” That makes them far more analytically significant. They shape how people understand politics, what kinds of action are deemed acceptable, and crucially what kinds are ruled out in advance. Neither form, however, really qualifies as protest in a meaningful political sense. Both lack what actually matters: mass organization, enforceable demands, and a credible threat of escalation if ignored or repressed. One burns hot and collapses; the other marches safely and dissipates. The state can absorb both without fear. That’s the core issue. The problem isn’t tone or terminology, it’s that Western protest culture is seemingly structurally incapable of converting mass discontent into anything other than showmanship.
This is such a banger of a comment that if you ever get the chance please flesh it out into a post/substack/essay series etc and also with what you propose should happen from a dialectical materialist perspective (with citations etc). Only if you ever get the chance/time.
(If the person you’re replying to reads this: please don’t take this personally from me against you. I too am still learning and your posts are always an interesting read.)
Thank you for your reply I would like to go much more in depth at some point as I find it to be a very interesting topic but for now I think I’ll simply point to a book and an essay that I feel each encapsulate part of the issue.
First is Guy Debord The Society of the Spectacle, this I feel brings to light the issue in advanced capitalist countries for spectacle to replace real action and interaction.
Second is Jones Manoel Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture, which I feel succinctly explains in some way why even the western left falls prey to the spectacular yet materially ineffectual parades and riots as opposed to real organized protest with mass organisation, concrete demands and an escalation plan.
As for “what is to be done,” as much as I’d love to simply say form a maoist guerilla force and overthrow your overlords, I don’t think the real answer is that interesting or that novel a concept even in the west. Politically meaningful protest (even in the West) has historically depended on mass organization, clear material demands, and a credible threat of escalation. During the civil rights movement, disciplined organizations like the NAACP and CORE coordinated sustained action, while local militant currents, such as the Deacons for Defense, made repression costly and instability plausible. Later organizations, including the Black Panther Party, built on these lessons, demonstrating how escalation coupled with strong organization could influence political outcomes. Without comparable structures, leverage, and escalation potential, protest tends to collapse into either brief outbursts or sanctioned displays, both of which the state can safely absorb.
It is likely we are talking past each other to some extent. Though I am curious to ask, what forms of resistance in history you think are good examples of not falling prey to this kind of thing (beyond just principles we could state like “political power comes out of the barrel of a gun”); maybe you have studied it more detail than I have and can provide insight. One that comes to mind for me is the IRA in Ireland.
One thing that does strike me as odd about the US is how gun-happy the culture is on the whole, yet the gun-happy culture seems primarily centered around the “right”, with the “left” being more likely to be shy of it. But this may be due to militant left struggle facing assassination and imprisonment (ex: The Black Panther Party) and largely leaving behind liberal pacifists to dominate the narrative.
I agree with you on the IRA, and more than that, I see it as a clear example of an anti-imperialist, anti-colonial movement that extracted real material gains from a vastly more powerful state. Whatever one thinks of its limitations or internal contradictions, the IRA and the broader republican movement forced the British state to negotiate, reshaped the political terrain in Ireland, and secured concrete concessions that would have been impossible through moral appeal or symbolic protest alone. It didn’t achieve everything it set out to, but it demonstrated decisively how mass community support, disciplined organization, clear objectives, and a credible capacity for escalation can make an occupying power unable to simply ignore resistance. If I had to point to a broader analytical frame before listing examples, as I did elsewhere in this thread, I’d flag two texts that get at the underlying problem. Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle is useful for understanding how, in advanced capitalist societies, representation, spectacle, and performance replace real action and interaction. Politics becomes something to be seen rather than something that exerts force. Jones Manoel’s essay Western Marxism, the Fetish for Defeat, and Christian Culture is important for explaining why even the Western left internalizes this logic, mistaking visibility, suffering, and moral witness for power, and repeatedly reproducing forms of action that feel meaningful but are materially ineffectual. Historically, politically meaningful protest, even in the West, has looked very different. It has depended on mass organization, clear material demands, and a credible threat of escalation. During the U.S. civil rights movement, disciplined organizations like the NAACP, SCLC, and CORE coordinated sustained campaigns, while armed self-defense formations such as the Deacons for Defense made repression costly and instability plausible. Later, the Black Panther Party took this further by combining political education, mass programs, and armed deterrence, precisely why it was met with assassination, infiltration, and destruction. A third example is the early labor movement. Strikes worked not because workers marched politely, but because organized labor could shut down production, disrupt profits, and escalate to militancy if ignored. The difference between these cases and modern Western “parades” (a term I’ll continue to use because it best captures the structure) is decisive. Effective movements were not oriented toward spectacle, moral signaling, or catharsis. They were oriented toward leverage. They built durable organizations, articulated concrete demands, and created conditions in which ignoring them carried real costs. Contemporary Western “protests”, whether riots that burn out quickly or sanctioned marches that dissipate harmlessly, lack those fundamentals. That’s why they are absorbable. And that’s why, analytically, they function less as protests in the classical sense and more as managed expressions of dissent within a system that no longer fears them, angry parades rather than challenges to power.
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.