But I'm saying something has to happen to change things. The rulers don't watch polls and as soon as it hits a magical number decide to step down. You don't just win once you cross a threshold. You cross the threshold and people take action up to make it happen. It's the beginning of change, not the end.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, yes, I guess you haven’t been at it for long, then.

Protests are not the only thing going on in social change situations. When speaking about it, you will find people just assume you know about the shitton of other concurrent organizing associated with movements.

Protests are about building participation as much as threatening the monopoly of power. (Note that smashing store windows is not what threatens that monopoly, that’s usually idiots or provocateurs.)

Think of protests as foundation, and the civil development of organizations as walls. They also need a unifying idea to cover things, and since anti capitalism is taboo in the USA, that’s where they’re really fucked.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I’m just confused as to how this threatens the monopoly of power without any use of violence?

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago

Better to keep those things, reasonable people upset about things, and power-threatening violence, kind of separate if not surgical.

There's a reason fascists send brick throwers into protests. It forces the protesters to cede the high ground, which divides public opinion and is a loss of the primary goal: to grow until you can no longer be ignored.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 3 days ago

Yes.