a reality that socialist or progressive protestors must take into account is that disorder on the streets always works to the political advantage of fascists, who credibly promise order at all costs even while they cynically ensure protest becomes disorderly.
it’s not fair, but it is reality. in the ecstasy of genuine righteousness one may not give a fuck, but then a morning after comes.
@divya ACT UP caused very narrow and targeted disorder on the streets, and famously paired it with an inside strategy. i’m not saying all protest is bad. i’m saying effective protest is orderly, intentionally and clearly contained, carefully controlled because when it devolves into anything that resembles street violence you lose. the 1980s were a propitious time for these protests, bc there was a right wing govt but no fascist outside movement contesting. 1/
@divya the civil rights movement has to be scored a win for outside protest, but it was a close run thing, under unusual circumstances, in which people were so committed they not only began nonviolent but remained so under baton and fist. even so, it likely would not have succeeded if the disorder had not been confined to a fraction of the country the rest was embarrassed about, and extraordinary efforts by LBJ. i think we’ve overlearned from a very close-run N=1. 2/
@divya There was a lot going on, sure. And there was violence. You can make a case that a generalized sense of threat played bad cop to the ostentatious virtue of MLK's nonviolent movement. Riots sometime lead to change. But they often lead to reaction. 1/
@divya You can tell lots of stories about the 60s. But I don't think you can fairly look at the world and conclude that violent chaos frequently births leftish or liberal or just orders. You can maybe claim CRM as a counterexample, if you want to emphasize the sense of threat. But then the political aftermath of the 60s was mostly reaction. Vietnam War protests just picked off LBJ, which did not redound to the benefit of people in Indochina. /fin
@divya I haven't read Schulman's history, but I think there's no dispute the outside track played a crucial role. (I think the inside track did too.) But Act Up protest was mostly (not always) pretty targeted at powerful institutions. Act Up was not a disruptive or frightening force for bystanders going about their lives. Act Up largely substituted brilliant performance for generalized disruption as a way of attracting media attention. Outsiders could sympathize without having been messed with.
@interfluidity How does MLK fit into this analysis? A lot of what they did was quite orderly by my standards, but was still treated as "disorder on the streets". But MLK persisted in creating what he called "positive tension" because he knew that the only acceptably orderly objection to the status quo was one small enough to be ignored. And I'd have a hard time saying that MLK's work always worked to the political advantage of the fascists.
@williampietri MLK had the advantage that his audience was spectators, publics of a north that actively disidentified with Jim Crow fascism and were willing to blame southern leadership rather than protesters for disorder. had the relevant public been only the people of the US south, it would have been a much riskier strategy. and MLK paid exceptional care in public to the manner of protest and discipline within its ranks, hard, esp in the presence of provocateurs, hard to keep up.
@interfluidity the problem is that any peaceful protest can be turned into disorder with some planted agents provocateurs and arranged counter-protests
Add comment