@Big Al

I think there is a lot to be said for disrupting the status quo, no matter what that looks like. Personally, I don't care that people are pissed off because they are late to work or can't shop or the McDonald's is boarded up. There needs to be disruption.

The treatment of people of color and poor people in this country creates enormous inconvenience for them, to say the least, and if middle-class people or other folks (bystanders not involved in actively protesting) are unable to go about their business, ignoring the oppression happening all around them, that's OK with me.

When we're assessing whether these protests "work," I don't think the goal is to convince anyone to join the action or even to support the cause. I think the goal is to stop capitalism for a minute or an hour or a day. And I support that. If the inconvenience turns someone off and they withdraw their support for black lives or NoDAPL, then they weren't that supportive to begin with. As the slogan goes "If we don't get it [justice], shut it [capitalism] down!"

The argument about emergency vehicles is a red-herring, in my mind. First, poor communities often are underserved by those who are supposed to help (like fire dept and ambulances). Second, every time I've witnessed an action that is blocking roadways or stores, the protesters have been very willing to let emergency vehicles through.

I've also had the experience of not knowing a blockade was going to take place and being caught in the resulting traffic, and I was always really happy that some folks were taking action and standing up against business as usual.

That said, I've tried to think of the positive impact the blocking of roads and freeways might have, whether it is a useful tactic. I can't think of any way it contributes toward the goal of making our politicians listen to us. In fact, it appears to have the opposite effect on our politicians as these stupid fucking laws indicate. I live in the Portland, OR area and there have been many protests here where the freeways, roads and bridges have been blocked. I've reviewed the media and the comments from people after such actions and what it really does is piss a lot of people off and completely turn them off from the protesters primary goals. It can be a dangerous tactic in that it can prevent people and first responders from getting to where they need to be.
In short, it doesn't work.

@Big Al from population centers on historic tribal lands. Their protest does seem to have earned them public sympathy. I think the efficacy depends on the context. It appears that the government wants to continue the genocide of native peoples with impunity.

That said, I've tried to think of the positive impact the blocking of roads and freeways might have, whether it is a useful tactic. I can't think of any way it contributes toward the goal of making our politicians listen to us. In fact, it appears to have the opposite effect on our politicians as these stupid fucking laws indicate. I live in the Portland, OR area and there have been many protests here where the freeways, roads and bridges have been blocked. I've reviewed the media and the comments from people after such actions and what it really does is piss a lot of people off and completely turn them off from the protesters primary goals. It can be a dangerous tactic in that it can prevent people and first responders from getting to where they need to be.
In short, it doesn't work.

@Big Al As a Bolivian who has blocked many roads and helped topple governments, I would say that blocking roads is a highly effective method of non-violent protest. This is especially so if the goals are clear, specific and have popular support.

It needs to get less timid to be successful. Old junk cars that run out of gas, sharpened jumping jacks, a couple of kilometers of stones, mobile blockades (disperse/regroup/disperse/regroup), stone-throwing, are all useful non-violent tactics.

Look for an issue that most citizens can agree on helps. It needs to be sustained and national.

That said, I've tried to think of the positive impact the blocking of roads and freeways might have, whether it is a useful tactic. I can't think of any way it contributes toward the goal of making our politicians listen to us. In fact, it appears to have the opposite effect on our politicians as these stupid fucking laws indicate. I live in the Portland, OR area and there have been many protests here where the freeways, roads and bridges have been blocked. I've reviewed the media and the comments from people after such actions and what it really does is piss a lot of people off and completely turn them off from the protesters primary goals. It can be a dangerous tactic in that it can prevent people and first responders from getting to where they need to be.
In short, it doesn't work.

@Big Al It is irrelevant to the passage of laws permitting vehicular murder, isn't it? I might agree with you but these laws are beyond the ken. The logic or illogic of the tactic is no excuse for the passage or exercise of such laws.

Surely there is some constitutional basis for challenge in the courts?

This is outrageous. What is next, the right to kill people who dare to write letters to the editor that criticize the state?

Legalized murder. It was bad enough when stand your ground came about (and note how much/often that law has been abused), but this seriously threatens citizen rights, along with their lives. What, no exception for children or infants? What about the disabled who just can't get out of the way fast enough? If it wasn't so draconian it would be laughable.

That said, I've tried to think of the positive impact the blocking of roads and freeways might have, whether it is a useful tactic. I can't think of any way it contributes toward the goal of making our politicians listen to us. In fact, it appears to have the opposite effect on our politicians as these stupid fucking laws indicate. I live in the Portland, OR area and there have been many protests here where the freeways, roads and bridges have been blocked. I've reviewed the media and the comments from people after such actions and what it really does is piss a lot of people off and completely turn them off from the protesters primary goals. It can be a dangerous tactic in that it can prevent people and first responders from getting to where they need to be.
In short, it doesn't work.

@Big Al The people never have enough power to make one sweeping broad move that is an instant success. We have to keep picking and pecking and disrupting and we must be willing to die in order to keep doing the same.

So roadblocks are just one of the tiny nicks we can make. Interrupt their money making. Yes, a roadblock does that in a teeny tiny way. If people can't or don't get to work, money is not made. A nation-wide strike would be great and more of a cut than a nick of a roadblock, but they both yield blood, no matter how small the drop.

I look at where we're at in this country and it just keeps getting worse, so from that perspective I view nothing we've done in the past as "working". They disrupt traffic for a few days or nights, everyone gets pissed, they feel they made a point, then shit just gets worse.
It doesn't work, not for bringing down the power, which is my goal. We need people power for that it's that simple and that has to come from a lot more than protests. It has to be a sustained organized movement.
I used to feel similar to what you've described in your comment and can relate, but after deep thought about what "can we do", I don't think that's a productive action. I don't see a payoff.

@blazinAZ One serious problem is that there is no alternative structure even proposed, much less in place. There is not even grounding in any ideology that could form the basis of an structure. So, if the capitalist government were toppled tomorrow, there would be nothing to replace it with, and result in a chaotic bloodbath led by the strongest troglodyte goons.

A good place to start is with block committees and neighborhood committees where everyone is represented to improve their block and neighborhood and make alliances with neighboring commitees for larger projects. These replace the existing structure/dependence on capitalist govt. structure. There could also be neighborhood women's committees to handle all sorts of female empowerment issues. If faced with violence, neighborhood defense units can be established.

We need people power for that it's that simple and that has to come from a lot more than protests. It has to be a sustained organized movement.

A movement doing what? You say in your comment "bringing down the power, which is my goal." How does that get accomplished if protesters who disrupt the status quo are criticized both for their tactics and for being ineffective?

How do we bring down the power (which to me is systemic capitalism and militarism) without poking at it, undermining it, eroding it little by little? Armed revolution?

Those in power will not willingly hand it over just because we say "there's a lot of us who want this."

I really want to know your deep thought about what can we do. I mean, concrete actions we should be taking today, since disruption is not it.

@Creosote.

Typo corrected!

@ CZ in AZ upthread, should read, [at Columbia] "they did not go out of their way to endanger lives and hurt ordinary people."

@Alphalop The Failure of Nonviolence by Peter Gelderloos

https://web.stanford.edu/group/peacejustice/Gelderloos-Failure-of-Nonvio...

Perhaps the most important argument against nonviolence is that violence as a concept is ambiguous to the point of being incoherent. It is a concept that is prone to manipulation, and its definition is in the hands of the media and the government, so that those who base their struggle on trying to avoid it will forever be taking cues and following the lead of those in power.

How was the category of “violence” introduced in our strategic debates? I would argue that it was introduced by the very institution that serves as the gatekeeper to people's perception of violence: the media. It is the media who constantly discipline social movements to adopt these categories and defend themselves from the ever-ready accusation of being “violent”. As soon as dissidents try to defend themselves by arguing that they are not violent, they have fallen into the trap, taking up the values of the State and adopting its preferred category.

Aside from uncleanliness or hygiene, the principal term used to unleash a moral panic and mobilize elite action was “violence”. Among the elite. . . “violence” was [is] a euphemism for a threat to the ruling order and its illusion of social peace, with which the class struggle, the brutality of patriarchy, and the murderousness of colonialism are hidden. The newspapers did not talk about violence when cops killed strikers, when landlords evicted families, or when poor people died of hunger. They talked about violence when workers went on strike, when tenants stopped paying rent, when street vendors refused to surrender their wares to the cops (who would harass them at the behest of the store owners), and when anarchists carried out sabotage or held unpermitted marches.

One of the advantages of moralizing elite discourses, and of democratic government as well, is that they train the oppressed to adopt the mentality and the language of the oppressor.

That only mostly causes problems for would be allies.

Go after the structure/people that are keeping you down.

Blockade City hall and government offices.

Blockade shipping hubs, large bank buildings, police academies and court houses.

Block the State Legislature.

But for shits sake, stop blocking regular people going about their day, all that does is piss off potential allies rather than garner sympathy.

Pretty much everyone on here knows where I lie on the political spectrum and even I can't help but mutter, "Dumb Fucks..." every time I see them doing this nonsense.

It's worse than being non-productive, it's counter-productive.