[I originally posted this in chapotraphouse, but it was deleted for being “pro-cop” even though that very much wasn’t the case. (I believe PSL was actually involved in organizing the protest if I’m not mistaken.) The mod that deleted it openly broke the sectarian rule too.]
Been seeing a lot of people hating on what the protest marshals did during the pro-Gaza protests at the DNC and I feel they definitely did the right thing. Instigating stuff like going up against the cops under the guise of “revolutionary” action just gets a lot of people arrested and doesn’t accomplish anything.
EDIT: Users who were present at the protests have said, counter to what is claimed in the screenshot, that the protest marshals did NOT call for the police. Thank you for clearing this up, comrades!
I (and a lot of the groups that planned this march) would probably agree. If you look at that list you will see a lot of groups that aren't committed in principle to only nonviolent actions. But they made a strategic decision to have a large demonstration on the first day of the convention and they executed the plan. You're not going to get 17k people to come out for bricks through windows simply because the libs won't show and neither will the people who can't afford to get arrested
Yeah like I was hoping to see things on the level of the George Floyd protests, or Jan 6 but good.
It feels like the student encampments got both more attention and more actual concessions and those were in places that should’ve been incredibly easy to ignore, whereas this was where the people with the power actually were.
Maybe I just fundamentally think having a large peaceful demonstration instead of a smaller non-peaceful one was a bad decision
But I’m not there, who am I to judge, I’m just armchair quarterbacking protests
I think it's fine to disagree with the overall strategy, but they did plan and execute it effectively. What I take issue with is the people (including in this thread) in high dudgeon to demand that the organizers allow contingents of wreckers to hijack the action. Nobody was prevented from planning more radical actions, only from using this one as cover.
Are you saying that because one org got the permits no other groups are allowed to be there on the same day? Because then the best way to prevent any real action is to plan 'peaceful protests' at any event someone might want to do more at.
One org?
Nobody was prevented from planning a separate action on the same day or on one of the other days of the convention. Wonder why these mysterious other groups you're referencing didn't just do that
One org in the sense that it was one planned event. Sorry its a coalition of groups that all got their own permits.
Youre right, they should have made their own direct action facebook event and got their own permit if they wanted to do anything outside of those in charge. Turning people over to the cops is important because they didnt listen to the leaders of the coalition.
So you're saying the only way these "groups" (who are they again? I don't believe you've said) can operate is by hijacking someone else's planned event. Interesting
I don't endorse that and it didn't happen
The problem isn’t that other unspecified groups were prevented from doing things, but that all of the major orgs agreed to a neutered strategy
I don't have any problem with disagreeing with the overall strategy. I would prefer if protestors had burned the DNC to the ground, frankly. But there's no reason to believe that would have happened if this march hadn't been planned and executed on the first day of the convention. The numbers weren't there for effective violent action, and if people want to get their heads stomped in a police riot to no effect they can do it any other time and place