Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"What Makes Non-Violent Movements Explode?" [View all]
From Bill Moyers' site, in this, imo, good analysis of protest movements, a question that is vital to those trying to get attention for important issues, is asked: 'Why do some such movements fail to get attention while others 'explode' as he calls it, 'dominating the news cycles for weeks at a time'?
What Makes Non-Violent Movements Explode?
By the fall of 2011, three years after the economic downturn had begun, political observers such as Krugman had long wondered when worsening conditions would result in public demonstrations against joblessness and foreclosures. Labor unions and major nonprofit organizations had attempted to build mass movement energy around these very issues. In the fall of 2010, the “One Nation Working Together” march — initiated primarily by the AFL-CIO and the NAACP — drew more than 175,000 people to Washington, DC, with demands to combat runaway inequality. The next year, long-time organizer and charismatic former White House staffer Van Jones launched Rebuild the Dream, a major drive to form a progressive alternative to the tea party.
According to the rules of conventional organizing, these efforts did everything right. They rallied significant resources, they drew on the strength of organizations with robust membership bases, they came up with sophisticated policy demands, and they forged impressive coalitions. And yet, they made little headway. Even their largest mobilizations attracted only modest press attention and quickly faded from popular political memory.
According to the rules of conventional organizing, these efforts did everything right. They rallied significant resources, they drew on the strength of organizations with robust membership bases, they came up with sophisticated policy demands, and they forged impressive coalitions. And yet, they made little headway. Even their largest mobilizations attracted only modest press attention and quickly faded from popular political memory.
This is so true, remember the anti-War protests, eg? They were huge, well organized but received little attention at all to the point where many people still don't remember them.
What worked was something different. “A group of people started camping out in Zuccotti Park,” Krugman explained just weeks after Occupy burst into the national consciousness, “and all of a sudden the conversation has changed significantly towards being about the right things.”
“It’s kind of a miracle,” he added.
For those who study the use of strategic nonviolent conflict, the abrupt rise of Occupy Wall Street was certainly impressive, but its emergence was not a product of miraculous, otherworldly intervention. Instead, it was an example of two powerful forces working in tandem: namely, disruption and sacrifice.
“It’s kind of a miracle,” he added.
For those who study the use of strategic nonviolent conflict, the abrupt rise of Occupy Wall Street was certainly impressive, but its emergence was not a product of miraculous, otherworldly intervention. Instead, it was an example of two powerful forces working in tandem: namely, disruption and sacrifice.
The article is worth reading in its entirety. But for the most part I think the observations made as to why OWS was such a success (despite the attempts to deny this from the Right) while other even larger and very organized movements that preceded it, failed to get that kind of attention are pretty accurate.
I would add to what the author has to say that it was BECAUSE of the failure to gain attention by the anti-War movement and the others, Van Jones' eg, that OWS decided to use the different strategy they used.
As the article points out, a huge protest in DC for one day, gets little attention. They get their permits, cops get overtime, and everyone goes home and it is quickly forgotten.
All of which had been noted by the organizers of OWS. They did not expect to last longer a week or two at most.
They succeeded beyond even their own predictions. And while the spotlight was on them, they presented a 'lingo' to the world that concisely described the corruption on Wall St that led to the crash and to the loss of jobs, the inequality in the country etc, that is now part of the language.
The most important proof of the huge success of OWS is the absolute hatred directed towards it by the usual suspects. However those 'suspects' had a lot to overcome. At one point in NYC polls showed the over 80% of the public supported their right to do what they were doing.
So can populists use these strategies to get their message across?
Strikes, boycotts what will it take to get the attention of the public enough to gain support for a populist movement?
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read