Three Obstructive Protests Fizzle Out

Over the past two weeks three obstructive protests were scheduled that I admire for their willingness to step above symbolic expression to take practical steps against social systems wheeling out of control. By gumming up points of vulnerability in those social systems, these protests sought to demonstrate to corporate and government authorities that change was necessary.

The only catch was that in order for these protests to work, large numbers people had to actually participate. On November 24, Opt Out Day, only a few of the people going through airport checkpoints opted for physical searches, so the checkpoints were not clogged as planned. On November 26, Buy Nothing Day, overall spending soared. Bank Run day yesterday failed to materialize when not enough people took money out of their bank accounts to cause a hiccup in the financial system.

The failure lies not in the strategy of the protests, but rather in the unwillingness of people to participate in them.

This entry was posted in Activism. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Three Obstructive Protests Fizzle Out

  1. Anonymous says:

    …protesting in mass still takes money, time and logistics…unless there are free handouts, a chance to be on TV or a free concert…It’s too costly. Putting food on the table, and bringing home the bacon is far more important than a protest that is more symbolism than substance.

    • Jim Cook says:

      But historically, that’s not always true, Anonymous. In various times and in various places, massive protests have produced significant change. What’s true is that apparently the United States right now is not under that condition.

  2. Ross says:

    I didn’t see much of an attempt to raise awareness about these things. People, in America more than anywhere else, are generally lazier than they used to be, I believe, but mass protests also don’t materialize out of nowhere either.

    • Jim Cook says:

      Buy Nothing Day has been around for years. Information about Bank Run day was carried widely in the European press, and discussion of the upcoming Opt Out Day was in the papers, on the TV and on radio for days before the event itself.

  3. Jon says:

    “Top Down, Bottom Up, and Inside Out:” Van Jones

    Jones is a student of Saul Alinsky. As are many of you. The foreward in “Rule For Radicals” to Satan was appropriate! Well you now have the power in the top you just need the bottom to move so you can turn it inside out. Then the whole country can see you for whar you are.

    • Jim Cook says:

      No, no, Jon. I’ve got it all taken care of. I’ve filed down my horns and epoxied a hair weave on top. That tactic’s on p. 136 of “Rules for Radicals.”

  4. Jon says:

    That is true enough. Saul’s point was to LOOK like the man. So if you don’t look like Satan…then people will be more likely to accept your ideas. Especially when you phrase them in our language. Or lingo.

    As long you you know what you are doing…so do I.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>