Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Everything wrong with the "Uncommitted" movement

sringwal said:
As much as you framed that as “this isn’t about me being old and resistant to change,” it definitely is coming off that way.
Click to expand...
I don't think there was any time in my life, after turning 20, where I would have supported this. I really don't think this is about me being old. Plus, I'm less than 50 so it's not like I'm some old boomer.

The problem is whether protest movements are effective when they make people hate them. Has that changed? I don't think so. I'm certainly not seeing any effectiveness. I see a bunch of "uncommitted" activists banging their heads against the wall because they are getting nowhere, and continuing to make threats.
 
Paine said:
Like I said earlier, the left has deliberately moved away from these iconic figureheads. The two you mentioned were famously assassinated.
Click to expand...
I mean, I get your point, but part of what made the 1960s successful was the belief that “risking injury, or even loss of life, is worth it if it means a better life for others.”
 
I think people in modern left movements are willing to risk their lives, and you can see that in the BLM protests. They’re just not willing to see the entire movement collapse because the FBI was able to kill their figurehead.
 
Paine said:
I think it’s impossible to make a historical determination about the Civil Rights Movement, the Abolition Movement, etc. would have played out without their moderate and radical elements all combined.

Not to mention the fact that the movement for racial justice is far from over, and the more recent protests have taken on forms that you would probably denounce.

History is a weird thing. John Brown’s radicalism did lead to the freeing of the slaves in America. There’s a lot of factors that go into these things.

Are there elements of the pro-Palestine protests that have been radical? Sure, I guess. There are also elements that aren’t and are calling for exactly what you say. Yet you lump them all together. That plays into the right wing framing that Republicans and Netanyahu want.

Though, your example of a radical here seems to be someone who wants their government to stop sending weapons to a genocidal right-wing government. She should rightfully feel conflicted about telling someone to vote for that. That’s not radical. It’s definitely not “militant.”

How is this individual going to stop a rando from burning an American flag? And why should she be forced to condemn someone who does as if she’s somehow responsible for that?

Your proposal would ring incredibly hollow considering the fact that we currently support governments other than Israel who starve children.
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way. I'm exactly the type of person who the protest should be reaching. I'm incredibly sympathetic to the suffering in Gaza. I loathe the Israeli right-wing. I loathe the violence unleashed by Israel not only in this specific conflict, but also during "peacetime" over the past decade or so -- especially on the West Bank. And yet they aren't reaching me. They just make me frustrated.

This person isn't going to stop a rando, but I'd be willing to bet that the person has not criticized any of it. In any event, this person basically stated for the record that she will not support Kamala unless Kamala adopts a different position. I've noticed that you haven't actually defended that. You've just attacked me for being vague in posts that are even vaguer.
 
Paine said:
I think people in modern left movements are willing to risk their lives, and you can see that in the BLM protests. They’re just not willing to see the entire movement collapse because the FBI was able to kill their figurehead.
Click to expand...
But without said figurehead, or figureheads (because it was a lot more than those to), you can’t build something enough for the risk of collapse to matter. People, identify with individuals, and their stories. Groups sans leaders are viewed, wrongly in this case, like unruly and disorganized mobs. You need a unifying message, and you need a unifying core group of people who others will listen to. We saw this some after Parkland. I’m not really seeing that here.
 
superrific said:
Let's put it this way. I'm exactly the type of person who the protest should be reaching. I'm incredibly sympathetic to the suffering in Gaza. I loathe the Israeli right-wing. I loathe the violence unleashed by Israel not only in this specific conflict, but also during "peacetime" over the past decade or so -- especially on the West Bank. And yet they aren't reaching me. They just make me frustrated.

This person isn't going to stop a rando, but I'd be willing to bet that the person has not criticized any of it. In any event, this person basically stated for the record that she will not support Kamala unless Kamala adopts a different position. I've noticed that you haven't actually defended that. You've just attacked me for being vague in posts that are even vaguer.
Click to expand...
What’s vague about my position?
 
sringwal said:
But without said figurehead, or figureheads (because it was a lot more than those to), you can’t build something enough for the risk of collapse to matter. People, identify with individuals, and their stories. Groups sans leaders are viewed, wrongly in this case, like unruly and disorganized mobs. You need a unifying message, and you need a unifying core group of people who others will listen to. We saw this some after Parkland. I’m not really seeing that here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s a good point. I think another part of it with this is the incentive. Does any particular person have an incentive to speak up and be a figurehead of the pro-Palestinian movement?

I think they would immediately be demonized and forced to answer for any fringe action taken by someone in the name of Palestine.

Moreover, someone trying to claim the mantle of leader of this movement would come across as pretty disrespectful, IMO.
 
The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were demonized, and many people felt that Martin Luther King being the lead speaker at the March on Washington was disrespectful to A Philip Randolph, John Lewis, and Bayard Rustin, among others. But people have to get over those fears if they legitimately want change. The masses need to see risk, and they need to see personalities, if they are going to be moved. You need that, and you probably need one of those leaders to give an iconic speech, or at least series of speachlits.
 
A big part of it is legitimacy, and we don’t really have the organizations to pull these leaders from anymore. If there is no organization that can legitimately claim to represent the people on a certain issue, it’s hard for someone to stand out as a leader.

Even still, there have been folks who have spoken out, like Rashida Tlaib. But I think the media is also motivated to not cover someone like her, since she’s actually a sympathetic figure.

A lot of these people just want Kamala to have her Sista Souljah left bashing moment. They think that is a prerequisite to winning a general election. That’s why they were so mad she didn’t pick Shapiro.
 
Lando said:
The unifying message is the big thing for me. Everyone has their own demands means there is no action that Harris can take to actually stop the heckling. She could announce a weapons embargo and someone would disrupt a rally because it’s not a commitment to a one state solution. Sure, complete decentralization makes the movement difficult to pin down, but it also makes engaging with it a game of solipsist whack a mole.

Do people feel like OWS was effective?
Click to expand...
I think the void the left experiences in the US is due to the decline of organized labor. Starting to see that come back a bit with unions like the UAW pushing for a ceasefire.

Unions have democratic legitimacy and actual political leverage.
 
Paine said:
A big part of it is legitimacy, and we don’t really have the organizations to pull these leaders from anymore. If there is no organization that can legitimately claim to represent the people on a certain issue, it’s hard for someone to stand out as a leader.

Even still, there have been folks who have spoken out, like Rashida Tlaib. But I think the media is also motivated to not cover someone like her, since she’s actually a sympathetic figure.
Click to expand...
I think your first point is part of where I’m going with this. A lack of leader. A lack of a clear organization. And I like Tlaib as well, but I think the real leaders that need to emerge can’t be political figures. It makes people question motive.
 
Paine said:
I think the void the left experiences in the US is due to the decline of organized labor. Starting to see that come back a bit with unions like the UAW pushing for a ceasefire.

Unions have democratic legitimacy and actual political leverage.
Click to expand...
As unreligious as I am, a lot of it also came out of both groups of churches and strong inner faith religious organizations.
 
Kamala blunted the effect of the protestors today so it doesn’t seem like much of a problem assuming they ultimately vote for her. I’m sympathetic so I’m ok with them making their voices heard but they will lose my sympathy if they take their protest into the voting booth.
 
Paine said:
Your proposal would ring incredibly hollow considering the fact that we currently support governments other than Israel who starve children.
Click to expand...
1. Which governments that we currently support starve children?
2. That we might be wrong in other areas doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right thing here. It's like when leftists criticized Clinton for sending troops to protect Kosovo. The argument was that since we didn't send troops to Rwanda, it would be hypocritical to send them to Kosovo. I cannot buy into that logic at all.
 
Paine said:
I think the void the left experiences in the US is due to the decline of organized labor. Starting to see that come back a bit with unions like the UAW pushing for a ceasefire.

Unions have democratic legitimacy and actual political leverage.
Click to expand...
Unions are not really creatures of the left. The fact that a very sizeable portion of union members in this country are Trumpists tells you that much. It's fine to want unions on economic grounds, but they aren't going to be leaders of any unified left until they can distance themselves from their racist not-so-past. And given the extent of Trumpism support in the rank and file, I'm not seeing that happening any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top