Women's March: Largest Protest in U.S. History - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14767544
Donald wrote:It's quite telling that the largest protest in U.S. history is a futile exercise in identity politics. We are entering a brave new world now.

No mass gathering is futile. It may not have direct action, but it will, even if subconsciously, make leaders as people choose a path. And even if not, the public does follow gatherings (such at the Dakota pipeline which Trump stamped his big foot on)
#14767548
Zagadka wrote:No mass gathering is futile. It may not have direct action, but it will, even if subconsciously, make leaders as people choose a path. And even if not, the public does follow gatherings (such at the Dakota pipeline which Trump stamped his big foot on)


The women's march is completely futile, never mind the fact that it doesn't even have any specific demands that can be politically actualized.

There was a time when you could literally march on Washington for tangible demands, like jobs and civil rights. What we're witnessing today is entirely abstract. It is an action, to be sure, but to paraphrase Plato, they aren't actually doing anything.

I wouldn't be surprised if four years of non-stop protests got Trump re-elected.

Civil society just doesn't work that way anymore. This is what is becoming the new normal in the 21st century:

[youtube]uBloMCCt3qU[/youtube]
#14767566
Tewodros III wrote:I doubt he'll last long, republicans want pence. Also you know he'll not get a second term, his privation plans won't save jobs.


What if I told you that Trump is illuminati.

It's not just "privation" (I assume you mean privatization), but also infrastructural spending. He's actually pursuing the same domestic job growth model as Justin Trudeau, which is probably why they have similar energy policies. Do you really think Trump is the only billionaire in the world who wants to #MAGA? There are much larger interests at play here that wish to see a unified economic front with Russia against China. A lot of powerful people in the world are pretty fucking angry with the Chinese and Trump is the American Caesar who was groomed to take on the Sino problem.
#14767576
Donald wrote:
What if I told you that Trump is illuminati.

It's not just "privation" (I assume you mean privatization), but also infrastructural spending. He's actually pursuing the same domestic job growth model as Justin Trudeau, which is probably why they have similar energy policies. Do you really think Trump is the only billionaire in the world who wants to #MAGA? There are much larger interests at play here that wish to see a unified economic front with Russia against China. A lot of powerful people in the world are pretty fucking angry with the Chinese and Trump is the American Caesar who was groomed to take on the Sino problem.

How is going to do all that, he's not even focusing on Flint. If he truly wanted Brownie points he would Day One focus on Flint, at least then trumpanzees would had that one argument against Obama. Then at least than I would have respected him for that. He can't be a protectionist and yet have all his hats made in china :knife: or allow the most cancerous establishment people in power who have been anti-american from the getgo. Why are people like you falling for this trick AGAIN.

And Russia hates the West, history has shown the West want nothing to do with Russia. You had your one chance during the 90s, when Boris pleaded to be America bitch and you still fuck that up. Putin wants the West to die and he'll pick up the pieces, having trump instead of hillary, is of course useful.
#14767664
I saw on social media that the women's march was really a bunch of women who were so convinced that Hillary was going to win that they all bought non-refundable air tickets to go to her inauguration. So when she didn't win, they didn't want to waste their tickets so they went to DC to have a big tantrum and complain about imaginary problems.
#14767688
maz wrote:I saw on social media that the women's march was really a bunch of women who were so convinced that Hillary was going to win that they all bought non-refundable air tickets to go to her inauguration. So when she didn't win, they didn't want to waste their tickets so they went to DC to have a big tantrum and complain about imaginary problems.

Without them the Donald's inauguration would have been a boring non-event nobody would care about. :lol:
#14767697
MASS ACTION IS CHAOS AND ARRESTS FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS IN JEW CONSPIRACY TO RUIN THE COUNTRY

At the same time:

MASS ACTION IS COMPLETELY USELESS THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST ANGRY AND NOTHING WILL HAPPEN

---

In reality, of course, mass action has a dual purpose. In the beginning, it can be used to build a certain solidarity and network. This was most recently true with the TEA Party and BLM; before that there was the Occupy movement. These things all tended to fail, to some degree, because of a lack of leadership. Occupy, notoriously, was angry people being angry. The TEA Party was very quickly astroturfed and brought into the mainstream GOP, taking much of any potential it had with it.

BLM is wavering a little bit on that.

Which leads us to the second potential for mass action, which is to affect actual change once there has been organization and direction, and leadership—even indirectly—then the crowds become effective revolutionary engines constantly reinforcing themselves as they take bolder and bolder action.

Trotsky wrote: In order correctly to appraise the situation and determine the moment for a blow at the enemy, it was necessary that the masses or their guiding layers should make their examination of historical events and have their criteria for estimating them. In other words, it was necessary that there should be not masses in the abstract, but masses of Petrograd workers and Russian workers in general, who had passed through the revolution of 1905, through the Moscow insurrection of December 1905, shattered against the Semenovsky regiment of the Guard. It was necessary that throughout this mass should be scattered workers who had thought over the experience of 1905, criticised the constitutional illusions of the liberals and Mensheviks, assimilated the perspectives of the revolution, meditated hundreds of times about the question of the army, watched attentively what was going on in its midst-workers capable of making revolutionary inferences from what they observed and communicating them to others. And finally, it was necessary that there should be in the troops of the garrison itself progressive soldiers, seized, or at least touched, in the past by revolutionary propaganda.

In every factory, in each guild, in each company, in each tavern, in the military hospital, at the transfer stations, even in the depopulated villages, the molecular work of revolutionary thought was in progress. Everywhere were to be “What’s the news”? and from whom one awaited the needed words. These leaders had often been left to themselves, had nourished themselves upon fragments of revolutionary generalisations arriving in their bands by various routes, had studied out by themselves between the lines of the liberal papers what they needed. Their class instinct was refined by a political criterion, and though they did not think all their ideas through to the end, nevertheless their thought ceaselessly and stubbornly worked its way in a single direction. Elements of experience, criticism, initiative, self-sacrifice, seeped down through the mass and created, invisibly to a superficial glance but no less decisively, an inner mechanics of the revolutionary movement as a conscious process. To the smug politicians of liberalism and tamed socialism everything that happens among masses is customarily represented as an instinctive process, no matter whether they are dealing with an anthill or a beehive. In reality the thought which was drilling through the thick of the working class was far bolder, more penetrating, more conscious, than those little ideas by which the educated classes live. Moreover, this thought was more scientific: not only because it was to a considerable degree fertilised with the methods of Marxism, but still more because it was ever nourishing itself on the living experience of the masses which were soon to take their place on the revolutionary arena. Thoughts are scientific if they correspond to an objective process and make it possible to influence that process and guide it. Were these qualities possessed in the slightest degree by the ideas of those government circles who were inspired by the Apocalypse and believed in the dreams of Rasputin? Or maybe the ideas of the liberals were scientifically grounded, who hoped that a backward Russia, having joined the scrimmage of the capitalist giants, might win at one and the same time victory and parliamentarism? Or maybe the intellectual life of those circles of the intelligentsia was scientific, who slavishly adapted themselves to this liberalism, senile since childhood, protecting their imaginary independence the while with long-dead metaphors? In truth here was a kingdom of spiritual inertness, spectres, superstition and fictions, a kingdom, if you will, of “spontaneousness.” But have we not in that case a right to turn this liberal philosophy of the February revolution exactly upside down? Yes, we have a right to say: At the same time that the official society, all that many-storied superstructure of ruling classes, layers, groups, parties and cliques, lived from day to day by inertia and automatism, nourishing themselves with the relics of worn-out ideas, deaf to the inexorable demands of evolution, flattering themselves with phantoms and foreseeing nothing-at the same time, in the working masses there was (taking place an independent and deep process of growth, not only of hatred for the rulers, but of critical understanding of their impotence, an accumulation of experience and creative consciousness which the revolutionary insurrection and its victory only completed.

To the question, Who led the February revolution? we can then answer definitely enough: Conscious and tempered workers educated for the most part by the party of Lenin. But we must here immediately add: This leadership proved sufficient to guarantee the victory of the insurrection, but it was not adequate to transfer immediately into the hands of the proletarian vanguard the leadership of the revolution.


None of these protest movements above, of course, have come close to galvanizing the crowd in the way that they were in 1917. This being said, they are learning quickly. In the last few decades a lot has been tried and failed and tried again. Eventually the masses may awake, almost by accident, and stumble upon what is to be done.
#14767703
None of these protest movements above, of course, have come close to galvanizing the crowd in the way that they were in 1917. This being said, they are learning quickly. In the last few decades a lot has been tried and failed and tried again. Eventually the masses may awake, almost by accident, and stumble upon what is to be done.


Except the current protests are not people who are being victimized. They are people who are not suffering except in their own minds. This is a fantasy game to them, not real life problems.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 11

Do you see Oct 7 as "legitimate resistance&q[…]

BRICS will fail

https://youtu.be/M0JVAxrlA1A?si=oCaDb2mXFwgdzuEt B[…]

Not well. The point was that achieving "equ[…]

Were the guys in the video supporting or opposing […]