"Taking to the Streets" -- Yes or No?

[snot]

Recently, I've seen several posts or replies saying the solution is for sufficient numbers of us to take to the streets demanding real change.

First, pls READ, or at least scan, the full article linked to in this recent DU post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7081655 .

I've both participated in and organized demos during the last several years, and followed news about authorities' actions re- demos at, e.g., the RNC, etc.; and I nonetheless found the foregoing v. informative.

Second, I seem to recall reading somewhere that more people participated in protests against the Iraq war BEFORE IT EVEN BEGAN than demonstrated against the Viet Nam War for its entire duration. I would appreciate any confirm or disconfirm, preferably with a citation to authority/source for the info.

Given the above, it seems only too obvious that "taking to the streets" has been, for lack of a better word, at least partially castrated -- through what should have been ruled unConstitutional quarantining, coupled with non-coverage by our conservatively-owned media.

If you protest and no one sees it, did it really happen?

SERIOUSLY, are there, or can we invent, other strategies?

[Mind_your_head]

1. In this environment, people rightfully keep their thoughts and plans "close to their chest" eom

[Go2Peace]

2. I think it may come, but the movement that is building is different.

It is bubbling up the netroots. We don't have to take to the street to change our own party. We work from within, call our senators, meet and work at the grassroots, and work our asses off next election to dump those who get in the way.

[BR_Parkway]

3. Not to mention - now that everyone can't afford the shiny distractions

I think some are taking a meaningful look at their lives and what they consider important. More who are seeing the 'free trade' agreements as screwing themselves. Now maybe they won't take to the streets, but some will make the connection to a prosperous local economy and be more aware

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

8. Some parts that need to change to make change work for the rest of us...

...just ain't gonna get there any time soon. :whistling:

I'd like to see the demonstrations move from downtown to the streets outside the mansions. Can't make Washington uncomfortable, might as well make someone uncomfortable.

[1]

4. no.

and no...

[OffWithTheirHeads]

5. I've been in the streets since the 60's I think it was useful then

Not so much now.

As to your assertions about the Viet Nam war participation, all I can tell you is I was there and we had folks in the streets in way greater numbers than anything you have ever seen. First, there was the draft where everyone and anyone could be randomly called to serve in Uncle Sam.s fiasco. You don't have that now. Second. you actually still had a news media. WE KNEW THERE WAS A WAR GOING ON! And we protested it. It was on the T.V. EVERY NIGHT! Not like today when your corporate masters choose to ignore it.

I have argued with organizers to take our protests to the front door of ABC, NBC, Fux, etc but they continue to think that a march down main-street (That the six corporations that now own the entire media and also are allied with the major defense contractors will not cover)Is more effective.

At this point, it's a waste of time.

[fasttense]

6. Until the American people get angry enough or suffer enough to be out in the streets

for weeks and weeks. Not a few days, but weeks and months, until that happens nothing is going to change. A few days can be ignored but weeks and months of congestion annoys the uber wealthy and keeps them from collecting their profits efficiently.

Eventually the corporate media notices simply because you annoy them.

[Hannah Bell]

7. I remember reading this at the time too. I was out for a year myself.

"more people participated in protests against the Iraq war BEFORE IT EVEN BEGAN than demonstrated against the Viet Nam War for its entire duration."