Hello. Thanks for your input.
'On the other hand if a government really has pushed too far and riots break out, with sufficient perseverance they could theoretically topple the government or bring them to the table.'
Theoretically - exactly, and it doesn't seem practical enough. Look at the yellow vest protest in Paris. It's been going on for almost 40 weeks now, yet, they don't seem to be getting anywhere. Macron has never taken the protesters seriously, and the media have lost interest ages ago. Then, I have to ask "What is the point?" Nobody seems to be benefiting from it. It must be very bad for the local economy in Paris, for example. Because I have a great deal of sympathy with them, I find it frustrating that they're not achieving anything.

Hi. Oh, I forgot about that one. Poll tax riots! Far from peaceful protests. I don't know what you make of it, because poll tax was subsequently abolished but it still remains in the form of council tax... So, do you think the riots helped achieve the purpose?

@naomi yes the poll tax meant all members in the house paid, but when cancelled it reverted to a a single charge on the house

Yes, the riots were in such a scale that they helped abolish the poll tax. The level of violence was horrendous, though...

Hello. Yes, I can see your logic. Thank you.

Welcome to the community! You know what - we could do with more British sarcasm and dry sense of humour (and British English spelling!). LOL!

Hello. You could say that again. I can't help thinking that not all, not all, not all but most demonstrations are purely for self-righteousness and self-indulgence.

@Naomi Self-righteousness, self-indulgence, and selfies. Don't forget about the selfies.

I agree 100%. The moment you start to interfere with peoples lives you do your movement a great disservice.

I wish the anti-First Amendments would hurry and grow the hell up! Excuse my French, lol

Here in Australia we recently had Getup (Google it) Vegans trespassing on private land taking calves, sheep, chickens etc in protest. They were getting away with it for a while until the Public became aware as well as our PM. Now the Farmers can sue them for bio security etc. our PM told the Farmers to do it. Getup have got lost for a while. Yahoo a bit a Peace for the Farmers who in this Country have had to deal with Drought & then floods etc . The loss of our Cattle has been immense in Queensland. Vegan I can only say - go save a lettuce.

Hello. Gosh, you've read my mind! The climate change protest has been going on in London for a week now, and I've been feeling rather irritated because of the very point you make - people's lives. The protesters have been vandalizing public/private properties, gluing themselves to trains, marching into the airport in an attempt to stop flights, blocking the bridge, etc., etc. They may be able to "afford" to be out protesting day in day out, but many of us have to go to work, earn money and put food on the table for the family. There are customers waiting to be served, deliveries to be made, patients to be treated, people needing urgent attention in emergency situations, lonely old people looking forward to seeing their carers and being washed and fed, and so on and so on. I struggle to justify disruptions deliberately caused by protesters.

Hello, thanks for your input. You make a very good point. Whatever the principle, cause, attainment, etc. I always struggle to justify the disruptions caused by protesters, which ultimately interfere with people's livelihood, and you provide a very good example. I can't help thinking surely there are other ways to get messages across than direct action but I don't know what... Frustrating!

@Naomi The climate change protesters may have caused some disruption and inconvenience in London... but wait until you find out how much disruption climate change ITSELF will cause!! Hundreds of millions of migrants fleeing flooded lands, food shortages, freak weather. That's going to cause a lot more disruption than some hippies gluing themselves to buildings or whatever.
Sometimes we have to stand up to government and ask them to DO SOMETHING. This is why I support protesters (even when I don't agree with their message). Governments don't listen to their people - that is when people are well within their rights to protest.

Hello. Thanks for your input. I hear you, but no, still no for me. I still struggle to justify the disruptions protesters cause however great their principles, etc. may be (and I may well agree with them). For example, there are people who are seriously ill and if they can't get the medicines they need in time due to delayed deliveries because roads are blocked by protesters, etc., there is no excuse for the protesters. Imagine your little girl falls seriously ill or was injured in an accident and an ambulance can't get to you quickly enough because the roads are blocked by protesters. Is that a price you're prepared to pay? If they must protest and demonstrate, they must think it through, plan well, have strategies, and most of all be pragmatic. Otherwise, to me it is wrong to sacrifice the innocent for whatever principles protesters want to stand for.

@purdyday I think that Anti-fascist is a short form of anti-anti-fascist.
It's a non-non heinous, Bill and Ted thing.

@An_Ominous Totally Bogus!

@purdyday
Strange things are afoot at the pussy-hat protest.

@An_Ominous It seems to me that the only thing you learned is that Cesare is a salad dressing, Duuude!

@An_Ominous Granny's Easter scene out of Bogus Journey still gives me the shivers, lol

@purdyday I think in the remake Joe Biden will be playing the part of Granny.

@An_Ominous I'm in the mood for a Bill and Ted double feature now Always smile when I see San Dimas on signs from the freeway.

@Naomi Yes I completely understand about the disruptions; you're right! However, I think that the protesters are trying to get the attention of a government that really isn't listening to ordinary people, and so far the best way to do that has been to go out onto the streets and cause disruption. If there were a different way that didn't inconvenience ordinary Londoners then of course I would support that instead!

Strategies! That's what's missing, don't you think? I think with the right kind of strategies, along with strong leadership and thorough planning, direct action should work more effectively and efficiently so that protesters' voices are properly heard and negotiations are swiftly brought to the table. Probably easier said than done, though. but there are professional strategists.

Hello. I've been thinking...If the main purpose of demonstrations is to get media attention and raise awareness, wouldn't it be just effective (if not more efficient) as demonstrations if we spread the word and started a petition through social media?

@Naomi I think the type of video coverage generated by demonstrations is uniquely convincing. It's harder to argue that it doesn't represent something real. And I think you've gotta use all the channels available to you.

@Naomi Hi, there are petitions available on the internet here in the U.S., but nothing gets attention more than in person protests. And if we are lucky, and its a non political, non right of center cause, the media might actually air it. I went on two 'No to Monsanto demonstrations', that went countrywide and it did put a lot of pressure on that corp, but of course they just legally dissolved and started back up under another name. So I would say depends on the cause and how much pressure is required. Some people just want riots and to tear everything down and those are dangerous people, and mob mentality, like antifa. But peaceful, boysterous protest, nothing wrong with that! Sorry for lengthy response, rambling on.

Yes, your assumption is correct, re: the definition of "direct action". I shall make that clear in my post now. Thank you.

So, I've been thinking... Demands may be reasonable, i.e., for civil rights, voting rights, etc., and demonstrations on streets may have visible, inspirational, that kind of effects, but they're rather shot-lived and often lack strategies, plus those demands will have to be brought to discussion and negotiation anyway so that new laws will ultimately be legislated - in a room, not on the street, of course. So, do you think circulating messages, petitions, etc. through social media, for example, is as effective (if not more peaceful) as demonstrations on the streets?

@Naomi Online activism may be effective at some levels and on some types of issues. But don't rule out the effectiveness of feet on the ground, angry people in the street demanding justice and demanding change. Issues that people do already spend a lot of time and energy online raising awareness about still are completely ignored (apart from a little lip service) by the ruling classes.

@Naomi Thanks for raising this discussion, it has given me a great deal of food for thought. I was wondering if you (or anyone else) can think of any major social progress that has been made without direct action? Sure, you still need to get together in a room and nut out the details. But direct action might be the only way that you can get them into that room.

I thank you, @Crikey, for presenting your views. I feel I learned a lot. I actually sympathise with people who take direct action as the last resort, provided that they have legitimate reasons and clear objectives so that negotiations are brought to the table in a constructive manner by both sides. Meanwhile, direct action can be a "good intention-bad idea" case.; it matters to me how well direct action is received by others while how badly it interferes with others' livelihood. I keep thinking there should be an alternative way, or direct action could work more efficiently and effectively if it was organised with thorough plans, more professional strategies and stronger leadership. Thanks again!

@Naomi Thanks Naomi. In terms of how well direct action is received by others, you could look at the civil rights protests as an example. Not particularly well received at all, at least in the areas where they were protesting. Just a thought regarding direct action being more professional and better planned: Maybe direct action works best when it is just a bunch of passionate people who want to change the world. Otherwise it is just a bunch of lobbyists who are using direct action as a way of strengthening their hand when it eventually becomes time to compromise.

Actually, that's a good point - it's certainly more significant when "ordinary people" take direct action rather than lobbyist. But then, look at Yellow Vests. 23 weekends have gone, the protest has become violent, there has been so much vandalism on the streets of Paris, the local businesses have been affected badly, tourists have been deterred, the French government hasn't paid much attention to them, etc., etc... Basically, so far, they haven't achieved anything but worsening the local economy and interfering badly with the locals' livelihood. When direct action continues to fail or has little effect like this, what do you think is lacking? Leadership? Strategy?

Hi. I should've clarified that I mean "direct action" as strikes, demonstrations, etc. Still, when you extend the definition of "direct action" as far as Revolutionary War, would that include and justify terrorist actions in order to achieve goals?

@Naomi If he's on your side he's a freedom fighter, if he's on the other side he's a terrorist.

Um... not sure if I can justify direct action that way...

Never mind 10 years ago, how about when people would go the aftermath of a protest and "pick clean" the dead bodies for valuables?

@cRaZyTMG You're talking about Spring Break, right? (kidding)

Yep... matters have most certainly intensified.
Apparently getting whipped up into a frenzy is all the rage now. It's almost a religious fervor.

Though when protestors threw themselves at the doors of the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh confirmation... they didn't seem to have their hearts in it. Of course the doors weigh thirteen thousand pounds each.
Watching them I was put in mind of the old practice of paying mourners to attend a funeral.

Hi. You know, you have a point. I happen to believe that there ARE professional protesters as well as those who love joining demonstrations for fun. Just like those who love picking up fights. I know that Antifa get paid to cause disruptions with violence. Plus, even if protests are originally organised and demonstrated by genuinely-concerned people, there is always the risk of being infiltrated or hijacked by extremists or hooligans. It was reported some weeks ago that some peaceful Yellow Vest protesters stopped demonstrating in Paris because of the increasing violence on the streets. They've just had the 22nd weekend and they don't seem to be getting anywhere. I know they want Macron out, and then what? They seem to lack leadership and strategies. As much as I sympathise with them, that's why I started wondering about the effectiveness of demonstrations.

@Naomi I think the media plays a big part in determining how successful actions are, unfortunately. So many ignored injustices slip quietly away thanks to them. If the media were outraged about the reasons yellow vests are rioting maybe they would have had success, but no the media are totally and utterly politically biased.

In our PC world, the government plays "whack a mole" with anyone that stands up as a leader of any kind. In France, yellow vests "reps" have been disappeared in the style of Pinochet. Hard to have a plan when the planners are targeted. When war was an honorable activity, it was common practice to avoid killing officers because of the panic that ensued if there was no leader.