This is the kind of engagement Allen Ginsberg advocated for during the anti-war movement in the 60s and 70s. He wrote an essay entitled “Demonstration or Spectacle as Example, As Communication, or How to Make a March / Spectacle” in 1965, which is more of a loose list of ideas and thoughts about how to engage in marches and protests. It resulted in some of those more iconic photos from the protests at the time:
Showing up in a plate vest and standing next to cops who, in turn, are in their plate vest creates an image that says “war,” which can easily be twisted into a violent thug narrative. It plays into the existing narrative about protests and protesters broadly. These photos? Those dorks in their dino costumes? Hard to take those images and slap a “violent criminal immigrant’s invade the streets” tagline across it. Since almost all of these national guard deployments are at their core spectacle for the couch sitters across the country (there is obviously very real material harm being done as well, but we can’t discount the spectacle it creates moreover), why not show up in an outrageous outfit to short circuit the pre-established narrative?
We understand how media manufactures consent or invents reality, but when people hit the bricks and protest, they become active participants inside the reality that is trying to be spun. If we are aware that the media and the state are already attempting to deem any form of resistance as the actions of the “violent left,” why should anyone play into that idea at all? You could have your plate vest and gas mask on inside your outrageous inflatable T-REX costume. Is it defeating fascism? Not by itself, that’s for sure, but one has to wonder how much more difficult it makes the talking heads jobs and what kind of impression it leaves on people who only experience these things through their screens.
People argue that they helped end the Vietnam war, but they are ignoring that the Vietnamese are the ones who ended the Vietnam War, demonstrating their effective control of the countryside during the Tet Offensive.
Mostly what this movement did was sell clothing, books, music and movies.
Edit: and pretend that ‘real communism’ is when you do utopian socialism on a compound in the woods.
yea i dunno how someone looks at those images and thinks it was effective at doing anything. The only thing that ended the Vietnam war was people getting sick of it going on for forever.
They didn’t really lose because they were not committed to a specific left cause in the first place. They were about aesthetics and self-gratification, which included avoiding barriers to that, i.e. the draft. As the war on Vietnam wound down, they simply continued their project by getting professional jobs, doing drugs, and buying shiny objects. Importantly, they were not organized, so “they” doing anything is not a concerted action taken on purpose, but was itself the result of wider social forces and of course capitalism. They were manipulated by these forces originally and continued to be manipulated by them afterwards. Their “counterculture” came complete with branded clothing and millions of hot-off-the-presses vinyl to listen to at the local bead door-bedecked sexpest house party.
Fair enough, but my point is that why should we be looking to them for a strategy that actually affects change on the world, not to quibble if these people lost or not.
Understanding them as not even trying to effect change, but rather satisfy their personal wants (which were slightly reduced by capitalism/imperialism), explains why not to look to them. They weren’t on the left exercising a failing strategy, they were using a successful strategy for their own needs, Vietnamese (and black) people be damned. This should change how we think about their approach: it worked for a different goal, so it could be strategically deployed by us given appropriate circumstances and needs. If a restoration of some liberal norm or PR move serves us, then have at it. If it is instead better to agitate, then it is to be avoided.
Maybe aimed at something similar but I don’t think they are succeeding even by the self-soothing metric. Everything seems like more of a toned down prelude to something worse or, similarly, a way to let off steam while ICE raids ramp up.
Those dorks in their dino costumes? Hard to take those images and slap a “violent criminal immigrant’s invade the streets” tagline across it.
bit idea: big fluffy fursuit with a plate carrier and powered exoskeleton underneath
pig goes in for a bit of police brutality and the sparkledog crushes his head like a beer can
This is the kind of engagement Allen Ginsberg advocated for during the anti-war movement in the 60s and 70s. He wrote an essay entitled “Demonstration or Spectacle as Example, As Communication, or How to Make a March / Spectacle” in 1965, which is more of a loose list of ideas and thoughts about how to engage in marches and protests. It resulted in some of those more iconic photos from the protests at the time:
Showing up in a plate vest and standing next to cops who, in turn, are in their plate vest creates an image that says “war,” which can easily be twisted into a violent thug narrative. It plays into the existing narrative about protests and protesters broadly. These photos? Those dorks in their dino costumes? Hard to take those images and slap a “violent criminal immigrant’s invade the streets” tagline across it. Since almost all of these national guard deployments are at their core spectacle for the couch sitters across the country (there is obviously very real material harm being done as well, but we can’t discount the spectacle it creates moreover), why not show up in an outrageous outfit to short circuit the pre-established narrative?
We understand how media manufactures consent or invents reality, but when people hit the bricks and protest, they become active participants inside the reality that is trying to be spun. If we are aware that the media and the state are already attempting to deem any form of resistance as the actions of the “violent left,” why should anyone play into that idea at all? You could have your plate vest and gas mask on inside your outrageous inflatable T-REX costume. Is it defeating fascism? Not by itself, that’s for sure, but one has to wonder how much more difficult it makes the talking heads jobs and what kind of impression it leaves on people who only experience these things through their screens.
Reminder though. The hippies and beatniks lost, and lost badly.
Yes, did they accomplish anything actually? It’s a theory that has never been put into practice with successful results as far as I can tell.
If you applied this in Venezuela it’d work to get the US to invade. But without such a thing, idk how this will lead to any victory?
People argue that they helped end the Vietnam war, but they are ignoring that the Vietnamese are the ones who ended the Vietnam War, demonstrating their effective control of the countryside during the Tet Offensive.
Mostly what this movement did was sell clothing, books, music and movies.
Edit: and pretend that ‘real communism’ is when you do utopian socialism on a compound in the woods.
Exactly
Which invests bourgeoisie into your movement as their eyes turn into dollar signs.
These colour revolution projects can be compared to startups in a way, except the CIA are usually the first of the angel investors.
yea i dunno how someone looks at those images and thinks it was effective at doing anything. The only thing that ended the Vietnam war was people getting sick of it going on for forever.
And the Vietnamese demonstrating that despite nearly a decade of war, the U.S. was no closer to achieving any of its objectives.
Yeah what happened to them?
seems like most of them are republicans now
They are the biggest libs ever now.
They didn’t really lose because they were not committed to a specific left cause in the first place. They were about aesthetics and self-gratification, which included avoiding barriers to that, i.e. the draft. As the war on Vietnam wound down, they simply continued their project by getting professional jobs, doing drugs, and buying shiny objects. Importantly, they were not organized, so “they” doing anything is not a concerted action taken on purpose, but was itself the result of wider social forces and of course capitalism. They were manipulated by these forces originally and continued to be manipulated by them afterwards. Their “counterculture” came complete with branded clothing and millions of hot-off-the-presses vinyl to listen to at the local bead door-bedecked sexpest house party.
Fair enough, but my point is that why should we be looking to them for a strategy that actually affects change on the world, not to quibble if these people lost or not.
Understanding them as not even trying to effect change, but rather satisfy their personal wants (which were slightly reduced by capitalism/imperialism), explains why not to look to them. They weren’t on the left exercising a failing strategy, they were using a successful strategy for their own needs, Vietnamese (and black) people be damned. This should change how we think about their approach: it worked for a different goal, so it could be strategically deployed by us given appropriate circumstances and needs. If a restoration of some liberal norm or PR move serves us, then have at it. If it is instead better to agitate, then it is to be avoided.
In that light it is better to look at the current protests as achieving a similar aim.
Maybe aimed at something similar but I don’t think they are succeeding even by the self-soothing metric. Everything seems like more of a toned down prelude to something worse or, similarly, a way to let off steam while ICE raids ramp up.
bit idea: big fluffy fursuit with a plate carrier and powered exoskeleton underneath
pig goes in for a bit of police brutality and the sparkledog crushes his head like a beer can
Ooh, that’s a pretty good idea.
So there is a case to be made for this from that perspective. Good to know