why revolutions and movements fail at their desired outcome

[franky1]

Your original post was about getting change locally by paper aggrement but such kind of change isn't given on paper but struggle. All society that have been divided didn't do that solely without struggle. At most the struggle can lead into aggrement but to relax and wait for paper agreement, change won't be achieved.

local placards and peaceful protest are the 'relax and wait for' strategy
because placards and peaceful protests are not actually binding politicians to any agreement.

no signature no pledge no commitments occur due to placards/peaceful protests.

but actually being smarter and more organised(strategic plan) work better then organised(membership of community coffee morning group)

[Gozie51]

Your original post was about getting change locally by paper aggrement but such kind of change isn't given on paper but struggle. All society that have been divided didn't do that solely without struggle. At most the struggle can lead into aggrement but to relax and wait for paper agreement, change won't be achieved.

local placards and peaceful protest are the 'relax and wait for' strategy
because placards and peaceful protests are not actually binding politicians to any agreement.

no signature no pledge no commitments occur due to placards/peaceful protests.

but actually being smarter and more organised(strategic plan) work better then organised(membership of community coffee morning group)

No , hardly will government in third world countries listen to placards or your own perception of change as you observe it in your environment. Depending on the kind of change you talk about but change of a structure where political phychopaths feed from is hardly relinquished by mere paper work.

[Vatimins]

     Indeed, revolution is very overrated. And I agree that the best solution is to really push the people with the same ideals to not aimlessly protest but instead, use the privileges that are present today. Focus on what's significant; appropriate paper work. People should learn more about the laws in their own country and take advantage of the power of law.

     But even so, protests are not to be underestimated because if people really do unite, governments can fall. A good example of this is the edsa people power in the Philippines which has overthrown the abusive president at that time along all the other people under him that did all his bidding. But yes, the best way would be the things you suggested.

[BADecker]

why revolutions and movements fail at their desired outcome


Because the opposing revolution/movement is succeeding.

[franky1]

    But even so, protests are not to be underestimated because if people really do unite, governments can fall. A good example of this is the edsa people power in the Philippines which has overthrown the abusive president at that time along all the other people under him that did all his bidding. But yes, the best way would be the things you suggested.

the philippines leadership did not change due to peaceful protest(placards and picnics)
it was the elections runner up that called foul on the election
which media portray as just
requests peaceful protest/strikes and boycott

the real stuff that happened was
Feb 7th   election result was announced as in 'marcos' favour((third term) illegal)
              runner up 'aquino' called result a fraud
              'marcos' didnt step down pretending his win was legal
feb 15th  proclaimed COMELEC 'marcos' as victor
              runner up 'aquino' proclaimed foul election
              runner up 'aquino' took oath of office at different location at same time as 'marcos'
              requesting boycott/strikes of marcoses banks/services
              50 members of parliament left marcoses government
feb 16th  runner up 'aquino' request boycott/strikes of all 'marcos' publications and media
feb 22nd 2 defense cabinet ministers swapped sides from 'marcos' to 'aquino' side
              cardinel castro's religious condemnation of the election fraud of 'marcos'
              rebels plan to attack 'marcos' palace and capture or kill 'marcos'((coup)planned but didnt happen)

which led to the actual events of marcos then fleeing

so yea it wasnt the citizens waving placards that done it
(i missed out many details of lots of threats and battles.  but you get the jist)
all in all based on law. even though marcos had a name on the vote.. legally he couldnt actually sit as leader as it was 3rd term and not allowed.

[CryptocurencyKing]

Eventually, most and many protest often starts peacefully but along the line, some elements of violence is being introduced in order to discredit the protesters and undermine the whole process. This is were protests often fails, when there is an element of violence. So, protesting and protesters don't have to live it at gathering and carry placards alone, they've got to ensure a unified group of persons with a singular idea under a controlled and monitored circumstances.

This is virtually unachievable and its one of the reasons why protest does fail becuase, the government or antiprotesters van always introduce some level of violence through fellow protesters and also, using the armed force to stirr the anger on them and you'll see it manifesting.

This is why most protects fails and most of all  the idea behind every protest is not often defended afterwards.

[franky1]

violent protests and riots by citizens simply results in some citizens earning a criminal record and losing their jobs.. and losing future job prospects
if those out there want to just do peaceful protests. there are better ways to do it.

take this idea for instance
if there was potentially 10k turnout in a city.
dont gather shoulder to shoulder in one location taking up just 1 square block

break up into groups of 200 and scatter. at different intersections.

you can holdup 50 intersections of traffic thats 7 x 7 square blocks

200 is enough to not just have police squads arresting everyone.
50 clusters is enough to keep a whole police district busy and spread out
7x7 blocks disrupted sends a bigger message than a single square block.

but if you wanna do more then just disrupt fellow citizens day getting to work. try the route he elitists use (the petition, legal,lobbying systems)

[TwitchySeal]

so many people wonder why, when they gather and protest. while they scream 'lets start a revolution', 'lets start a movement'.. the end result is nothing changes

the secret is not a secret. its literally explained in the names
a 'revolution' is a circular orbit. yes you might see seasonal changes. but given enough time it circles back to where it started

a 'movement' is just that. stand still and just bend an elbow.. that is a movement.

What are your thoughts on the Boston Tea party, the Stamp Act Riots or the American Revolution in general?

How about the Womens Suffrage Parade, Stonewall Riots, the 1963 March on Washington?

[JohnBitCo]

Your original post was about getting change locally by paper aggrement but such kind of change isn't given on paper but struggle. All society that have been divided didn't do that solely without struggle. At most the struggle can lead into aggrement but to relax and wait for paper agreement, change won't be achieved.

local placards and peaceful protest are the 'relax and wait for' strategy
because placards and peaceful protests are not actually binding politicians to any agreement.

no signature no pledge no commitments occur due to placards/peaceful protests.

but actually being smarter and more organised(strategic plan) work better then organised(membership of community coffee morning group)

No , hardly will government in third world countries listen to placards or your own perception of change as you observe it in your environment. Depending on the kind of change you talk about but change of a structure where political phychopaths feed from is hardly relinquished by mere paper work.

There is monopoly everywhere and don't think that every revolution is meant for the betterment of the people. Sometimes the revolutions are started by the government themselves to buy in the time and keep the public thinking that best times are nearby.

[Gozie51]

but if you wanna do more then just disrupt fellow citizens day getting to work. try the route he elitists use (the petition, legal,lobbying systems)

Lol you want to petition to ICC or which international body where a country you are in has her own sovereignty? Nobody is going to listen to such petition but to not interfere in a matter not in there jurisdiction.

Ok.... Maybe you want to petition the government where you are trying to break out from? In Africa, such petition will land you inside the jail for either treason or felony for trying to take over the government. Hahaha... Is about struggling for what you want, because nobody will give it to you freely.

[franky1]

What are your thoughts on the Boston Tea party, the Stamp Act Riots or the American Revolution in general?
How about the Womens Suffrage Parade, Stonewall Riots, the 1963 March on Washington?

boston tea party
well history fades and media stories grow.
if you think that the american revolution was caused simply by spilling a few boxes of indian tea off the side of a boat.. then i should laugh.
things that led to the american revolution were far far deeper
such as ... the legal stuff. first congress.. petitioning british monarch
this led to war to sever ties with britain
so in short.. congress petitions war.. not civilians tipping tea boxes into the sea

stamp act riots
well what a coincidence.. the term of a stamp 'being franked' dawning from Ben franklin. .. well in 2012 i was interested in this subject and how US was trying to tax bitcoin.. thus inventively i chose franky1 as my username.. due to the stamp act stuff of franklin in the 1700's..
bitcoin has no representation. so taxation without representation is a big no no
oops i digressed
anyways back on subject
this was not 'riots'.. it was setting up committee's and strengthening US congress
the 13 colonies sent a petition (virginia resolves). which is not the same as protest (placards and picnics)
other things like in england lobbying began to repeal the stamp act due to the negative economic consequences the stamp act was causing.
.. i could go on. but alot of legal things occured. the citizen riots was just social drama

womans sufferage
well media history plays out of placards and picnics. but again lots of things were happening within government buildings.
for instance some women(with businesses) did get to vote and other women lobbied their local government representative to vote on their hehalf (advocate)

.. in short none of the items of question you asked changed due to placards and picnics

[franky1]

Lol you want to petition to ICC or which international body where a country you are in has her own sovereignty? Nobody is going to listen to such petition but to not interfere in a matter not in there jurisdiction.

depends on how what and who
most people write silly petitions like
'sign this if you think trump won 2020'
(facepalm)

however others wrote
'sign this if you want: a. a committee to recount votes. b. have it done by X date' where that petition was then spammed to the electoral team that deals with it.

so its about being a bit more smart. rather than thinking you can throw an election by just asking for signatures of opinion
as my first posts and the previous post.
petitions work
the boston tea party legal protest was not a citizen placard and picnic their 'protest' was a petition to the british monarchy with a 'resolution'

[TwitchySeal]

What are your thoughts on the Boston Tea party, the Stamp Act Riots or the American Revolution in general?
How about the Womens Suffrage Parade, Stonewall Riots, the 1963 March on Washington?

boston tea party
well history fades and media stories grow.
if you think that the american revolution was caused simply by spilling a few boxes of indian tea off the side of a boat.. then i should laugh.
things that led to the american revolution were far far deeper
such as ... the legal stuff. first congress.. petitioning british monarch
this led to war to sever ties with britain
so in short.. congress petitions war.. not civilians tipping tea boxes into the sea

stamp act riots
well what a coincidence.. the term of a stamp 'being franked' dawning from Ben franklin. .. well in 2012 i was interested in this subject and how US was trying to tax bitcoin.. thus inventively i chose franky1 as my username.. due to the stamp act stuff of franklin in the 1700's..
bitcoin has no representation. so taxation without representation is a big no no
oops i digressed
anyways back on subject
this was not 'riots'.. it was setting up committee's and strengthening US congress
the 13 colonies sent a petition (virginia resolves). which is not the same as protest (placards and picnics)
other things like in england lobbying began to repeal the stamp act due to the negative economic consequences the stamp act was causing.
.. i could go on. but alot of legal things occured. the citizen riots was just social drama

womans sufferage
well media history plays out of placards and picnics. but again lots of things were happening within government buildings.
for instance some women(with businesses) did get to vote and other women lobbied their local government representative to vote on their hehalf (advocate)

.. in short none of the items of question you asked changed due to placards and picnics

Congress reacts to protests.  Think of them as an escalated letter to congress.   In democracy, a protest is about making your voice heard  (not only to law makers, but also to other citizens).  Because US representative are elected every 2, 4, or 6 years, they would be foolish to simply ignore the protests, at least if they hope to be reelected. 

The British responded to the Boston Tea Party directly with The Coercive Acts, basically the British decided to increase taxes even more which in turn gained more support for a Revolution, unifying the patriots.

This is why the founders (who were  were adamant about including the right to protest in the US constitution - so that Congress would be forced to listen and respond accordingly.  The civil rights act  is probably the best example of this.  

[franky1]

congress does not react to protests

congress was undersiege in january and yet the screams of the trumpettes was not heard or even discussed.
congress does however react to petitions and lobbying

the boston tea party events. were not where britain responded to the citizens of placard waving protests.. but instead the US government sending the british monarchy a petition (protest/resolution)

this is the legal method that got the british government to listen to the american government

civilian protests/riots were not the cause.. it was legal paperwork such as petitions, resolutions, contracts, acts and lawsuits..
the civilian protests were just social/media drama to layer on as as an 'after-fact' if it was 'power of the people'
much like when hurricanes happen. some people then say 'it was an act of god'
nope it was an atmospheric event

[Mauser]

civilian protests/riots were not the cause.. it was legal paperwork such as petitions, resolutions, contracts, acts and lawsuits..
the civilian protests were just social/media drama to layer on as as an 'after-fact' if it was 'power of the people'
much like when hurricanes happen. some people then say 'it was an act of god'
nope it was an atmospheric event

I agree, civilian protest always look nice on the news, because it is so dramatic to have burning stores and looting people on the street. But if you put the number people in a city into relation to the number of protests, we see that is a very small number of the population that actually engages in the protests. And we also don't really know if it is a natural protest, or something organised by some rich people who want to use if it for a political agenda.

[Similificator]

I agree with you a hundred percent. The only problem is that people are way too hot headed to think rationally nowadays. Although this may not be the case all the time, a lack of education or proper knowledge is also a huge problem. People who lack knowledge tend to do things recklessly and what's worse about this is that most of these type of people tend to close their minds to other alternatives even when sometimes, the benefits are quite obvious they do not care since it mostly hurts their egos. Another thing would be because leaders of some revolutions are paid to recruit gullible people to do useless revolutions by some political party. This is why despite better solutions being obviously out in the open, most revolutions cannot or won't even use them.

[TwitchySeal]

the boston tea party events. were not where britain responded to the citizens of placard waving protests.. but instead the US government sending the british monarchy a petition (protest/resolution)

this is the legal method that got the British government to listen to the American government

What you're saying directly contradicts the consensus among historians.

There was no listening to the Colonists by the British.  Instead they passed a bunch of oppressive laws in hopes to force them into submitting known as The Intolerable Acts:

The Intolerable Acts (passed/Royal assent March 31 – 22 June 1774) were punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party. The laws were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in the Tea Party protest in reaction to changes in taxation by the British Government. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts.

The acts took away self-governance and rights that Massachusetts had enjoyed since its founding, triggering outrage and indignation in the Thirteen Colonies. They were key developments in the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in April 1775.

[BADecker]

why revolutions and movements fail at their desired outcome


Because the losers don't have full auto assault weapons, and powerful ammo.

[franky1]

the boston tea party events. were not where britain responded to the citizens of placard waving protests.. but instead the US government sending the british monarchy a petition (protest/resolution)

this is the legal method that got the British government to listen to the American government

What you're saying directly contradicts the consensus among historians.

There was no listening to the Colonists by the British.  Instead they passed a bunch of oppressive laws in hopes to force them into submitting known as The Intolerable Acts:

The Intolerable Acts (passed/Royal assent March 31 – 22 June 1774) were punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party. The laws were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in the Tea Party protest in reaction to changes in taxation by the British Government. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts.

The acts took away self-governance and rights that Massachusetts had enjoyed since its founding, triggering outrage and indignation in the Thirteen Colonies. They were key developments in the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in April 1775.

thats the entertainment newpaper headline version of events.
if you dig a lil deeper. it wont take you long

so. REAL history is
citizens and Whigs threw boxes in the sea. britain sent more boxes and demanded more taxes..
^summary of where your post ends
then
13 colonies got together and formed the first session of congress and petitioned the monarchy
then parliament backtracked

as you can see. if you tried reading things in time line order
citizen protests done nothing. as you say parliament ignored the teabox soaking events.. and just punished that defiant act..

thus proving citizen protests dont do crap.. but cause more issues(my point all along)

but then when forming congress and petitioning the monarch.. then things changed.
but seems you ended your post before you got to that part of the story

it is a lil funny how your version of events stopped at the tealeaf soaking and intolerable acts part... and you refrained from including any of the things about congress petitions to monarchy and other things.

but hey if you think throwing 3 ships load of tea boxes into the sea was the only and sole cause of a civil war. maybe your missing a few pieces of critical info in the middle

also funny how you feel the teaparty event of soaking tealeaves in the ocean caused positive change of laws.. whilst admitting that it was the opposite and ignored and caused a war instead.. which just sounds like flipfloping to me..

try to concentrate on the legal stuff happening behind the popularist new media of entertainment news about getting tealeaves wet as a form of protest

[TwitchySeal]

it is a lil funny how your version of events stopped at the tealeaf soaking and intolerable acts part... and you refrained from including any of the things about congress petitions to monarchy and other things.

To be clear, are you saying the petitions to the Monarchy were effective despite the Revolutionary War happening?

but hey if you think throwing 3 ships load of tea boxes into the sea was the only and sole cause of a civil war. maybe your missing a few pieces of critical info in the middle

I don't.  Of course I don't.  Please don't do that, lets have an honest conversation.

also funny how you feel the teaparty event of soaking tealeaves in the ocean caused positive change of laws.. whilst admitting that it was the opposite and ignored and caused a war instead.. which just sounds like flipfloping to me..

No, I'm not flip flopping.  I think protests are can be an effective way to make change, you don't.  Whether the change is positive or not, well, that's an entirely different argument.  I'm sure we could find a bunch of protests throughout history and agree that they had negative results and were a bad idea/negative for the world from the beginning.  I'm only arguing that civilian protests can be, and have been, an effective way to cause change and strongly against your view that they do nothing at all.

so. REAL history is
citizens and Whigs threw boxes in the sea. britain sent more boxes and demanded more taxes..
^summary of where your post ends
then
13 colonies got together and formed the first session of congress and petitioned the monarchy
then parliament backtracked

No, Britian didn't just send more boxes and demand more taxes.  They passed the "The Boston Port Act" where they basically shut down Boston Harbor (That was a really big deal).  This is the actual text from the act.  It's not media, revisionist or sensationalized by anyone.  It's Englands literal response to the Boston Tea Party, 3 months after the incident  (remember people had to sail across the ocean back then), and six months before the first continental congress:

The Boston Port Act

(March 31, 1774)

AN ACT to discontinue, in such manner, and for or such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in North America.

WHEREAS dangerous commotions and insurrections have been fomented and raised in the town of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in New England, by divers ill affected persons, to the subversion of his Majesty's government, and to the utter destruction of the publick peace, and good order of the said town; in which commotions and insurrections certain valuable cargoes of teas, being the property of the East India Company, and on board certain' vessels Iying within the bay or harbour of Boston, were seized and destroyed: And whereas, in the present condition of the said town and harbour, the commerce of his Majesty's subjects cannot be safely carried on there, nor the customs payable to his Majesty duly collected; and it is therefore expedient that the officers of his Majesty's customs should be forthwith removed from the said town: ... be it enacted ..., That from and after June 1, 1774, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to lade, put, or cause to procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place, within the said town of Boston, or in or upon any part of the shore of the bay, commonly called The Harbour of Boston, between a certain headland or point called Nahant Point, on the eastern side of the entrance into the said bay, and a certain other headland or point called Alderton Point, on the western side of the entrance into the said bay, or in or upon any island, creek, landing place, bank, or other place, within the said bay or headlands, into any ship, vessel, lighter, boat, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be transported or carried into any other country, province, or place whatsoever, or into any other part of the said province of the Massachuset's Bay, in New England; or to take up, discharge, or lay on land, ... within the said town, or in or upon any of the places aforesaid, out of any boat, ... any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be brought from any other country, province, or place, or any other part of the said province of the Massachuset's Bay in New England, upon pain of the forfeiture of the said goods, ... merchandise, and of the said boat, ... and of the guns, ammunition, tackle, furniture, and stores, in or belonging to the same: And if any such goods, ... shall, within the said town, or in any the places aforesaid, be laden or taken in from the shore into any barge, ... to be carried on board any ship or vessel outward bound to any other country or province, ... or to be laden into such barge, ... from or out of any ship or vessel coming in ... from any other country, such barge, ... shall be forfeited and lost....

 

X. Provided also, and it is hereby declared and enacted, That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed, to enable his Majesty to appoint such port, harbour, creeks, quays, wharfs, places, or officers, in the said town of Boston, or in the said bay or islands, until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty that full satisfaction hath been made by or on behalf of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston to the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, for the damage sustained by the said company by the destruction of their goods sent to the said town of Boston, on board certain ships or vessels as aforesaid; and until it shall be certified to his Majesty, in council, by the governor, or lieutenant governor, of the said province, that reasonable satisfaction hath been made to the officers of his Majesty's revenue, and others, who suffered by the riots and insurrections above mentioned, in the months of November and December, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy three, and in the month of January, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy four.