Sponsor |  Innomen | Aug 7, 2007 5:30pm | Or does it merely take credit for change that was going to occur anyway?
I've not been a big activist despite my highly political and controversial ideals because I feel that intrinsically protest does nothing but mollify the masses until true change occurs on its own.
I cannot help but see the allowance of organized protest as a sort of pressure valve to keep the state from disintegrating, and thus as more of a survey tool for the state than a real mechanism for social evolution.
It seems to simply answer the question for the state "What can we get away with before they Really do something?"
Agree or disagree, why? |
|
|
|  csny | Aug 8, 2007 8:52am | | try actively: then see what happens, dont forget to report back>>>here VV |
|
|
| | lizzy | Aug 15, 2007 7:31pm | It would not work in a nation of significantly inteligent people to completely oppress the masses..the masses are a volotile beast that in the main think ritiousely..if all of them are so obviously upset they wouldnt work anymore and all would collaps.
Therefor they throw us a few crumbs of hope now and then.
But i think protest helps if not bringing about imediate change it solidifies people and brings connection..i dont think change occures all on its own..i mean political change not nature of course. |
|
|
Sponsor | | Fixer29 | Aug 19, 2007 5:22am | i think society is the only thing that can change society.
but protest is an important part of the process. you need the protest to make most people aware of the problems and without someone to raise the questions there will never be any changes. |
|
| Does protest cause change? | | |
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
|
Activism → Discussion