The art of taming our protest
How we are transformed from wild tigers into tame cuddly kittens
The fact is that protest directed against the prevailing conditions usually aims to challenge the status quo and bring about change. However, capitalism is a master at containing and taming this resistance. One moment you feel like an angry tiger, the next you are turned into a purring kitten. This is because the state and its institutions will always try to mould protests into forms that are manageable for them and do not allow for fundamental change. Sometimes, however, we feel like an aggressive big cat, even though we entered the stage of protest as a harmless kitten from the very beginning.
Sounds confusing, doesn’t it? But it’s really true – we’ve broken down for you how protest is tamed by the state or by ourselves. And what role does our capitalist economic system actually play in this?
Popcorn instead of protest
Let’s start with the economy: because when radical protest seems successful, capitalist societies quickly pull its teeth and turn its successes into easily digestible consumer goods. Hocus pocus – and we’ve already forgotten that there were ever any teeth there.
One example of this is Christopher Street Day, where numerous companies now decorate their products with rainbow flags, giving the impression that they are committed to the rights of queer people. Even though it is, of course, progress that rainbow flags are now more socially acceptable, the origin of this parade is completely lost sight of: namely, the violent confrontation between the police and homosexual and trans people during the Stonewall protests. Instead, the focus is on making as much profit as possible from this story of liberation. The hypocrisy of these corporations is evident in the fact that rainbow products are only marketed in countries where homosexuality is not a criminal offence, while lucrative deals are happily made with queer enemies elsewhere. And even in Germany, the glitter war between corporations does not go beyond the absolute basics of what has already been achieved. Rainbow lollipops: yes. Queer topics in school lessons: no.
The same can be observed in other liberation struggles, for example in the women’s movement: Emmeline Pankhurst and the suffragettes fought violently for their rights and had to accept multiple prison sentences for doing so. Today, images of them are printed on T-shirts and their statements are the subject of hashtags and memes. Tops with ‘Feminism’ printed on them hang on the clothes rails of well-known clothing stores. And even pop music sells even better under this label, as Beyoncé proves. Now that no one has to go to jail for demanding equal rights, these demands are being squeezed for every last penny. The struggles behind them are being pushed into the shadows.
Acrobatics with the state, nation and capital
It is also important to be aware of the role that the state and its institutions play in our society – especially when protesting against them. The state is not a neutral actor that simply mediates between different groups. Its primary purpose is to secure the prevailing conditions and thus defend its own foundations. Of course, those who have a lot (of power) want to keep a lot.
Specifically, the state ensures that the capitalist economy is maintained. In particular, it ensures that the idea of private property is not challenged. This naturally benefits millionaires and large corporations much more than the vast majority of us. Again: those who have a lot (of money) want to keep a lot. So how much leeway do parties have in our society as it is structured? Quite limited: of course, they can demand in the Bundestag that the minimum wage be increased by two euros or that fewer refugees be deported. These are concrete improvements that make a big difference to those affected. But the abolition of wage labour and borders will not be found in any motion. Only what fits within the framework of the prevailing order is considered constructive and legitimate. Anyone who gets involved in this game will quickly encounter capitalist constraints and will sooner or later have to adapt to them. In this way, protest can also become part of the very conditions it originally sought to combat: the Greens, founded in 1980 as a protest party, supported military interventions and the introduction of Hartz IV two decades later, and later the demolition of Lützerath – but at least, unlike the CDU, with considerable discomfort.
To prevent sand from getting into the gears of our capitalist society, it is of central importance to bring radical labour struggles into a system-compliant, tame form. Yes, it’s you we’re talking about: trade unions. A hundred years ago, they were still a hotbed of radical resistance against the state and capitalism. For many people, the workplace and the factory were places where they became politicised. General strikes brought entire regions to a standstill economically.
And today? General strikes are banned, but trade unions still exist. And they are also important and make a difference for workers, as they repeatedly fight for better working conditions and wages. However, it is questionable whether these organisations are actually still a threat to the economy or whether they are not rather a calculated player in the system, simply ensuring that salaries are occasionally adjusted, albeit grudgingly, to rising basic costs – and often not even that, given that real wages have been falling for years. Progress is not only being made against the interests of companies, but also against those who have internalised the prevailing ideology and can no longer distinguish a half-hour delay due to a rail strike from the end of the world. In this sense, trade unions are like the annoying barrel organ player who always plays the same song and occasionally gets a few coins thrown into his hat.
This goes hand in hand with a trivialisation of their own power: instead of closing down the shop until their wage demands are met, workers stand outside the door with placards, while inside, over coffee and cake, there is sympathetic chatter about why the company is also having a hard time and unfortunately cannot meet the demands. This understanding is reinforced not least by the fact that class contradictions are pushed into the background by invoking one’s own nation: when companies threaten to relocate abroad, threatening the loss of jobs, workers and bosses seem to be in the same boat. And, of course, in globalised capitalism, it matters whether states prevail over their competitors in international comparison. In the race for ever lower wages, however, the losers are already clear in advance: the workers, no matter where they are.
Ultimately, organisations that curry favour with the state can quickly become mere helpers of the system and even hinder the struggle for radical change by reducing protests to toothless tigers with whistles. But big cats don’t whistle, they bite!
Give me danger!
Even without being involved in structures, people often enter the arena of protest with the slogan ‘harmless’. This can sometimes be useful – but we fear that it often happens without much thought. What do we mean?
In 2021, young climate activists went on hunger strike in front of the Bundestag. Their demand: a public and honest discussion with top politicians. Behind this is the belief that politicians are simply unaware that the climate crisis is pretty dire and that they just need to have it explained to them briefly. The idea that professional politicians haven’t read a newspaper in 30 years, because otherwise they would surely have done something about the crisis, shows an excessive trust in the state: it doesn’t even consider that decisions might be made deliberately not in the interests of the common good. Deviations from the common good are attributed to the ignorance or incompetence of individuals rather than systemic causes. After all, companies naturally have no interest in becoming climate neutral if it means lower profits. Deals between political parties and corporations such as RWE are certainly worthy of criticism – but is that really surprising in a system that puts profit first? Shouldn’t the focus be on overcoming climate-damaging conditions rather than ranting at the Chancellor?
You can cover your ears when the audience boos; only when they storm the ring do the performers have to take action. Those who join hands in a chain of lights are not only symbolically expressing peace or unity, but also: I am harmless. As harmless as church bells ringing against the right wing. A bit like a clown: it may be entertaining in some ways, but above all it creates a deceptive feeling of superiority in some people. The same is true of media-effective images that are primarily aimed at self-affirmation of the participants and the approval of others: A flash mob in front of Primark, where everyone throws themselves on the ground to draw attention to the deaths of people in factories in Bangladesh, may generate brief attention on TikTok – but it does nothing to change the production conditions.
Media-effective images can – as in the case of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations – certainly contribute to the politicisation and mobilisation of protesters and thus bring about real change. And it’s great when people who were previously uninvolved decide to go to their first demonstration because of an impressive video. However, attention alone usually has no direct influence and therefore cannot replace demonstrations and other forms of protest. Unfortunately, the deadly production conditions in Bangladesh will not be changed by Lisa and Lysander only shopping second-hand after liking the flash mob video.
Back to the leap of faith in the state and its institutions. We also notice this elsewhere: when it comes to the police. Anyone who voluntarily places themselves in the hands of the police initially trusts that they will not use violence (even if they regularly disappoint this trust). This can sometimes lead to protests being largely ineffective from the outset – as in the case of small sit-in blockades that are simply carried away. But it can also be really dangerous: for example, when people trust that the cops will pull them out of a homemade tunnel system instead of simply collapsing the passageway. Or that they will gently remove the superglue instead of simply kicking their hands off the asphalt. The same applies when it is assumed that the Antifa demonstration will be protected by the police against the marching fascists – but instead, the demonstrators are also beaten up by the police.
Juggling and blocking
Protest must attack the root cause instead of merely reflecting it: a sign campaign against deportations can be helpful, but blocking a deportation plane has a very direct effect. This does not mean that rallies should always be rejected, but that they must be supplemented by other forms of protest. We do not mean to say that peaceful protest cannot be successful. In the long term, it can certainly bring about change, such as a reform of asylum law. However, the only thing that can help the specific individuals on the deportation flight is the pilot’s refusal to fly or civil disobedience.
As a general rule, it is better to protest than to remain silent. However, for protests to be successful, it is important that the goal of the protest and the form of action chosen are somehow related. If the goal is to attract attention, then go for something bright, colourful and loud. Often, however, the real root of the problem lies not in a lack of awareness, but much deeper in our society. Let’s tackle it.
For further reading:
Johannes Agnoli: Die Transformation der Demokratie und verwandte Schriften. 1967. 16,50 €.
