Every specificity that is added to the movement's message scares away potential supporters that can no longer identify. This is global though. Every fringe group wants to add their message to the masthead of every protest. The left has had this problem forever.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You might be interested in !aspen_anti_billionaire_society@midwest.social

I'm not super familiar with it, but the sole mod has been quite outspoken about trying to make it a "big tent" and not allow it to be pulled by every extreme away from the singular goal of taxing the 0.01%, not even going after the 1%.

[–] ckmnstr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Thanks! I read a few of their comments, I agree in principle, but saying Occupy Wallstreet failed because antagonizing the 1% isn't broad enough is a wild take :D

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In one breath you're saying protests have to be wide and in the next you're complaining about groups with a specific interest joining.

[–] ckmnstr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No I'm complaining about groups with specific interests framing the entire campaign

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So something that doesn't actually happen in the real world. No one gets to decide the one singular issue that defines a protest. There isn't one.

[–] ckmnstr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sure, protests have organizers that do marketing/pr, logistics and the official registrations for the events. Therefore most large and significant protest movements in history are marketed with a sole purpose and can be boiled down to one topic:

Women's March= women's rights 1970 Earth Day= environment George Floyd/BLM= police brutality Globally it's the same, think of Fridays for Future for example.

Sure people went to Earth Day with peace flags or believing whatever but the framing of the event was clear.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Name a single protest taken over by an outside group. It's not something that happens. Maybe some of the white supremacy groups whose presence alone requires people to reject them or be tainted by association, but nothing on the left. That's not an actual problem on the left, much less one "on the left forever".

My first protest was organized against the Iraq War, but in practice also contained more broadly anti-Bush protesters as well as groups promoting third parties, communism, and veganism. None of those were a problem or threatened to take over the protest in any way.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 23 hours ago

I have seen protests hijacked. I blame poor organizing.

[–] ckmnstr@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Nothing I say has anything to do with who shows up, but who the organizers target and attract. As I said above, Earth Day had diverse attendee groups but one clear framing. As did, seemingly, your protest. Congrats!

Clear example, if you look at just this year's mass protests by 50501/indivisible in the US, for "Hands-Off" they had a plethora of defined goals ranging from foreign policy over trans rights to social policy. Meanwhile "No Kings" was just vaguely positioned against autocracy and Trump's regime in general. "Hands-Off" had a global turnout estimated between "hundreds of thousands" according to international press and "three to five million" according to the organizers, while "No Kings" reached over 5 million in the US alone according to independent census.

And this is just the ones from the US that made their way over here, I could give you a dozen more crass examples of protests against the extreme right in Eastern Germany that don't even manifest because the organizers can't agree on where they stand on the Gaza conflict - which of course has nothing to do with opposing the extreme right.