The actual effectiveness of any popular movement against poverty, war, injustice, and so on is ALWAYS difficult to determine, and many popular movements would have to be deemed dismal failures if prompt policy change were the only measure of success.

I was active in the anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the 1960s. Did the demonstrations stop the war? I'm not sure. It seems to have cost Lyndon Johnson a second term (he declined to run again); the demonstrations put pressure on various government figures. It certainly affected the collective public opinion about the war, which is always a concern to the government (and other institutions). It probably had a role in bringing an end to that particular war.

Demonstrations have other benefits, however, especially mass demonstrations, Participation in this mass movement was a watershed experience for many young white people, just as the civil rights movement was a watershed experience for many young black people. Occupy Wall Street did nothing significant to Wall Street, but it was a productive experience for thousands of young people who get together to work (however briefly, however effectively) for social change.

Generally smaller demonstrations, agitations, and consciousness raising went on at the launch of the gay liberation movement (which morphed pretty quickly into a civil rights movement). These were first effective for the participants, whatever they did for anybody else. They were affirming, in the same way the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was affirming to you. Once we all got our acts together and started focusing on political issues, we made some progress. I would say we made progress because society was changing and we were able to ride a small wave. It certainly wasn't a free ride.

ACT-UP (SILENCE=DEATH) and related organizations had a tough struggle to obtain adequate responses from the government and health care institutions for individuals infected with and dying from AIDS. They used some brilliant disruptive public demonstration tactics.

Demonstrations are almost always worth it, but they may not be immediately successful in changing policy. They change the participants for the better,

Has the digital age of information overload do campaigns for justice have less impact. — Jack Cummins

It was much more difficult to organize large groups of people prior to, oh, say 1990, than it has been since the wide availability of personal computers, information networks, the internet, and digital phones. Back then one had to put up flyers, hand out leaflets, take out ads in newspapers, get announcements on radio and television shows, and the like. Lots more word of mouth organizing. Doable? Effective? Absolutely, but it took a lot more effort.

how important is the idea of peaceful process — Jack Cummins

Peaceful methods are essential. Taking on the police with violent protest is a fools errand. Violent movements will be defeated, if not by the police, then by the national guard, and if need be, regular troops. The government has much more practice in deploying force than anybody else does.

Most people are not personally prepared for violent protest. Organizers have a responsibility to not lead people into danger which exceeds anyone's reasonable expectations. Civil rights organizers in the south knew violence was likely, and demonstrators were forewarned, A lot of people got beat up, some rather badly, but they were there through their own informed willingness.

Ghandi was one of a kind whose like doesn't appear very often. Same goes for Nelson Mandela and other heroes. They (and others) worked in societies being driven to very radical change. In India the Raj was collapsing. In South Africa the intransigent white regime was confronted by a sophisticated black majority liberation movement.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine allowed space for only military resistance; peaceful protest was beside the point (for Ukrainians) once the bombers, tanks, and troops were on the move.

I am wondering how marginalised are such movements in the present time, although there were some demonstrations in response to the Ukrainian crisis, including one in Trafalgar Square in London. So, it does seem demoralising that in the twentieth first century a situation exists where mass weapons of destruction present a real threat. — Jack Cummins

Does it really? WMD is a psychological warfare. Mass protests are great. But they won't stop WMD stockpile. What you need to ask is, what can stop any nation with WMDs from using them? One nuclear blast cannot destroy a whole state, let alone an entire nation. So, if you attack the United States, be prepared to be destroyed from the inside out of your anatomy with the more powerful stateside ballistic missiles with accuracy at a blinding speed.

Weapons are ambiguous in that they can be used both for defense and offense. This rather simple fact underpins the rationale of the arms race. Don't forget to account for unprdecitability of people which extends to nations/countries. What we wind up with is a formula that's equally bisemous - are we strengthening our defenses or are we making preparations to attack an other? This dual purpose nature of arms has been used by governments and the military top brass to justify spending on war machines. It's not exactly a scam but it does come close to being one. It's like driving at 39.9999 mph on a road that has a speed limit of 40 mph. Not guilty on a technicality!

Human rights, can't say if there is such a thing at all. Alcohol is legal, tobacco is legal? Why? Revenue from these industries are so high that the government looks the other way when morbity and mortality statistics are flashed before them in animated powerpoints. Isn't it the same as being imprisoned without trial for (say) 30 years (approx. time it takes for alcohol and tobocco to have their lethal effect) and then being put to death (liver cirrhosis and lung cancer)?

Yes, while we have been interacting you didn't know that I have been a CND supporter. I belonged to Youth CND and went on marches. My dad was not entirely happy, not because he thought that CND was wrong, but because he thought that I may end up on a government blacklist.

One important aspect of the arms race was the idea of it as a deterrent. However, there appears to be an insidious change, with more emphasis on the possibility of it being used. In the twentieth century the arms race was a way of holding the Cold War together. Is this happening again, with different yardsticks?

I have read your posts and thanks for your replies. Historically, protest has been important in the fight for women to vote, racism, gay issues and many other campaigns. However, I do wonder if the entire political climate has changed. It may be that the right to protest remains but is more of a symbolic gesture. Perhaps it always was to some extent. Unfortunately, violent protests, especially riots and terrorism have poisoned people against those who wish to protest peacefully. But, it may be that human powers and liberties have become eroded, especially in the increase in surveillance. It may be that the governments in many nations use fear as a weapon in its own right.

I have just one thing to add. Even though alcohol is sinister, even deaths by cirrhosis of the liver may be far less painful. Of course, this is debatable. But, what I also wonder if the two stem from the same sources, fear. The nihilism and fear of nuclear war may drive obliteration of consciousness through alcohol as a way of blocking it out. It is hard to know for sure, but, sometimes the grimness of the news makes me wish to get drunk because the idea of mass destruction may be worse than one's own personal death. It signifies the loss of human potential on a grand scale.

The thought of what may happen if there was a nuclear attack is hard to imagine. When I have spoken with friends about it, one question is whether it would be better to die at any early stage or live with the aftermath of devastation.

I dunno why you're trying to say alcohol is not (that) bad, at least not as bad as a WMD. It (alcohol) does have a soothing effect though and soldiers and sailors who lead dangerous lives have always been supplied with liquor which, apart from calming their nerves, is also a good disinefectant (for battle wounds).

Too, as a social lubricant, it might've been the key ingredient in the success of many historically important deals (civilian & military) between countries that paved the way for life as we know it - relative peace and comfort.

Who knows if Hermann and Pauline hadn't had that late evening wine sometime in 1878 that put 'em in the mood if you catch my drift, Einstein would never have been born on 14^th March 1879.

I am not saying that alcohol is not bad but I think death through nuclear war may be a bit worse. But I have not met anyone dying with cirrhosis of the liver yet. The worst thing which I have come across is alcohol induced dementia.

Alcohol is used by the military and many other professions. Most people don't drink on a daily basis although one of my friends admitted to being an alcoholic for many years. Of course, other drugs are used by soldiers and others. One thing which I read about was that Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley chose to take acid while dying. But, I don't think that watching nuclear destruction on acid would be a good idea somehow. There was, however, a link between the psychedelic movement and the anti war campaign. Who knows, the threat of war may release some creative work. You probably don't know it but The House of Love sang a song which says, 'The Beatles and the Stones put the V in Vietnam...'

The thought of what may happen if there was a nuclear attack is hard to imagine. When I have spoken with friends about it, one question is whether it would be better to die at any early stage or live with the aftermath of devastation. — Jack Cummins

Early stage. Radioactive plutonium will disintegrate your insides while you're alive.

protest movements — Jack Cummins

I know Johnson and Nixon were deeply affected by the protests. Nixon went out to talk to them in a really risky way and, of course, we all know about Johnson's sacrifice. He also grew his hair out after his abdication.

All I'm saying is, it just dawned on me, alcohol (and tobacco) is/are (a) WMD(s)s, you just don't realize it. Like nuclear power, it has its pros (many a diplomatic agreements have been made based on the quality and quantity of liquor served in receptions), but it has huge cons (cirrhosis is a direct effect, consider indirect costs like MVA/RTAs, domestic violence, bar/street brawls, etc.)

In 2016, 3 million deaths, or 5.3 percent of all global deaths (7.7 percent for men and 2.6 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption. Globally, alcohol misuse was the seventh-leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2016. — www

Gandhi — Jack Cummins

Gandhi demonstrated the falsity of the ol' adage fight fire with fire. Violence has a tendency to spiral out of control i.e. it eventually devolves into a zero-sum, death match.