Flippanarchy

Yeah I mean what about that other thread? I didn't feel like there was that big of a fallout in the comments, it sounds a bit overdramatic, unless you meant something else.

About the yellow vests, no that is not what I'm saying, I'm not sure how or why you could reach to that conclusion. I'm giving an example of how a political movement started from concrete material issues that the working class experienced. In fact, the yellow vests managed to get slight concessions. There is no connection that would suggest that movement led to the authoritarian drift in France (those were already experimented in french suburbs, and extensively used to kill any protests moving forward, very good analysis of police brutality in France here https://shs.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2017-4-page-38).

Are we sure we're both talking about the 2010s Tunisia protests? I don't see how this is linked in any way with Hamas. It started from the immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi in protest to police corruption and the job crisis (among other things), experienced at that time. Those again started from concrete issues, and then evolved in criticism of the systems and powers in place. I'm hoping you're not making a link between the Arab Spring and Hamas out of ignorance and essentialization, the former started in Maghreb, the latter in the Middle East.

I feel like you're jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly, linking end-states of governmental action to the premises of various protests. I don't know, there's so many examples in history that contradict your premise:

• The Yellow Vests protesting gas price hikes didn't lead to the french government adopting far right methodology (Macron has been in power two years before that, and already exhibited nazi-compatible behaviour, even Hollande showcased signs of authoritarianism as early as 2015).
• The Arab Spring did not lead to a branch of Hamas being a terrorist organization (it exists since 1987 and was being labelled as such as early as 1995).
• The Boston Tea Party protesting the Tea Act of 1773, the Haymarket riots protesting 8-hour workdays in 1886, the Seattle General Strike of 1919 over wage cuts... they didn't lead to slavery in the U.S. The Atlantic slave trade started as early as the 15th century.
• The Catalan CNT rent strikes in 1931 over evictions didn't lead to slavery, also they won rent controls before the Civil War and Franco's takeover (1936).
• Slavery didn't spawn in the UK out of the London Matchgirls' strike of 1888 over fines.

So yeah we might have a misunderstanding because I don't understand why you would want to argue that protests starting from concrete material conditions automatically leads to slavery. All the progress we made for workers rights, and human rights, were taken from the powers in place thanks to people organizing, very often thanks to anarchist organizations. My point is just that it all started from concrete issues, that the working class was able to transform into something bigger politically, which explains why some (let's say, less politically educated-) U.S. citizen are starting to protest only once material issues (gas price hikes) are hitting them, rather than the abstract (to them) wars waged by their government in foreign countries.

It's our job to turn this reaction into organized political action against their government, and no, it does not end automatically in slavery.