In recent years, Australia has seen some of the biggest protests in its history, namely those against the Iraq war and Work Choices. Over the past decade increasing numbers have taken to the streets, in support of various movements such as anti-war, workers' rights, anti-neoliberalism, climate change action and many more.
However, the numbers involved are in constant flux, going through periods of rising, then falling, support. Along with this, despite majority public support, none of these major campaigns have achieved their goals in full.
So, are mass protests worth the time and effort?
Vietnam war
In 2005, radical US intellectual Noam Chomsky wrote to students organising against the Iraq war. Mass protests were a key part of the successful anti-Vietnam War movement, he said.
"The protest movement began largely on campus, in very scattered ways. Each effort seemed completely alone, and almost hopeless, in the face of enormous antagonism.
"But students persevered, and small efforts inspired others, and finally grew to a major mass movement. By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as 'fundamentally wrong and immoral', not 'a mistake', largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness.
"And that mass opposition compelled the business community and then the government to stop the escalation of the war."
History is littered with evidence of mass movements taking to the streets and, eventually, winning.
There are struggles against slavery, for universal suffrage, workers' and trade union rights, decent pay and working hours, civil rights, environmental protection, indigenous rights; the list goes on and on.
These gains were made not as a result of "nice" capitalists and politicians acting upon their good consciences. They were made by people actively struggling against the status quo.
Despite many past victories, some say mass protest is no longer useful or needed. In today's tech-savvy, sophisticated world, no one has spare time, it just blocks traffic, it's dangerous, and lobbying and online protest is easier. Or so the argument goes.
No struggle, no progress
Slavery abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in 1857: "If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation ... want crops without ploughing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters ... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
The media plays a big role in downplaying the importance of mass action.
"News" is reduced to a collection of sound bites. For major protests, the media often warns people not to attend, "as it may turn violent".
In this way, the media reduces protests to angry shouting, shattered windows and police repression. While political demands may be mentioned, they are not discussed in depth.
Passive methods of protest, such as the internet, have limits. Naomi Klein, author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, has said: "It's safer to mouth off in a blog than put your body on the line. The internet is an amazing organising tool but it also acts as a release, with the ability to rant and get instant catharsis. It's taken that sense of urgency away."
Power is in the streets
Those who hold power can be moved only when they are threatened by people marching in the streets, taking mass action, physically agitating and "putting their bodies on the line".
So if mass movements have worked in the past, are they still effective today?
Chomsky said: "The spirit of opposition remains alive and widespread, far more so than in the 1960s. And as then — or in the earlier civil rights movements, or the later women's, environmental, anti-nuclear, solidarity, global justice movements and others — small sparks can ignite large-scale commitment that may seem dormant, but is just below the surface.
"That is how every achievement for justice and peace has been won in the past, and there is no reason to suppose that the future will be any different."
Protest is the drawing of battle lines; the marshalling of forces; the threat of escalated action; the implied threat that, if demands aren't met, the movement will become even more powerful.
Mass action is needed for movements to win. One person occupying a factory is a criminal. One thousand people occupying a factory is a movement.
Mass action is the realisation of people power. The more victories won, the more the people realise their collective power, and the more willing they are to use it.
People involved in such movements can overcome feelings of isolation, powerlessness and alienation. Defeats are setbacks, but can also be learning experiences. We learn what was done wrong, what could have been done better and what the limits of the system are.
It's in realising the limits of the capitalist system; that it will only let workers go so far; and that private-property is a hindrance to the full realisation of human rights, that we begin to understand the need for a united workers' movement that confronts the whole system, rather than just a single issue.
This is what Resistance stands for. We are committed to developing young leaders in campaigns for social justice, gaining experience in the struggle and honing socialist thought and action.