Claim: The protesters are predominantly “middle class” (i.e. bourgeois) “liberals”; The protesters will just return to “having brunch” once the protests are over; and Nonviolence just a form of white privilege:
While distinct, the three aforementioned claims are essentially variations on the same theme: the attendees of large mass protests aren’t genuinely oppressed people or legitimate revolutionary agents. In truth, that claim is patently absurd.
For starters, it needs to be said: unless someone conducts a thorough, rigorous, scientifically sound sociological study of the attendees of such mass demonstrations, the critics making the claim are just talking out of their asses. It’s a safe bet that none of the critics have done this. Anyone with half a brain knows full well that it’s exceedingly difficult to conduct such a survey of five-to-eight million (or more) people, and random cross sections (which would almost certainly be chosen arbitrarily and hastily) won’t really work, because different constituencies likely attend at different locations, and the distribution of constituencies isn’t uniform. For example: there is almost a marked difference between the demographic composition of a large protest group in a major urban center (e.g. Los Angeles) than there is in a satellite demonstration in a suburb (e.g. Glendale, CA), and still further distinctions between those and protests that happen in deep rural areas or remote outposts (there was a “No Kings 3” protest in Antarctica, of all places).
Furthermore, the crowd “surveys” that are conducted by a handful of the critics that bother to try are not particularly convincing. Often, (by the critics’ own admission) limited to their subjective observations (i.e. no double-blind controls or rigorous peer reviewed methodologies). At least one fairly influential leftist commentator (whom I choose not to name) based his conclusions on “reading the signs” of the demonstrators that passed through his field of vision. There’s absolutely no scientific way to draw any meaningful conclusions about an individual’s class background, political perspectives, organizing experience, their willingness to engage in ongoing struggles, or risk using more militant tactics based on a sign. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying or arguing in bad faith. Meanwhile, the British polling firm, YouGov, conducted a fairly rigorous survey, which Indivisible republished[1], and it includes some interesting data that contradicts the dismissiveness of the critics.
To some extent, some of the critics making these claims are dogmatic (though definitely not all or even most) Marxists who fetishize the industrial proletariat as being the historically privileged revolutionary agents. By extension, anyone who isn’t an industrial factory worker (or—in some variations of the dogmatic perspective—agricultural peasant—though Marx and Lenin had rather dismissive attitudes towards the latter), are members of the middle class (or “professional managerial class”, according to more recently adopted terminology). The critics will often argue that the demonstrators predominantly represent the current (putative) base of the Democratic Party (a natural assumption that flows from the equally dubious claim that these mass protests are Democratic Party astroturf or sheepdogging efforts), i.e. better paid professionals, nonprofit directors, liberal intelligentsia, or managers with four-year (or better) college degrees.
In truth, such definitions of who is and who isn’t an ideal revolutionary change agent are both at least a century out of date, and moreover, they’re just wrongheaded. Going by the definition of who is eligible for membership in the IWW (any worker who isn’t a boss and has no power to hire and fire), it’s a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of the 5-8 million protesters are, by definition, based on their relationship to capital, working class. As for whether or not they’re industrial manufacturing workers, this isn’t the late 1800s anymore. The composition of the “proletariat” has changed substantially in the past 150 years.
Indeed, one major reason why it seems that a great many demonstrators (and Democratic Party voters, for that matter) look like what have traditionally been “middle class professionals”, is that a lot of these supposedly “middle class professions” are undergoing a process of forced proletarianization. In plain and simple terms, a lot of what had been skilled professions (including nurses, teachers, professors, doctors, technicians, many office professions, engineers, and more) available only to an educated “elite” have been thoroughly deskilled, dumbed down, mechanized, consolidated, privatized, monetized, and “enshittified”. Indeed, that process is essentially a repeat of what happened to skilled craftsmen during the Industrial Revolution. The same process that drove so-called “blue collar” industrial workers to join radical class struggle movements and adopt socialism or anarchism is now driving a lot of so-called “white collar” professional workers to follow a somewhat similar course.
It’s supremely ironic that many of the sectarian critics who denounce mass protests (such as “No Kings”) because the latter supposedly eschew revolutionary class struggle tactics in favor of allegedly “performative liberalism”, turn their noses up at a new enlargement of the proletariat who just might be receptive to their fundamental principles (minus the sectarianism, dogma, and rigid doctrines, of course)! This is not surprising, because many of the sectarian left cynics continue to essentially fetishize industrial factory and building trades workers as being the inevitable spark of the revolution (with the right cadre leadership, of course.)
Some of these sectarian criticisms are the inevitable result of the tendency for radical activists to gravitate towards subcultures. To be radical is often to be on the fringes of society, both economically and culturally. It’s understandable. People who are oppressed, harassed, or even just frequently criticized by “normies” want to belong to a nurturing, inclusive community for both mutual aid and protection. There’s an earned distrust of mainstream society within those subcultures, because all too often, mainstream society tries to marginalize or even eradicate them. This is a double-edged sword, however. Subcultures, by themselves, cannot bring about revolutions. Only when mainstream society adopts radical ideas (even if they’re not framed in precisely the same way or using the same terminology of the affected subcultures) can revolutions really occur. Like it or not, if the majority of people look like “brunch eating wine moms” rather than punk crusties, the revolution is going to be composed predominantly of the “wine moms”.
Related to this wrongheaded notion is the cynical belief that the vast majority of the protesters live a bourgeois lifestyle and will simply revert to their supposed old patterns, i.e. “having brunch”[2], once the demonstration concludes. In actual fact what has happened after the previous “No Kings” protests, and indeed what happens after most mass protests is that attendees do continue their organizing efforts, activism, and struggle, if the opportunity exists for them to do so. Whether or not such opportunities arise depends largely on either those who organize the protests providing them, and/or other organizations utilizing the mass demonstrations to recruit willing attendees (Tim Hjersted offers a much more detailed argument in favor of doing that and how the process has worked in practice historically here ( https://timhjersted.substack.com/p/how-to-view-protests-like-an-organizer ) so I won’t attempt to rehash his arguments).
I can speak from direct experience that often both types of organizing frequently does happen, and that’s certainly been the case with “No Kings” (and, with all due respect to Tim Hjersted, the various organizations behind “No Kings” have been doing a lot more of it than he suggests, and most of it has not been focused on convincing people to “vote Blue (i.e. Democratic) no matter who”, or even electoralism at all). Indeed, following the various large protests there have been multiple follow-up webinars where the focus has been on “next steps”, and not once have I heard any organization behind these mass demonstrations suggest that simply showing up to those are the be-all-and-end-all. On the contrary, there has been much emphasis on long term struggle and building collective, direct democratic power (and I will elaborate on how this has manifested later in).
Finally, there’s yet another elephant (or donkey?) in the proverbial room, and that is the perception that the protesters are overwhelmingly white. To begin with, there’s never been a scientific study conducted that conclusively proves that the vast majority of those attending mass protests, including “No Kings” are white. Even if they are, however there are several good reasons why this could be so:
- The United States still has a majority white population;
- Nonwhite, BIPOC people tend to more predominantly live in urban areas (though this is gradually shifting), and the large urban protests tend to be easier to conceive as a mass sea of humanity, whereas the whiter suburban, exurban, rural, and remote outpost protests are far more dispersed, thus the “whiteness” gets exaggerated;
- BIPOC people face a much greater risk of repression due to institutionalized systemic racism historically, and therefore they’re more hesitant to attend even these large protests, in spite of the fact that the risk to them (due to the protests’ size) may actually be far less than they realize;
- The repression that large protests such as “No Kings” opposes is much newer to white people than it is to BIPOC folks, and the latter have been organizing for much longer and have actually highly developed forms of nonviolent resistance that doesn’t always manifest as traditional protest methods (for example: Jazz music, and later, Hip Hop, are actually forms of cultural protest).
It shouldn’t be lost on anyone that just about everyone protesting, white people included, are motivated, at least partly, by opposition to white supremacy (which is inherent in MAGA), racism, ICE, crackdowns and attacks on immigrants, the genocide being carried out by the Israeli government, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and other oppressive divisive tools used by authoritarians to divide-and-conquer and consolidate their power. It’s also a safe bet that many of the demonstrators, white people particularly, are far from consistent or perfect in such opposition, but that’s to be expected and understood as part of the painful process of unlearning the oppression they are trying to oppose, which is systemic learned behavior. Such imperfections aren’t above (constructive) criticism, and not everyone is likely to be willing to embrace the reality that unlearning and dismantling white supremacy (in favor of multiracial, multicultural democracy) is a never-ending ongoing process, but one shouldn’t condemn mass demonstrations because of such imperfections. It should be taken as a hopeful sign that the potential to win the vast majority of white people over to dismantling white supremacy manifests in “No Kings” and other such mass demonstrations.[3]
Finally, as for the claim that strategic nonviolence is a form of “middle class white privilege”, there’s a huge degree of historical irony embedded in that argument. Strategic nonviolence was actually largely pioneered by BIPOC organizers (such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr) in the late 19th and first two thirds of the 20th Centuries, and only became mainstream among white organizers in the last third of the 20th Century. Ironically, the alternative to strategic nonviolence (i.e. armed revolution) that is counterposed is predominantly historically the province of white revolutionaries (and although the latter used a fair amount of nonviolent tactics as well, somehow it’s the violent tactics that are romanticized and given the credit).
Furthermore, while there are undoubtedly historical examples of privileged white activists precluding the use of more militant (but nonetheless arguably nonviolent) tactics, more often than not in my experience, such claims are actually overstated cases. Typically what occurs are disagreements between experienced organizers with longer game, patient strategic approaches and those with a more “go for broke” mentality. History clearly demonstrates the folly in the insisting upon the latter approach. Certainly there are instances when it pays off—at least temporarily, though the success rate of what follows is mixed at best—but most of the time the costs outweigh the benefits. Those that favor the “go for broke” approach tend to be those who harbor the romantic notion of the masses just waiting for the appropriate match to be stricken to begin the riot to end all riots. Unfortunately, most of those “matches” just result in self-inflicted charred hands.[4]
There seems to be a persistent view that the most forceful and (putatively) most militant tactics are automatically the most effective tactics, meaning that they’re the ones most likely to result in the desired outcomes, but reality is more complex. First of all, more forceful tactics generally carry with them a higher failure and backlash risk, especially if they’re used too early in a campaign. Secondly, fewer people are willing, at least initially, to risk them, and winning isn’t simply a matter of sufficient militancy, but also sufficient numerical strength. It’s certainly true that if eight million people were to engage in a general strike, it’d be impactful, but in spite of the seemingly large mass that number represents, unless they’re concentrated in key economic leverage points, eight million nevertheless represents approximately 1/10% of the human population, and most large metropolises have approximately that amount of people living on them. The eight million that protested on March 28, 2026 did so on multiple continents.
That’s not to suggest that either a general strike is unachievable or that a mass demonstration of 8 million people engaging in far less militant tactics aren’t effective at chipping away at authoritarian power. Quite the opposite is demonstrably true in both cases, though a global general strike is incredibly difficult to pull off (and has never been attempted, let alone achieved, even though their adherents, including myself, argue for building towards one), and a demonstration of eight million not up to the same militancy of a general strike, can nevertheless provide the beginnings of a foundation for greater militancy. Historically speaking, great changes can occur, and often do without even a hint of a general strike in the immediate future.
A good analogy for this dynamic is a chess game. Far too many inexperienced players discount the utility of their pawns, preferring to quickly exercise their more powerful pieces, particularly the very powerful queen. Furthermore, they tend to use their pieces as individual weapons, moving them carelessly and aimlessly, thinking that this gives them an advantage. Any experienced chess player, even one who isn’t a tournament level player knows, however—often through painful experience—that pawns are actually “the soul of chess”, and that used effectively as a unit, can often make all the difference in who wins the game ultimately. They may seem limited and insignificant, especially as individual units, but together they can be an unbreakable force, even if their “strength” seems limited. And certainly the more powerful pieces do the lion’s share of the damage to the opposing player, but only if used effectively in combination with the pawns and each other, and then only if used at the appropriate instance.[5]
In any case, the historical evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that strategic nonviolence is more effective than violence, regardless of who engages in it, regardless of class status or skin color.
Footnotes:
[1] See National Survey on No Kings 3 Protests - https://indivisible.org/news/national-survey-on-no-kings-3-protests/
[2] The phrase "middle-class protesters just want to return to having brunch"—often phrased as "going back to brunch"—originated as a critique of liberal, centrist, or "resistance" politics during the Trump administration (2017–2021). It mocks the idea that political activism for some was merely a temporary, uncomfortable hobby, and that their ultimate goal was to return to a life of comfortable, politically disengaged consumerism.
[3] There are of course, Afro-pessimistic perspectives that argue such hopes range from unlikely to hopeless. While I understand such views, I don’t share them (though, to be fair, I am “white”, but I’m also Jewish, so my life-experience is mixed. Antisemitism exists, still, but one would be hard pressed to offer demonstrative proof that Jews are treated as “subhuman” everywhere). In any case, if the Afro-pessimists are justified in their views, a claim that only history can demonstrate, then there’s likely no alternative to mass demonstrations that would offer better outcomes.
[4] This is not a new debate either. Careful and thorough reading of history shows that many revolutionaries, including most anarchists, who exhibited vehemently adventuristic, insurrectionary tendencies in their youths ultimately evolved to favor more measured—though no less revolutionary—organized, collective and class-based approaches, including syndicalism. Abel Paz’s very thorough history of Bonaventura Durruti offers a very good illustration of one such revolutionary’s evolution from bank robber to rank-and-file CNTista.
[5] Chess is admittedly an imperfect analogy, since struggles against authoritarian and capitalist power blocks are, by definition, asymmetrical (though one can think of the “weapons of the (so-called) weak” as existing in the aggregate that can resemble those of the more (putatively) “powerful” oppressor), the rules of the real world far more complex and dynamic, and there are often far more than a mere two “sides” with shifting and not always either mutually inclusive or exclusive congruencies. Nevertheless, chess is an excellent—though by no means the only—game for teaching both strategy and patience. I sincerely wish more revolutionaries would learn to play chess. In my opinion, far too many apparently prefer seeing the struggle as a game of “Rock-‘em-Sock-‘em-Robots.”