the tactical value of a protest march has never been to create pressure on policy or raise awareness. activists have always understood that there are better approaches for these things. the purpose of the march has always been to intimidate - it is a militant process that demonstrates strength. if you could ask gandhi, he would tell you this. bluntly. whatever the reason for the march,  or whatever the type, the idea has always been to reclaim the streets. and, as such, the apparently draconian response from the state is entirely justified in terms of self-preservation.

i need to be clear: i'm ideologically aligned with the protesters. i think we should reclaim the streets. but, only the most disconnected and most naive believe that the march is a purely peaceful act of protest that exists within a vacuum created by the event. marching is a revolutionary act. it always has been. and, of course the state will employ violence against those that organize against it.

the reason that marches are useless today is in the uneven level of weapons technology. even if marchers could arm themselves, even if they would choose to, there would be no fair fight with the security forces. in the real world, david never defeats goliath. it is simply a foolish tactic to take a drastically superior foe head-on.

staffing blockades is, in fact, the smarter approach. but, that in itself must be paired with legal action. i can only speak for the legal realities in canada, but the way we have to do this here is to create an indigenous protest, force the opponents to get an injunction and then tie the issue down in court. the ultimate legal question in most of these issues reduces to questions of private property rights, meaning the issues *must* be dealt with in courts, rather than in legislatures. the reality is that the elected officials often have little ability to intervene if they wanted to.

the message that a 500,000 or million or ten million person march sends is "this is the size of our army". it must intimidate the state into making a calculation.

the calculation the state needs to make is whether it feels it can defeat that army, or if it is better off avoiding the conflict in giving into those demands.

the british decided they could not defeat gandh's army. in the 60s, the democrats made a similar calculation regarding civil rights - that legislative changes were preferable to civil war.

but, today, we need such a large army to defeat their technology that the premise is virtually unthinkable. i mean, you could calculate a critical mass. but you'd need millions - tens of millions - to be in any way intimidating.

the targeted legal battles over property are consequently going to be far more effective in stopping further development and presenting financial arguments for transition. divestment is another more useful strategy.

this is useful;
http://central.d127.org/library/classprojects/gandhi/Documents/GandhisNonVioasaTactic.pdf

www.independent.co.uk/voices/dont-bother-protesting-at-the-paris-climate-change-conference-there-are-better-ways-to-tackle-global-a6760311.html