>> No, but people are behaving as if that were the rule.
>
> Really? Who? These vague gestures at unnamed
> "people" must have some discursive function, but
> I've never been able to figure out what it might
> be.
Here's an example of quietism induced by the phobia of being "used" by the state: <http://resistancestudies.org/?p=397>. I've read others, most of which I've tried to forget. Less directly, I'd say the socialist habit of insisting at every opportunity that Mousavi is a flaming neoliberal is a reminder to not slight Ahmedienejad's anti-imperialist cred..
>> A protest against Bush is supporting Gore? I give up then.
>
> But the supposition was: crowds in the street about the stolen
> 2000 election. Wouldn't that have been in practice and intent
> a demand to place the rightful victor in the Death Star's
> pilot seat? What other purpose might it have had?
The thing about protests is that they start with a "no," and whatever happens after that is up to the imaginations of the protesters. So in 2000, the result would have probably been limited to installing Gore. But one of the things that is notable about the Iranian protests is that they seem to have exceeded the immediate impetus for them. It's as if politics and organization are being created as the events unfurling. It *seems* that way at least, but as shag says, we should be careful about projecting our fantasies on others.