Based on the article “no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed” has the caveat of “we only look at 3 of them, and those 3 worked”.
So their overall sample size is small, and the 3.5% sample size is just 3. Further, those 3 had no idea someone in the vague future would retroactively measure their participation to declare it a rock solid threshold.
I think the broader takeaway is that number of people seems to matter more than degree of violence, and violence seems to alienate people that might have otherwise participated.
George Floyd protests had more than that (closer to 8%) and they didn’t really change anything.
This refers to Chenoweth’s research, and I’m somewhat familiar with their work. I think it’s good to clarify what non-violent means to them, as it’s non-obvious. For example, are economic boycotts violence? They harm businesses and keep food of the tables of workers. I don’t think that’s violence, but some people do, and what really matters here is what Chenoweth thinks violence is, and what they mean when they say “nonviolent tactics are more effective”.
At the end of “civil resistance: what everyone needs to know”, Chenoweth lists a number of campaigns which they’ve marked as violent/nonviolent and successful/unsuccessful. Let’s look at them and the tactics employed tonfigure out what exactly Chenoweth is advocating for. Please do not read this as a condemnation of their work, or of the protests that follow. This is just an investigation into what “nonviolence” means to Chenoweth.
Euromaidan: successful, nonviolent. In these protests, protestors threw molotov cocktails and bricks and at the police. I remember seeing a video of an apc getting absolutely melted by 10 or so molotovs cocktails.
The anti-Pinochet campaign: successful, nonviolent. This involved at least one attempt on Pinochet’s life.
Gwangju uprising in South Korea: unsuccessful, nonviolent. Car plowed into police officers, 4 dead.
Anti-Duvalier campaign in Haiti: successful, nonviolent. Destruction of government offices.
To summarize, here’s some means that are included in Chenoweth’s research:
- throwing bricks at the police
- throwing molotov cocktails at the police
- assassination attempts
- driving a car into police officers
- destroying government offices
The point here is not that these protests were wrong, they weren’t. The point is that they employed violent tactics in the face of state violence. Self-defense is not violence, and this article completely ignores this context, and heavily and knowingly implies that sitting in a circle and singing kumbaya is the way to beat oppression. It isn’t.
As a catalan actively involved in the 2012-2017 push for independence, I call bullshit.
Idk, that French deal seemed to work out pretty well.
That’s horseshit made up statistics.
Way more than 6% want single payer, but it’s not happening.Bogus unsupported stats
Data presented to you by BBC the same network that lied to you about WMS in Iraq, genocide of the Palestinians people, and most likely more.
Non-violent protests still need to come with a credible threat of becoming violent if the protesters’ safety is being attacked or if their human rights are compromised.
It’s a social contract basically: we will be peaceful as long as you allow us to remain peaceful.
Yes, basically the individual gives up their sovereign monopoly of violence to the state in exchange for protection and representation through the constitution. Break that contract and people have the moral right to oppose “legal” violence carried out through a dictatorship.
I agree broadly with the idea that the state’s legitimacy relies on the appearance that they wield their violence justly, but I think you’re giving the state too much credit when you frame it as a fair and considered exchange of power.
The state has had all of us under its purview since birth, it has pumped us full of pro-hierarchy, anti-autonomy, anti-social propaganda and it wields its violence more to prevent insurgency than it does to protect us.
There is no “social contract”, nothing that I ever signed anyway, and even if there were, contract law invalidates any contract signed under duress. The concept of the social contract is just yet more hierarchical propaganda. It’s a vague, handwavey vibe to obscure the fact that we really aren’t given a meaningful option to leave.
The state relies on not just the appearance of legitimacy, but the appearance of absolute power. Both are illusions, and can be opposed by organised people directly building mutual aid on the ground. The more we meet one another’s needs for security the less we need the state and the more people can see it for the charade that it is.
Tell that to Hong Kong demonstrators on June 16, 2019, estimated by organizers at 2 million people marching. Hong Kong had a population of 7.5 million at the time.
Sure there was violence both before and after that protest, but mostly caused by violent crackdown by police.
But did it fail because there was violence or was violence a sign of stronger opposition? Causation vs correlation and all that.
Maybe they needed 3.5% of China? Since the repression was imposed from outside of the city its happening in a larger context than just the local demographics.
Yeah it seems to be the case as China didn’t respect the deal it made with UK to leave Hong Kong autonomous. If 3.5% of China did that it would most likely be a blood bath, be it a violent or non-violent protest.
Hong Kong wasn’t at or above 3.5% of Chinese population
I think we’re all aware. And Hong Kong isn’t (wasn’t) China in terms of governance(“one country, two systems”). China broke the deal it made with UK, which said Hong Kong would be autonomous until 2048, after which it would be incorporated into China.
But you’re right, not much to do when China claims authority and no one defends its right to free speech, democracy and autonomy.
Edit: added some need nuance on the “one country, two systems”.
China is as always a big Israel full of submissive but cunning cucks
American Revolution. French Revolution. Iranian Revolution.
Just a few very violent, and successful, revolutions.
I don’t really know if I’d consider the French revolution very succesful, considering the fact that the Bourbon dynasty was restored after only 16 years.
I’d argue the French revolution is probably one of the most successful.
For how long? Irrelevant answer. The French Revolution was about shifting the ruling from nobility to bourgeoise and it’s exactly what happened. Valid to this very day.
Who’s going to fight in your violent revolution? You? We couldn’t even get all the people who voted for Biden to Vote for Kamala. Right now a large portion of African Americans are refusing to join the protest movement against encroaching fascism because Trump is somehow a “white people problem.” How do you think a revolutionary army or even an insurrection of sufficient strength to challenge the United States Government would ever take hold when there is zero solidarity among the left? We can’t even get people to vote in their own interest, let alone support a violent revolution. This is pure fantasy.
If we allow them to make us violent, they will crush us with police/military force. It’s already happening. Do NOT get baited into killing your own insurgency.
The guy who shot Hortman had “no kings” posters in his car. He was trying to incite violence so the police would have an excuse to shoot protestors. Don’t let these people bait you.
Have you seen the videos of the No Kings demonstrations around the country? They were enormous! Not only were they far larger than I expected, they were MANY times larger than I expected.
The MAGA Nazis can try to suppress those crowds, but no matter what the outcome, they will lose. This isn’t pre-Internet Tiananmen Square, where the government can simply deny it happened. The entire planet will know.
If they fire on American protesters, no matter the justification, the MAGA Nazis government will make enemies of every Democratic nation in the world.
I agree, and I think that OP is trying to say, non-violence such as the no kings protests will be more effective than bloodshed
I have to say, the size of the No Kings crowds truly surprised me. I knew they’d be big, but these were HUGE!
HitlerPig is obsessed by ratings, polls, popularity, etc. The size of those crowds, in EVERY major city in America, must have scared the bejeezus out of him. The problem with that is that a shallow thinker like him can only conceive of a few responses, and ferocious violence is probably the first option that comes to his empty mind.
That’s right! And, adhering to that strategy would be falling right into his hands. Which is what OP is saying.
Wrong. They need to be afraid of us, and enormous opposition crowds help sell it. It also demonstrates to them that no matter how many troops they deploy, there are MILLIONS of people turning out in EVERY major city. They don’t have nearly enough troops to put down every demonstration.
It’s always good to make them question their own arrogance.
…You’re saying that my analysis of OP’s article is wrong?
The problem when it comes to the current situation in the US, is that these protests already came baked in to the Project 2025 plan from the start.
They’re not going to change their minds on anything as a result of the protests because they already knew there’d be mass protests before Trump signed a single order.
Why Civil Resistance Works the book that 2x figure comes from has some major controversy about cherry picking data as well as playing with the definition of peaceful protest.
If peaceful protests worked (as good as this article suggestions) the BBC wouldn’t be writing about them.
Yeah, look at the Iraq war protests, they didn’t amount to anything because they were peaceful and easily ignored by the media.
I personally feel like a lot came out of it, though. The USA left Iraq for example.
The USA actually still had troops in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, etc. And the protests were to prevent an invasion from happening in the first place, not to go in, kill a million people and then 2 decades down the line throw up your hands and say ‘that was a mistake’ with no consequences for anyone that pushed for it.
In 2007 there were 170,000 troops in Iraq
In 2010 there were 88,000
In 2024 there were 2,500
And the number there should be is 0, I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here. People didn’t want a war in Iraq in 2003, there were mass peaceful protests, and yet it still happened.
The number absolutely should not be 0. It’s a nation which actively funds and mobilizes religious extremists who imprison or execute homosexuals and treat women as cattle.
EDIT: in this context Iraq/nation meant the local populace, not the government
Which wasn’t the case before the invasion, when there were 0 US troops. Why the fuck do you bring up current day when I’m talking about protests that happened over 20 years ago (by people who knew the current outcome was likely)?
deleted by creator
Peaceful protest works great under two conditions:
-
Just a metric fuckton of participants
-
The implicit threat of violent protest (e.g. Malcom X behind MLK)
- Your opposition has empathy
Meaning they aren’t somehow making money off whatever you’re protesting…
-
The article pointedly says that non violent protests were more successful because a lot more people were involved than in the violent protests.
Claims without any supporting evidence aren’t that interesting.
Edit: OP changed his post after I called him out for not referencing any sources
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
You can also read the original book and check the examples.
P.C. this is article about the fourth mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes. There are 11 casualties during this series of protests.
But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?
P.C. this is article about the four mentioned protest in the article, and literally the second paragraph is about clashes.
Which states
Clashes break out as police try to disperse the crowds and eight demonstrators are killed.
Police killing protesters makes a violent movement?
They’re not exactly an armed group of combatants coordinating attacks.
Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field.
Research.
How to blow up a pipeline has a chapter on the topic.
Research?
But you knew that with your high standards of verifying information right?
Do your standards measure up to that?
I’m not the one making claims. If you want to make a claim cite a source.
The article also made claims. Did you check them?
Considering the UK’s biggest export is independence days, it’s kind of hard to think that all of those were solved through non violent means.
That statistic only works if the government cares what we think. Voters have trained politicians that they can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Therefore, they do not need to care what we think.
