You Should Know

General strikes accomplish a fuck of a lot more in a shorter amount of time. When the owners of the administration can't get their poptarts to the stores to be sold, the bank calls their loans and shit gets real.

my fucking ass 👅🥾

Bolsheviks, Stonewall riots, suffragettes, all famously peaceful movements that got their rights by staying on their knees and asking nicely.

Let me know what all the peaceful protests on climate change did leading up to and since the Paris Agreement.

Civil disobedience, including violent action, absolutely has a place in changing the policy of the state.

It's about resistance, not violence per we. Choosing the right kind of resistance for the situation is how change is made. Non violent protesting is for raising awareness and building solidarity. Violence is purely for defense and to show when a line has been crossed. Otherwise your movement will just become the next police state regime, if it doesn't get crushed outright. People advocating for violence on social media are either bots or bad faith actors trying to stop the movement. Anyone seriously considering violence against the state sure as shit aren't posting about it on Lemmy.

Name one non-violent protest that changed the material conditions of those protesting, I'll wait.

We're at that point and yet has Trump been impeached for denying due process and trying to create a process with ice to deport people without a trial to a foreign prison for life? Or for blatantly ignoring orders from federal courts and the Supreme Court?

Until Trump is in prison or tried for his crimes this article doesn't sway my opinion at all. Fact is too many loopholes exist in the rule of law in the usa. Only way to fix it is creating a new government with a new constitution. The executive branch as it is has way too much power consolidated. The current form of government cant go on as it is. Especially because of how much money and bribery is now involved.

I dont see this being resolved peacefully. Fascists never go peacefully. NEVER

There's a book on the subject written by Srdja Popovic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution

Summary: protests that start (and try to remain) non-violent have a greater chance to succeed, because they can attract more people to their cause.

Critique: with some regimes, it's not possible to non-violently protest. For non-violent protest to work, the environment must respect a minimum amount of human rights.

Case samples:

• US during the civil rights movement era: yes
• USSR under Gorbachev: yes
• Serbia under Milosevic: yes, with difficulty on every step (Popovic was there doing it)
• Israel under Netanyahu: probably yes
• China under Xi: practically no (not for long)
• USSR under Kruschev/Brezhnev/Andropov/Chernenko: not really
• Russia under Putin: no, don't even hold a blank sheet of paper
• Iran under Khamenei: only if you're doing a bread riot
• Saudi Arabia, USSR under Stalin, NK under the Kim dynasty: no, and execution would be a possible outcome

...etc. In some places, you can't organize. Then your only option is to fight. As long as you can publicly organize, definitely do so - it's vastly preferable. :)

Who wrote this article? Fairy tale bullshit??

Non violent protests work on a platform of sympathy, violence is fear, a lot of people lack any sympathy for no kings protests and those against it don't seem to fear it

How are you going to demand change when a ragtag militia force can stop it?

This is complete utter propaganda, especially considering it's coming from the BBC. History has shown us time and time again that the ruling class never gives up its power peacefully.

Well that's total bs, in Greece there's been dozens of non-violent protests far exceeding 3.5% that have failed spectacularly.

Didn't BLM 2020 protests have over 3.5%? I don't think they accomplished much except put pressure to prosecute Chauvin. Like literally just that one guy.

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.

Liberal three-percenter lore?

I mean, I do think non-violent disobedience can be effective, but the state usually makes it violent. State sanctioned protests where most obey most of the rules isn't disobedience. Is a good start though, and I hope things progress (in a good way).

I heard a saying once (I cannot remember the provenance) that could be paraphrased like: "The liberal is someone who is for all movements except the current movement; against all wars except the current war."

There are two important points:

1. Every major movement in history has incorporated elements of violence;
2. Which movements we retroactively consider as violent is determined by sociological consensus.

For example, the American civil rights movement is today considered by people to have been largely non-violent. However at the time the movement's opponents definitely thought of, and portrayed it as a violent enterprise.

Opponents of a movement will always portray that movement as violent. The status-quo consensus perspective on historical protests is written by the victors. Therefore, the hypothesis that "non-violent" protests are more likely to succeed than "violent" ones is self-fulfilling. When protest movements succeed we are less likely to consider them "violent".

YSK, This is blatant propaganda

This is actually rewriting history.

The Philippines had multiple militant movements but notably the Reform the Armed Forces which had orchestrated and abandoned a coup that had popular support kicking off the protest movement.

Sudan was a military coup that overthrew bashir and then massacred protestors and was actually backed by American OSI NGOs.

Algiers street protests were illegal and they combined general strikes with police clashes and riots even though they were subjected to mass arrests.

For Ghandi MLK jr and others mentioned there were armed militant groups adding pressure. My take away is you need both approaches.

Without demonstrating the ability to defend your nonviolent protest with devastating results it just gets crushed. If you are militant with no populist public movement backing your ideals you get labeled as terrorists and assinated by the feds.

Bourgeoisie propaganda

Non violent protests only work when there's a threat of violence backing them.