Non Violent Protest Works

Here's an article in which the author wonders for some reason about what to do if a leader loses a democratic election but uses legal chicanery or paramilitary force to remain in power.
From this article.
(I don't think it has immediate practical use in the US: if Trump or his supporters had any serious plans they've waited too long to implement them.)

Headline points:
Nonviolent protest movements are twice as likely to succeed. In particular, nonviolent protest movements that engage in economic resistance and refusal are more likely to succeed.

This is because the main factor in success is how many people you can get actively participating. Violent movements can only get the participation of young people without dependents.

The strategic propaganda benefit to the powers-that-be of violence is greater than any tactical gain achieved by violence. The powers-that-be can almost always respond to violence with greater violence. Nonviolence blocks the powers-that-be's recourse to the myth of redemptive violence to justify their actions. If nonviolent protest picks up enough support it gets to the point where the soldiers refuse to fire on them because they know their friends and family are in the crowd.

Finally, violence hits the footsoldiers of the powers-that-be: the powers-that-be don't care about them. Economic resistance, such as general strikes, hit the powers-that-be in their bank balances where it hurts. To get a strike going you need enough people that it matters and you need people who can afford to support a strike.
«1

Comments

  • Aye, it has to be full on economic resistance, not a Sunday afternoon activity as it looks like in Belarus.
  • I think this what Extinction Rebellion are aimimg to be.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    I love it that their spokesperson Zion Lights now works for Michael Shellenberger, who leads the repentance from environmental alarmism.
  • Fear is necessary for a protest to work. Sometimes that fear is generated by violence, sometimes it is not.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Fear is necessary for a protest to work. Sometimes that fear is generated by violence, sometimes it is not.
    How many times have you been convinced of the aims of a protest by fear?
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Fear is necessary for a protest to work. Sometimes that fear is generated by violence, sometimes it is not.
    How many times have you been convinced of the aims of a protest by fear?

    It's the establishment that have to fear. Frighten the money.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Fear is necessary for a protest to work. Sometimes that fear is generated by violence, sometimes it is not.
    How many times have you been convinced of the aims of a protest by fear?
    What Martin said. The establishment must fear for something they have being lost or they have no incentive do to anything. Violence can be a two edged sword, but there is no denying it gets attention.
    I agree that peaceful protests are a better route, but they have to be so much more massive and longer to threaten economics to work.
    The Montgomery bus boycott took MONTHS.
  • Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful
  • So? When laws exist to protect the status quo and the people in power then there's not much you can do to seek to upset the status quo or put a different group in power that doesn't break those laws.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Which of the items on the list are not unlawful, in your opinion?

  • See: Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail
  • Linky:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail

    It's a bit long to summarise, but basically what @Alan Cresswell said.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.
    The important point here isn't whether the method conforms to some philosophically coherent definition of peaceful but whether it is considered peaceful by the waverers, those people who can be persuaded to drop out if the movement or who can be persuaded to join in.
    Withholding taxes almost certainly would be considered peaceful. Sabotaging machinery one may get away with: Mandela did so.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I agree that peaceful protests are a better route, but they have to be so much more massive and longer to threaten economics to work.
    The Montgomery bus boycott took MONTHS.
    The point is that violent campaigns have to be just as massive as peaceful campaigns.
    Violence only looks quicker, easier, and more seductive.

  • When Colston's statue was thrown in Bristol harbour, at great expense to the city I'm sure, it was righteous politics in action. Righting a grievous wrong that the establishment would not.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    See: Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail
    King, to summarise some of the main points, advocates non-violence, breaking the law if necessary, and being prepared to go to prison to show you respected the rule of law.

  • That's why I greatly admire Chelsea Manning but despise Snowden and whatever term would place the same distance between him and Assange.
  • Chelsea Manning wasn't committing a public act of civil disobedience; she went to jail because she got caught.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Do you have a point with that observation, or is it merely a recognition that civil disobedience - that is, disobedience by the civilian population of a nation, as opposed to 'nice' protests - sometimes needs to break the law in order to be effective?
  • So? When laws exist to protect the status quo and the people in power then there's not much you can do to seek to upset the status quo or put a different group in power that doesn't break those laws.

    Fine as long as you accept the lawful punishments for committing crimes.
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Which of the items on the list are not unlawful, in your opinion?
    The only contentious ones involve obstruction of the highway but the Police do not always take immediate action.


    Martin54 wrote: »
    When Colston's statue was thrown in Bristol harbour, at great expense to the city I'm sure, it was righteous politics in action. Righting a grievous wrong that the establishment would not.
    It was clearly illegal but the Police felt they did not have the numbers to prevent the offence

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    I agree that peaceful protests are a better route, but they have to be so much more massive and longer to threaten economics to work.
    The Montgomery bus boycott took MONTHS.
    The point is that violent campaigns have to be just as massive as peaceful campaigns.
    Violence only looks quicker, easier, and more seductive.
    No they do not. The fear they create magnifies the threat.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Do you have a point with that observation, or is it merely a recognition that civil disobedience - that is, disobedience by the civilian population of a nation, as opposed to 'nice' protests - sometimes needs to break the law in order to be effective?

    Neither. There is a difference between peaceful protest and lawbreaking.
  • Frequently there is not, Telford. See the above linked Letter.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Do you have a point with that observation, or is it merely a recognition that civil disobedience - that is, disobedience by the civilian population of a nation, as opposed to 'nice' protests - sometimes needs to break the law in order to be effective?

    Neither. There is a difference between peaceful protest and lawbreaking.

    Peaceful protests without lawbreaking are just standing around with signs that have slogans on them. Might as well just 'like' that tweet or facebook post or whatever.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The point is that violent campaigns have to be just as massive as peaceful campaigns.
    No they do not. The fear they create magnifies the threat.
    That is not what the study cited in the article says.

    My personal impression of the history of violent protest is that they're just as much of a threat to the authorities if the authorities yield willingly.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    But who gets to define what the law is?

    On November 5 1881 1500 armed militia, aided by members of the Armed Constabulary invaded the peaceful village of Parihaka. They were met by children singing and playing games. The invading force were there at the direction of the Government to grab Maori Land, despite this being in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement between Crown and Maori signed in 1840.

    https://parihaka.maori.nz/history/
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Do you have a point with that observation, or is it merely a recognition that civil disobedience - that is, disobedience by the civilian population of a nation, as opposed to 'nice' protests - sometimes needs to break the law in order to be effective?

    Neither. There is a difference between peaceful protest and lawbreaking.

    Peaceful protests without lawbreaking are just standing around with signs that have slogans on them. Might as well just 'like' that tweet or facebook post or whatever.

    When you live in a democracy, you should choose the 'Whatever' . That's why we have an elected government.

  • Huia wrote: »
    But who gets to define what the law is?

    The legislature and the courts. This is Democracy 101.
  • Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Do you have a point with that observation, or is it merely a recognition that civil disobedience - that is, disobedience by the civilian population of a nation, as opposed to 'nice' protests - sometimes needs to break the law in order to be effective?

    Neither. There is a difference between peaceful protest and lawbreaking.

    Peaceful protests without lawbreaking are just standing around with signs that have slogans on them. Might as well just 'like' that tweet or facebook post or whatever.

    When you live in a democracy, you should choose the 'Whatever' . That's why we have an elected government.

    You're totally right. Apathy has always solved all problems.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The point is that violent campaigns have to be just as massive as peaceful campaigns.
    No they do not. The fear they create magnifies the threat.
    That is not what the study cited in the article says.

    My personal impression of the history of violent protest is that they're just as much of a threat to the authorities if the authorities yield willingly.
    Here is an article that has a different POV.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Also, don't mistake peaceful for milquetoast. Blockading roads, bridges and the entrances to buildings are still part of peaceful protest, withholding taxes and revenues to governments are still peaceful, sabotaging vehicles and machinery is still peaceful, tearing down statues and walls is still peaceful.

    All mainly unlawful

    Do you have a point with that observation, or is it merely a recognition that civil disobedience - that is, disobedience by the civilian population of a nation, as opposed to 'nice' protests - sometimes needs to break the law in order to be effective?

    Neither. There is a difference between peaceful protest and lawbreaking.

    Peaceful protests without lawbreaking are just standing around with signs that have slogans on them. Might as well just 'like' that tweet or facebook post or whatever.

    When you live in a democracy, you should choose the 'Whatever' . That's why we have an elected government.

    You're totally right. Apathy has always solved all problems.

    I can't agree with your second statement

  • Folk need to remember that the good things that we enjoy have been dragged from the resisting hands of the powerful, sometimes at the point of a blade.

    If you think democracy is lovely, but you're unwilling to defend it, you don't actually care about democracy.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Folk need to remember that the good things that we enjoy have been dragged from the resisting hands of the powerful, sometimes at the point of a blade.
    With the exceptions of the Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution, both of which are really the outcome of quarrels within the powerful, I think the blade has pretty much always been in the hands of the powerful.
    As you said earlier, non-violent protest does not mean milquetoast protest.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Here is an article that has a different POV.
    I'm really not impressed by the results that he points to. He names a politician in Los Angeles who took police violence against black people more seriously after the Rodney King riots, and George Bush Sr. I am not aware that this has resulted in any systematic change that would not have resulted had the protests been peaceful.

    In addition, I think he is repeating the lie that the movement in the wake of George Floyd's death has largely not been peaceful. It has largely been peaceful: I'm not in the US but from what I've seen, all across the US the police have been shown up as trying to instigate violent reactions that they can suppress and failing.

    (The article starts out referring to the occasion when Trump teargassed a peaceful protest. Does anybody outside Trump's base think that was anything other than a propaganda loss for Trump?)
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Folk need to remember that the good things that we enjoy have been dragged from the resisting hands of the powerful, sometimes at the point of a blade.

    If you think democracy is lovely, but you're unwilling to defend it, you don't actually care about democracy.

    I defended democracy most of my working life, albeit I was paid to do so.

  • I've done it free and gratis. You can thank me later.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I've done it free and gratis. You can thank me later.

    By making work for the professionals ?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Sorry to put a damper on all this and all that, but non-violent protest only works in political cultures which are in some way accountable to both a public and a tradition that recognises some sort of duty to a sense of responsibility and certain standards. It's wishful thinking to imagine that it avails at all in cultures that don't recognise those parameters. In many states, and not just the conventionally absolute and tyrannical ones, you either have to rebel successfully, i.e. fight back and win, or submit, and that's it.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The proposition that non-violent protest works better than violent protest is based on research and observation and data.

    Many of you are merrily deciding to substitute that with ideology. You don't like that answer. So you're saying that it's wrong.

    Well no, YOU'RE wrong. This isn't a question about what you would like to work. It's a question of what actually works, what has been demonstrated to work. Non-violent protest works better.

    Do you want to be 'right', or do you want to actually achieve results? I have to ask, because a heck of a lot of the time people would prefer to be 'right' than to actually achieve a change.
  • AIUI Gandhi used non-violent 'civil disobedience' against the British rule in India.

    That worked, up to a point (the resultant violence between Hindus and Muslims was NOT what Gandhi wanted...).
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Sorry to put a damper on all this and all that, but non-violent protest only works in political cultures which are in some way accountable to both a public and a tradition that recognises some sort of duty to a sense of responsibility and certain standards.
    I think this isn't true. The article I've linked to doesn't specify that non-violent protest only works in certain political cultures. The aim of nonviolence is to build a big enough movement that the soldiers and police who enforce the regime don't want to take violent action to uphold it. I doubt many regimes can find enough people who are simultaneously sociopathic enough to feel no responsibility to the society as a whole and conscientious enough to be responsible to the regime.
    It may work only in political cultures that have functional economies that can be disrupted by strike action, since that's the main plank of resistance.

  • orfeo wrote: »
    The proposition that non-violent protest works better than violent protest is based on research and observation and data.
    What would you say is the most compelling or authoritative presentation of work in this field, and do you happen to have a link handy?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    I’ve not read the book, but I’ve heard the man speak. If the book is as good it will be a compelling starting point: Nonviolent Action: What Christian Ethics Demands but Most Christians Have Never Really Tried.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    Sorry to put a damper on all this and all that, but non-violent protest only works in political cultures which are in some way accountable to both a public and a tradition that recognises some sort of duty to a sense of responsibility and certain standards.
    I think this isn't true. The article I've linked to doesn't specify that non-violent protest only works in certain political cultures.
    The article you linked* doesn't say violent protests do not work. It says that non-violent protests are twice as likely to work.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    The aim of nonviolence is to build a big enough movement that the soldiers and police who enforce the regime don't want to take violent action to uphold it.
    Not exactly. Your article cites Serbia, where the police refeused to fire on the crowd because
    they knew their own kids were in that crowd
    Bold and italics mine.
    Not all protests can manage this.
    Dafyd wrote: »
    I doubt many regimes can find enough people who are simultaneously sociopathic enough to feel no responsibility to the society as a whole and conscientious enough to be responsible to the regime.
    This fails the BLM movement as does your article's 'Aim for the Centre' premise. The centre of America voted for Trump and have antipathy for BLM.

    Threat is part of what makes a protest successful. If the movement can make that threat in a non-violent manner, all the better. But this is not always possible.


    *The article you linked shows no data directly. Instead, it links to one book which covers 323 protests over 100 years across multiple cultures. The variables presented by the time and culture variation raises many questions without seeing the framework of the study.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Sorry to put a damper on all this and all that, but non-violent protest only works in political cultures which are in some way accountable to both a public and a tradition that recognises some sort of duty to a sense of responsibility and certain standards. It's wishful thinking to imagine that it avails at all in cultures that don't recognise those parameters. In many states, and not just the conventionally absolute and tyrannical ones, you either have to rebel successfully, i.e. fight back and win, or submit, and that's it.

    I have to agree. Racking my brane to try and find exceptions. Tunisia? North Sudan? Hmmm. Not insignificant. But as in Egypt it's probably cosmetic. Plus ca change.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Chelsea Manning wasn't committing a public act of civil disobedience; she went to jail because she got caught.

    My theory ("and it is my theory, and it is mine"*) is that Bradley (then) wasn't out, wasn't yet ready, and had secrets to get out. So maybe Bradley substituted spilling a whole bunch of classified info. In the aftermath, Bradley was somehow ready to come out, and became Chelsea.

    *Ann Elk, a Monty Python character.
  • Question: How are you (gen.) defining protests as "working"?

    Thx.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Question: How are you (gen.) defining protests as "working"?
    In the original article, I think the definition of success is that they succeed in overthrowing an illegitimate government (or at least a government perceived to be illegitimate). Otherwise, I'd say that a protest succeeds if it results in concrete reforms leading to actual improvements.

Sign In or Register to comment.