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.
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.

Comments
It's the establishment that have to fear. Frighten the money.
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.
All mainly unlawful
Which of the items on the list are not unlawful, in your opinion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail
It's a bit long to summarise, but basically what @Alan Cresswell said.
Withholding taxes almost certainly would be considered peaceful. Sabotaging machinery one may get away with: Mandela did so.
Violence only looks quicker, easier, and more seductive.
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?
Fine as long as you accept the lawful punishments for committing crimes.
The only contentious ones involve obstruction of the highway but the Police do not always take immediate action.
It was clearly illegal but the Police felt they did not have the numbers to prevent the offence
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.
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.
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/
When you live in a democracy, you should choose the 'Whatever' . That's why we have an elected government.
The legislature and the courts. This is Democracy 101.
You're totally right. Apathy has always solved all problems.
I can't agree with your second statement
If you think democracy is lovely, but you're unwilling to defend it, you don't actually care about democracy.
As you said earlier, non-violent protest does not mean milquetoast protest.
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?)
I defended democracy most of my working life, albeit I was paid to do so.
By making work for the professionals ?
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.
That worked, up to a point (the resultant violence between Hindus and Muslims was NOT what Gandhi wanted...).
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.
Not exactly. Your article cites Serbia, where the police refeused to fire on the crowd because Bold and italics mine.
Not all protests can manage this. 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.
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.
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.
Thx.