You Should Know

So how do you keep the police from making it violent?

American Revolution. French Revolution. Iranian Revolution.

Just a few very violent, and successful, revolutions.

The problem with the statement from the title is that a non-violent movement that big won't happen in many countries, or sometimes won't happen without turning violent. Both should be accounted for when talking about this.

I've been fed up with logic, common sense and such as opposed to stats at some point, because I was mostly reading ancap stuff and ancaps are a bit too detached in that direction.

But it's rightfully said often that throwing stats is just another kind of lies. Interpreting statistics is too complex, most people can't do that, common sense and logic are indeed more important.

sure, BBC. tell us how youd like us to express our dissatisfaction.

the fact msm is doing this so desperately rn 🤔

there has to be a big ass asterisk on his post. generally things like the civil rights movement got partially undone and then success can be nebulous since even in a movement there are subset of goals that might not have been achieved

Er... Hong Kong?

my fucking ass 👅🥾

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

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.

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.

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??

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.