There’s a book on the subject written by Srdja Popovic.
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 in the sixties: yes
- USSR under Gorbachev: yes
- Serbia under Milosevic: yes (Popovic was there doing it)
- Israel under Netanyahu: probably yes
- China under Xi: practically no (not for long)
- Iran under Khamenei: only if you’re doing a bread riot
- Russia under Putin: no, don’t even hold a blank sheet of paper
- Saudi Arabia: no
…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. :)
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I gotta ask, how the hell was the US in the 1960s a safe place to nonviolently protest? Police violence aimed at colored protesters during that era was notorious. Plus the church bombings, the lynchings, the assassinations…
indepndnt@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I don’t think anyone said that nonviolent protest was safe…