STOP SPREADING THIS FUCKING LIE.
KING JUNIOR WAS DISLIKED DURING HIS NONVIOLENCE PROTEST.
IT IS PRECISELY VIOLENCE THAT THE STATE ENACTS THAT LEAD TO TRUMP’S REELECTION.
IF YOU WANT CHANGE, BE MORE UNGOVERNABLE THAN MAGA.
YSK: Non-violent protests are 2x likely to succeed and no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of the country population has ever failed
Submitted 19 hours ago by MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world to youshouldknow@lemmy.world
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
Comments
AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 13 hours ago
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 16 hours ago
MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
While this is obviously not true. It is hilarious seeing that some comments call bullshit on this while thinking that violent protests have any better chance to succeed.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
I believe that a non-significant number of them are pushing an agenda.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
I have never known a protest to succeed at anything in my life
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 13 hours ago
600k protested against the Iraq war in Australia in 2003.
The population was about 20m so 3.5% of that is 700k. So if another 100k had joined then the protest would have succeeded?
Womble@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
No, if another 100k Australians had come out and then kept protesting day in day out for months they would have got the aus government to back down and not support the war.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 11 hours ago
100k Australians are the cause of the Iraq War 😔
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
Remember when the Nazis surrendered because of all the witty placards people marched with?
TheLastOfHisName@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
My great uncle served in WW II. He wasn’t exactly “reasoning” with the nazis.
MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
boot licker post
arin@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
All i know is what happened in Germany
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 7 hours ago
Yeah. 3.5% would be about 2.8m people. This number has been exceeded easily last year when the AfD scandal happened. Absolutely fucking nothing happened.
axh@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed
US police: hold my riot gear!
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours ago
Sounds like bullshit. Just in recent memory: look at Belarus 2021, look at the massive Serbian protests that have been going on for over half a year and the govt is still not relenting.
MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
who knew that standing around shouting and basically doing nothing of any really effect would have… no real effect.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
It can have effect when the opposition is relatively weak, e.g. individual small companies or govts that aren’t powerful and authoritarian enough to ignore massive protests.
nialv7@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
but YS(also)K: correlation does not equal causation.
a non-violent protest like the ones described in this article can only commerce, if it is not opposed by state sponsored violence. and that’s usually indicative of a government that’s already falling apart.
datalowe@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Yes, thank you. It seemed bizarre to me as I was reading the article that this point is not brought up at all. Of course, it’s impossible to perform controlled realistic experiments to disentangle the effects. But to not even acknowledge this crucial limitation in the research makes the reporting and research deeply flawed. The research would really need to take into account each conflict’s preconditions, which is a very daunting task, to become more reliable. I understand it’s hard to do this research, but it’s only fair to demand that researchers temper their conclusions based on to the limitations. That kind of rigorous approach doesn’t sell as many books or lead to as many media appearances though, sadly.
Objection@lemmy.ml 17 hours ago
Interesting how the paper picks East Timor/Indonesia as a case study but makes no mention of the massacres of the nonviolent PKI and suspected communists, which the US was ambivalent, if not supportive about.
Any serious study of resistance movements around the world will paint a very different picture, one in which nonviolence is frequently met with slaughter, and people turn to violence specifically because nonviolence failed.
The fact of the matter is that people living in the imperial core cannot be well versed in the history of every country in the world (to the extent that we can even exert influence in the first place), and this allows the media to either ignore things like the massacres in Indonesia, or spin them in such a way to justify the preferred side through biased framing. The thing the paper cites as a major determining factor of success or failure is defections from security forces, but what if those security forces come from thousands of miles away?
Trying to assert a universal principle on a tactical level regarding such broad categories is kind of silly in the first place. It’s too broad. You have to assess what you’re trying to accomplish and formulate a strategy to get there based on the particular situation you find yourself in.
From “The Jakarta Method:”
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask:
“Who was right?”
In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported—what the rich countries said, rather than what they did. That group was annihilated.
Battle_Masker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 hours ago
‘France’ has entered the chat
13igTyme@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
The US population is about 340 million. So we would need 11.9 million to protest.
MangioneDontMiss@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
the US is too spread out and too stupid to mount consistent Ent protests in those numbers.
destructdisc@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Take your liberal propaganda and stuff it
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 14 hours ago
How in the world did you derive those numbers? How do you even quantify that in practice?
Also, of course British State Media is going to discourage violent protests.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 12 hours ago
I would encourage you to read the actual research. It’s all documented there.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 12 hours ago
You don’t actually have any idea how they derived those numbers, do you?
annie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 hours ago
bbc link imagine my shock christ what a fucking rag
roguetrick@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Chenoweth has valid points worthy of debate but I have to say, I’m never going to get my political philosophy on direct action from the fucking beeb.
sqgl@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
I want philosophy direct from the Monarch! /s
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 16 hours ago
“This was partly the result of strength in numbers. Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are more likely to succeed because they can recruit many more participants from a much broader demographic, which can cause severe disruption that paralyses normal urban life and the functioning of society.”
In other words, violent protests work better, but they lack the amount of people.
lordnikon@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Also non violent protests turn violent because the opposition embed bad actors to create the violence or counter protest pushes people to violence out of self defense.
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
No man it was all the lawsuits and SLAMMING headlines.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 17 hours ago
If that were true, what happens if two different non violent movements each with more than 3.5% of the population involved, exist at the same time in direct opposition to eachother?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Democratic peace theory happens and they talk it out.
the_q@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
Still waiting on you “violence is the only way” crowd to do some violence.
ramenshaman@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
I don’t think we’re there yet.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
Non-violent protest kinda imply that the receiving end doesn’t react violently ehh. If they start sending riot police and water tank then it would 100% spiral.
electric_nan@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
🙄
TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 11 hours ago
Quoting System of a Down: “Why don’t you ask the kids at Tiananmen Square…”
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Tbf they didn’t reach 3.5%, did they?
1989 population was 1 billion and they only managed to have 1 million protestors which is like 0.1%
TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 7 hours ago
Of you crush every 0.1% that shows up you will never reach 3.5%, or the alternative is to not protest until you have the numbers