Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
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. :)
Your point is so important that I don’t think it can be stressed enough.
Nonviolent protests are more popular in public opinion. Public opinion gets you more people on your side. More people on your side is more power, and when the regime starts cracking down on peaceful protests, it will be easier to get more people to fight than it would be of we advocate for violence from the start.
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…
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:
…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. :)
When Palestinians protest peacefully they get shot at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–2019_Gaza_border_protests
When foreigners peacefully protest in solidarity they get shot or run over.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/30/1241231447/rachel-corrie-gaza-palestinians-aid-israel-hamas-war
Thanks for correcting. You’re right, I should have written something else than “probably yes” about Israel under Netanyahu. :(
Your point is so important that I don’t think it can be stressed enough.
Nonviolent protests are more popular in public opinion. Public opinion gets you more people on your side. More people on your side is more power, and when the regime starts cracking down on peaceful protests, it will be easier to get more people to fight than it would be of we advocate for violence from the start.
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…
I don’t think anyone said that nonviolent protest was safe…
LOL
https://inthesetimes.com/article/wikileaks-docs-expose-famed-serbian-activists-ties-to-shadow-cia
Telling you have the name perestroika, by the hated traitor Gorbachev putting them in misery while corrupt oligarchs from the west leeched on Russia.
LOL complete BS
Imaginary history.
They murdered hundreds of palestinians during peaceful protests. GTFO with this BS.
How many times can you list russia/ussr? Give me a break with this lib imperialism.
I may list it as many times as I need. I was born there and grew up there, and have a whole lot of information about how life was.
Not sure you should include Gorbachev since he illegally dissolved the USSR against the will of the people.