There’s a lot of evidence that says that non-violent resistance is more often effective, and when it is effective it’s more effective, than violent-based resistance.
Can’t grab the source info link at the moment, but this video talks about it.
Edit:
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/
Random, generalizing comment:
The people saying “Violence isn’t the answer” are the people who don’t want to see anything change
50 upvotes. Comment actually based on real data that happens to show that the original premise is actually wrong: 0 upvotes. Why is Lemmy exactly like Reddit? I thought people coming here were a bit more aware of ideologies etc.
This whole UHC/Luigi thing has really outlined how dangerously toxic Lemmy is. I mean “dangerous” very literally, too. It should not incite the amount of vitriol I have received because I dared to say “I don’t like killing”.
You got flak - rightfully - because you critiziced the claims adjustment while having no sympathy for the victims of legalized mass murder by denial of claims. So don’t play the victim here.
1900-2006? This past century has literally been humanity’s most transformative ever, and this chart is just glomming all the data together. We’d need to see trends of how these have changed over time to get a realistic picture.
Well, when you only look at that one image alone and not any of the rest of the information and studies that accompany it, I can see why you’d make that hasty judgement.
Maybe go read more of the vast amounts of information available on it: https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/
That’s the exact same link I already read. Did you mean to send me something else? There was a link titled “award-winning research” to a $27 book. I wasn’t able to find any further data sources beyond the provided anecdotes. Did I miss something?
(Minor edit for clarity.)
non-violent resistance is more often effective
It’s only ever effective when a credible violent alternative is present.
No oppressed person in history has ever gotten their rights by appealing to the better nature of their oppressor.
Civil rights weren’t won when black people asked politely and just moving everyone’s hearts at how unjustly they were being treated, when MLK died, he had a 75% disapproval rating. Civil rights were won through repeated demonstrations of power and showing what would happen if their demands weren’t met.
You’re jumping the gun and assuming a lot.
Please read more about what I am talking about before assuming what I am saying.
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/about/civil-resistance/
Wait, are you using multiple accounts to support your argument? The OP comment is under a different username but you just responded to that person as if you made that initial content presenting the data.
And reminder that Lemmy shows edit history.
I couldn’t get past the 4th example of “non-violence” without laughing at how wildly revisionist they are. While each of these had non-violent components, none of them would have succeeded without violence. The housing rights act wasn’t passed until literally every city was on fire.
The British gave up their occupation of India after a decades-long nonviolent struggle by the Indian population led by Mohandas Gandhi.
The Danes, Norwegians and other peoples in Europe used civil resistance against Nazi invasion during World War II, raising the costs to Germany of its occupation of these nations, helping to strengthen the spirit and cohesion of their people, and saving the lives of thousands of Jews in Berlin to Copenhagen to Paris and elsewhere.
Labor movements around the world have consistently used tactics of civil resistance to win concessions for workers throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
African Americans used civil resistance in their struggle to dissolve segregation in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.
A few questions for the study:
-
What’s the data source? If they’re just doing news reports and traditional history that can hide a lot of failed non-violent protests. A non violent protest, especially one against the medias interests, is way less likely to show up in the historical record then a violent insurrection. Only the successful movements like the civil rights movement will get mentioned on the non-violent side whereas every insurrection or riot, successful or not, is captured in the historical record.
-
What’s the breakdown by method? It seems they’re including strikes in this which has a very high success rate and high occurrence, so much so it could drown out all the failed protests.
The book’s methodologies: https://www.ericachenoweth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/WCRW-Appendix.pdf
The data set:
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/MHOXDV
It really isn’t though. It’s always two steps forward three steps back. Anything good that arises out of the destruction, always comes at an immense cost, and usually corrupts the revolutionary leaders who made it happen.
Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?
I think violence is often necessary. But I wouldn’t say it’s ever the right answer.
Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?
Most of them, depending on your definition of immediate.
A few weeks to months following the rebellion. Maybe a year at most.
It’s different if the rebellion does not itself topple the structures of government. I’m talking about violent coups specifically I suppose, not a bit of violent protesting that motivates an existing government to act.
Maybe look into how we ended up with 8-hour workdays and weekends… Hint: it was not through peaceful, polite negotiations with the ruling class…
There are PLENTY of examples where violence wasn’t the answer. Those moments made gradual changes that didn’t have epic struggles with heroic figureheads, so they’re boring, they’re not obvious, and nobody talks about them.
There are a lot more examples in history where violence was used as a tool to oppress, threaten, conquer, destroy, or completely wipe out, by great and powerful entities.
Violence is sometimes the answer, if used by cool heads on specific targets with plans on what to do afterwards.
Violence is always a valid answer. It’s just not always the best answer. The problem with violence is it’s been proven time and time again to be impossible to control and hold to a limited use since there are no cool heads at that point. Nor do specific targets exist-- just collateral damage.
And no successful revolutionary has ever had a sound plan for after the victory beyond “I want the power now.” And they can either hold the power or not. But the idea of “for the good of the people” gets put to the side pretty quickly.
The problem with the fetishization of non-violence is that it ignores that most transformative non-violent social movements have occurred concurrently with violent co-movements. Ghandi preached non-violence, but at the same time, violent Hindu radicals were running around slitting the throats of every British official they could get their hands on. MLK preached non-violence, but the Black Panthers were waiting in the wings, offering a much more unpleasant option if MLK failed.
Violent social movements have very real tangible value, but their value isn’t in the violence itself. We’re not going to change the health insurance system through pure violence, no matter how many CEOs lay dead on the streets of Manhattan.
On the other hand, non-violent social movements rarely succeed either. Even the most modest, centrist, and conciliatory of reforms are derided as extreme or “Communist.” Look at Obamacare, a reform designed from the ground up to NOT disrupt the profits of the insurance or healthcare industries. This was a modest market-based reform that was originally a Republican reform plan. The right spent a decade going nuts calling it the second coming of Mao. And they still oppose it to this day. In the end it tinkered around the edges, but it was hardly transformative change.
The real value of violence is that it makes modest peaceful reforms much more palatable. The civil rights amendments and acts passed in the 1960s and 1970s would have never passed if there were only peaceful movements behind them. They amended the damn constitution! That took people on both sides of the aisle saying, “damn, we really need to change some things. This is getting out of hand.”
And that kind of broad bipartisan consensus that reform was needed was only possible because of the threat of violence. Violent radicals like the Black Panthers made MLK palatable to middle America. Without them, MLK would have just been another radical socialist to be demonized. And even then, they still killed him anyway.
The real value of violent social movements is that they make non-violent social movements possible. In fact, without violence, non-violent social movements rarely succeed. You need BOTH violence and non-violence if you want to make substantial change to the system. The violence puts the fear of God into the placid middle classes and wealthy corporate interests. This allows the non-violent reformers to show up with a solution to the problem that allows these centrist factions to feel that they’re not giving in to the violent radicals. Violence and non-violence are two sides of the same coin. And they are both essential.
apart of me still holds out that we don’t need this type of system to push progress, taking america for example, this will not go well and many lives will be lost as there will be “both sides” and they will stay divided. The propaganda machine from Eurasia has worked. There plans are moving quite well, and i for one, will not play into that hand.
Lives are already being lost. Today, approximately 186 people will be murdered by their insurance companies through the wrongful denial of life-saving, medically necessary care. By raw body count, Brian Robert Thompson killed far, far more people than Osama Bin Ladin ever did. The health insurance industry racks up a 9/11 worth of deaths every 16 days or so. That is how many people are currently being murdered by the private health insurance industry.
It seems the technique you’re describing is a kind of societal “good cop, bad cop”. Similar scenario to an interrogation too (trying to get information from someone who does not want to share the information) because in this case the challenge is “how to get people to share the capacity for self-determination, quality of living, and dignity when they clearly prefer to hoard it, even to the detriment of others”.
Exactly. No group has ever won rights by asking nicely. The truth is that it doesn’t actually take too large a portion of a population, acting together, to cause a society to come screeching to a halt. Law, order, and the right to private property can only be maintained if the vast, vast majority of the populace is willing to peacefully go along with the status quo. If tomorrow 10% of the population wakes up crazy and decides to just start setting everything they can on fire, we’ll be back in the Stone Age within a month. Most meaningful reform has come down to forcing those with power to choose between modest, but potentially painful reform on one hand and “watch as we burn it all down” on the other.
The black population would not have been able to credibly win against the white population if an all-out eliminationist race war had been sparked in 1950s America. But ultimately, they didn’t have to be able to win such a war to create a credible threat of intolerable violence. The black population alone couldn’t win a total war against the white population, but any kind of wide-scale race war would have completely collapsed the American economy and society. And such a war likely would have had factions receiving military support from US adversaries such as the Soviet Union. The threat of the Black Panthers was essentially, “we may not be able to win an all out war against our oppressors, but if push comes to shove, we can turn the US into another Vietnam.” Compared to that potential nightmare, the modest and quite understandable reforms that MLK demanded seemed quite reasonable.
Same thing with workers’ rights. “Give us an 8 hour workday” seemed extreme in isolation. But if the choice was, “give us an 8 hour workday, or we burn this factory to ashes” or “give us the right to unionize, or we can start listening to those literal Communists over there promising to bring out the guillotines…” well suddenly an 8 hour workday or a right to unionize doesn’t seem so extreme.
It is very much a good cop bad cop dynamic. It’s no coincidence that unionization, workers rights, and redistributive economic programs peaked when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power. Literal Communism is a philosophy that can appeal to downtrodden groups anywhere. And when the Soviet Union was ascendant and actively fomenting socialist revolutions and violent uprisings across the globe, they were able to serve as the “bad cop” that allowed modest reformers in the US to be the “good cop” pushing for various reforms and social programs.
Pacifism is only good for aggressors and cowards
Non-violence != Pacifism
A person can be an advocate for non-violence and not be a pacifist. No need to conflate the two, particularly when people have so much hate and vitriol for any perceived pacifism.
The people saying “Violence isn’t the answer” are the people who don’t want to see anything change
Allow me an argument by Doctor Who: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI
You can use violence, but when does it end, and what makes you think you are going to end up better off?
