Non-violent resistances have historically had double the effectiveness of violent resistance movements. Violent resistances generally just get a bunch of people killed and only makes things worse.
The reason is simple. It’s a numbers game. Only a few psychopaths want violence and those few are easily dealt with by police. Sometimes they can especially troublesome and need to be dealt with by the military (LA isn’t one of those cases, Trump is just an idiot). It’s only the very rare case that a violent resistance topples a government and in those cases it’s just replacing one group of authoritarian psychos replacing another group. The French revolution ended up with a King being replaced by an Emperor after a whole lot of people died.
Meanwhile a non-violent movement can attract more numbers. You only need single digit percentages of the population to participate in things like general strikes to make an authoritarian regime collapse. But you aren’t getting those numbers with a violent resistance, people have families to think about and violent resistances are easily vilified. An authoritarian regime can exercise violence against a violent resistance and kill it. If an authoritarian regime uses violence against a non-violent resistance it’s clear to everyone who the villains are and an every broader number of people will participate and subtle and secretive ways.
History bears this out, a violent resistances don’t work unless there’s foreign backing and even then it’s unlikely to succeed. Non-violent resistances have double the probability of success. Non-violent resistances are just about psychopaths that want to burn things down coming up with bullshit rationalizations for it.
They work when the dictator knows the alternative is violence and they are outnumbered. Fun fact, MLK’s peaceful protests had armed security provided by an all black militia. They don’t teach that in schools because no government wants their people to think that the threat of violence works on government. That being said, it’s almost always best to try the peaceful options first.
Over think of this one? The government wants you to do violence because you’ll be easily hunted down and shot and Trump’s approval numbers will go up for protecting the public from the violent commies.
Something like the No Kings protests worries a guy like Trump. If he’s stupid enough to use violence against something like that it’s over for him. It would probably only need something around 25% more support and start doing some general strike kind of activities and Trump is done. The only way he can stop it is if he can associate it with violent nut jobs. Do you want to be a violent nutjob that helps Trump with this problem?
Do you think Trump would’ve won the election if weren’t for a nut job taking a shot at him? Violent nut jobs tried to take down Trump and they failed. Maybe let the sane people take a crack at dealing with him in a sane way.
If not for Napoleon we’d still be all ruled by kings in Europe. You can argue the cost wasn’t worth it, but given you didn’t even give a famous textbook example of “peaceful protests work”, it’s safe to say your point is mostly BS.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
What are you talking about? It was WWI that ended many of the Kingdoms of Europe, except for the ones that still exist today of course.
You never heard of the Congress of Vienna? Things were pretty much reset to how it was before Napoleon. I guess we got the metric system from the whole debacle, but that feels like something that could’ve been accomplished without 3 million people dying.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
When did the Germans try to do non-violent resistance? A bunch of people tried to assassinate Hitler (they all failed) but that would be more examples violent resistance failing. I don’t know of any widespread non-violent resistance movement against Nazis.
They actually are.
Non-violent resistances have historically had double the effectiveness of violent resistance movements. Violent resistances generally just get a bunch of people killed and only makes things worse.
The reason is simple. It’s a numbers game. Only a few psychopaths want violence and those few are easily dealt with by police. Sometimes they can especially troublesome and need to be dealt with by the military (LA isn’t one of those cases, Trump is just an idiot). It’s only the very rare case that a violent resistance topples a government and in those cases it’s just replacing one group of authoritarian psychos replacing another group. The French revolution ended up with a King being replaced by an Emperor after a whole lot of people died.
Meanwhile a non-violent movement can attract more numbers. You only need single digit percentages of the population to participate in things like general strikes to make an authoritarian regime collapse. But you aren’t getting those numbers with a violent resistance, people have families to think about and violent resistances are easily vilified. An authoritarian regime can exercise violence against a violent resistance and kill it. If an authoritarian regime uses violence against a non-violent resistance it’s clear to everyone who the villains are and an every broader number of people will participate and subtle and secretive ways.
History bears this out, a violent resistances don’t work unless there’s foreign backing and even then it’s unlikely to succeed. Non-violent resistances have double the probability of success. Non-violent resistances are just about psychopaths that want to burn things down coming up with bullshit rationalizations for it.
They work when the dictator knows the alternative is violence and they are outnumbered. Fun fact, MLK’s peaceful protests had armed security provided by an all black militia. They don’t teach that in schools because no government wants their people to think that the threat of violence works on government. That being said, it’s almost always best to try the peaceful options first.
Oh great a conspiracy theorist.
Over think of this one? The government wants you to do violence because you’ll be easily hunted down and shot and Trump’s approval numbers will go up for protecting the public from the violent commies.
Something like the No Kings protests worries a guy like Trump. If he’s stupid enough to use violence against something like that it’s over for him. It would probably only need something around 25% more support and start doing some general strike kind of activities and Trump is done. The only way he can stop it is if he can associate it with violent nut jobs. Do you want to be a violent nutjob that helps Trump with this problem?
Do you think Trump would’ve won the election if weren’t for a nut job taking a shot at him? Violent nut jobs tried to take down Trump and they failed. Maybe let the sane people take a crack at dealing with him in a sane way.
If not for Napoleon we’d still be all ruled by kings in Europe. You can argue the cost wasn’t worth it, but given you didn’t even give a famous textbook example of “peaceful protests work”, it’s safe to say your point is mostly BS.
After what happened in the 40s it’s fucking insulting to say that holding hands can save the world.
What are you talking about? It was WWI that ended many of the Kingdoms of Europe, except for the ones that still exist today of course.
You never heard of the Congress of Vienna? Things were pretty much reset to how it was before Napoleon. I guess we got the metric system from the whole debacle, but that feels like something that could’ve been accomplished without 3 million people dying.
When did the Germans try to do non-violent resistance? A bunch of people tried to assassinate Hitler (they all failed) but that would be more examples violent resistance failing. I don’t know of any widespread non-violent resistance movement against Nazis.
First thing coming to mind? East Germany 1989.
But see, that happened after fascism had already been fought off — so it doesn’t count.
/s , since many people here think of moving goalposts as a legitimate tactic for debate.
A bit beside the point, but might I add, that, looking at Eastern Germany today, fashism hadn’t and hasn’t been fought off.
Which ones, name them.
Have a gander if you wish so:.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution
I was looking at the list by era. First one, 1918, Egyptian Revolution.
That was very insightful! Thanks, I did not know this list existed. May need it for future reference.
What did you think the word “attempt” was pointing to here?
Since you somehow forgot how to scroll down:
4 revolutions in total were unsuccessfull
20 have lead to some kind of success (although not all lead to a “perfect” outcome, but they did topple the ruling regimes)
2 have no link and I am to lazy to google them
Nice, tagged you as cherrypicker