Effective Leftism: Practical Organisation and Involvement Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Effective Leftism: Practical Organisation and Involvement Thread

«‹›42 »

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Keeshhound posted:

People keep saying that, but I've never seen anyone prove it.

I don't need to prove it, the fact that members of the non-ruling class can vote and have freedom of assembly, speech and press does that for me. I get not everyone has an interest in history, but seriously, it's exceedingly clear that the ruling class only gives up privileges when forced to by violence or the threat thereof.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 15:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:40

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

joepinetree posted:

Marketplace, which is technically APM but is broadcast on NPR, went completely out of its way to bash minimum wage increases at any chance they got. We are talking about self contradictory stuff, like a story about a city that increased the minimum wage, where they interviewed a business owner on the next town over about how she couldn't hire anyone because everyone went to work at the city with the higher wage, and a business owner from the city with the higher wage, about how she had to fire a bunch of people because she couldn't afford workers anymore.

This is probably a page too late for discussion but both Marketplace and TAL were outright neolib mouthpieces during the Obama era.

edit: Also, that facebook post: thanks for those sage words of non-violence from prolific wifebeater John Lennon. This one is much wiser, I think: "I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically -- any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women. That is why I am always on about peace, you see. It is the most violent people who go for love and peace."

Danger fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 15:43

Keeshhound: Jan 14, 2010; Mad Duck Swagger

Tias posted:

I don't need to prove it, the fact that members of the non-ruling class can vote and have freedom of assembly, speech and press does that for me. I get not everyone has an interest in history, but seriously, it's exceedingly clear that the ruling class only gives up privileges when forced to by violence or the threat thereof.

That's an awfully... convenient position to take.

I'm not saying that the powerful will ever voluntarily give up power, I'm saying that I'm not convinced by this insistence that only violence can work, and any time people use nonviolent resistance to achieve their political goals, that it was secretly the threat of violence that really got the rulers to back down.

It feels like a young earth creationist trying to explain away any evidence that they disagree with by saying "well, god made it that way." Nonviolent resistance achieved political gains? "No, it was really the violent groups that made it possible, you just didn't see them because the media always focuses on the nonviolent movements."

# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:22

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Keeshhound posted:

That's an awfully... convenient position to take.

I'm not saying that the powerful will ever voluntarily give up power, I'm saying that I'm not convinced by this insistence that only violence can work, and any time people use nonviolent resistance to achieve their political goals, that it was secretly the threat of violence that really got the rulers to back down.

There were 200,000 angry negroes marching in an atmosphere where Malcolm X was training young black men en masse to kill the white man, and this was constant media coverage.

What's actually wrong with you that you think it was a nonviolent protest? There was an incredibly clear threat of force.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 17:58

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Seriously stretch your brain and think like a racist. You've spent your life being told that black men are violent, rapey, less civilised, and what happens to them is for their own order and the good of all. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't, you probably aren't forced to think about it much until 200,000 march on washington and demand the vote

do you think they're going to go home if they're told no? Do you think it would have ended?

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:00

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

So how about some data on this? I've been doing a lot of reading as this has come up more than a few times lately, and here's a good article I came across, backed by actual data:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2014-06-16/drop-your-weapons

Important points:

- Non-violent movements are more likely to succeed than violent movements (50% vs 20%)
- Non-violent movements are more successful regardless of the system they're resisting (i.e. they're effective against authoritarian regimes as well)
- Regime change that came from non-violent protest is more likely to enact lasting change

The article concludes that the reason non-violent resistance is more successful is because it attracts a larger pool of people to join in the movement, which ultimately places more pressure on a ruling body to capitulate to demands. In that respect, non-violent resistance can be more effective even if you accept that the ruling class will not willingly give up power - if the resistance movement includes a large percentage of the population, including economic elites and people that the military can identify with, the ruling class isn't able to effectively repress the movement, due to political or economic pressure. Violent resistance, on the other hand, usually has a much smaller base of support and so the ruling class is more capable of violently stamping out the moment.

This doesn't directly address the idea that non-violent movements are helped by a counterpart violent movement, but at the very least, I think it's fair to say that it's important for the non-violent movement to maintain some distance from the violent movement - if they're viewed as the same group, many of the benefits of non-violent resistance are lost.

My thoughts on this are that this is a critical aspect that is ignored by modern progressive protest movements - by supporting a diversity of tactics and being unwilling to condemn violent tactics, they fail to present themselves as an alternative to a violent movement, and give people (where "people" can be the government, economic elites, the oppressed class, or anyone else) an easy excuse to dismiss them.

enki42 fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:01

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

Violent and non-violent protest have a symbiotic relationship and both are better than doing nothing. Similarly violence shouldn't be glorified but without an implicit threat of some kind no protest movement is going to achieve anything, period. That threat could easily be economic (or even just political in a functioning democracy) though.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:05

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Spangly A posted:

do you think they're going to go home if they're told no? Do you think it would have ended?

I don't think non-violent protest means that you protest for 2 hours and head on home if you don't immediately meet your goals. Non-violent movements escalate by increasing the number of people behind the cause, by direct but non-violent actions like civil disobedience, and by making the movement increasingly more difficult to ignore.

Violence is often counter to this goal. It's easier for a state to repress violence, because almost without exception, they have more resources to conduct violence against the movement than the movement has to use against the state. Furthermore, violence on the part of the movement gives everyone outside of the movement an easy excuse to dismiss the movement as extremists and support or at least tolerate the state using violence against the movement.

enki42 fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:08

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Keeshhound posted:

It feels like a young earth creationist trying to explain away any evidence that they disagree with by saying "well, god made it that way." Nonviolent resistance achieved political gains? "No, it was really the violent groups that made it possible, you just didn't see them because the media always focuses on the nonviolent movements."

What evidence is there that non-violent parades accomplish policy change?

enki42 posted:

It's easier for a state to repress violence, because almost without exception, they have more resources to conduct violence against the movement than the movement has to use against the state.

The actions of the police in the US say otherwise. Police will often use violence broadly even if only one or two members of a protest do something even remotely 'violent'.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:10

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Doorknob Slobber posted:

What evidence is there that non-violent parades accomplish policy change?

That's a strawman, the argument isn't between "parades" and violent protest, it's between non-violent resistance (which includes direct action and civil disobedience) and violent resistance.

And here's some evidence:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:13

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Doorknob Slobber posted:

The actions of the police in the US say otherwise. Police will often use violence broadly even if only one or two members of a protest do something even remotely 'violent'.

I'm not saying that non-violent protests won't be met with violence by the state. I'm saying that responding with violence is a losing proposition, because in almost all cases, the state is overwhelmingly stronger than your movement in terms of physical force, *particularly* if your movement supports violence.

For what it's worth, I'm defining violence as specifically not including self-defence.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:15

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

enki42 posted:

Violence is often counter to this goal. It's easier for a state to repress violence, because almost without exception, they have more resources to conduct violence against the movement than the movement has to use against the state. Furthermore, violence on the part of the movement gives everyone outside of the movement an easy excuse to dismiss the movement as extremists.

People being loving thick as poo poo is not really an argument against necessary violent actions.

Your arguments are generic and don't fit any situation well. There are times when violence is the only option, there are times when it must be backed by large popular protests and wider civil disobedience. Bobby sands didn't end home rule by being quietly elected. Mandela didn't end Apartheid by getting locked up. They got it by being the necessary enforcement of a legitimate civil movement.

You don't understand violence if you think civil disobedience does not have a violent consequence out of necessity. Civil disobedience only works because the level of harm it inflicts onto a state beats that put out by raw bullets.

I'm straight up in favour of donald trump getting toasted in his current role, I'd probably even watch it on the news and laugh a bit. But it won't help change america's political climate, and nothing will until there is a wider movement of disobedience to the presidency until the powers are stripped back and the wealthy parasites causing class friction can be dealt with. When there are a large amount of them, as there are in any modern globalised society, the problem with violence is never the legitimacy but rather a lack of bullets. There's no gain in a shooting war against all republican lunatics, they've got better guns. The violence required here goes far beyond what you can achieve with guns, there needs to be untold assets seized and redistributed to make society, and thus the state that enforces it, legitimate.

enki42 posted:

That's a strawman, the argument isn't between "parades" and violent protest, it's between non-violent resistance (which includes direct action and civil disobedience) and violent resistance.

And here's some evidence:

lol shut the gently caress up, post the raw data and let it be examined. A graph isn't "evidence" in isolation.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:16

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Spangly A posted:

People being loving thick as poo poo is not really an argument against necessary violent actions.

Of course it is. Regardless of tactics used, a resistance movement will not succeed without the support of the people.

Spangly A posted:

You don't understand violence if you think civil disobedience does not have a violent consequence out of necessity. Civil disobedience only works because the level of harm it inflicts onto a state beats that put out by raw bullets.

We're in agreement on this point. I'm not saying "don't harm the state" and "have a nice little parade and call it a day". Protest movements succeed because they make it impossible for a state to ignore. Doing that with physical violence is usually less effective. Civil disobedience inflicts economic or political harm, which the state has far less tools to combat directly.

Are we mixing up definitions here? I'm defining violence as physical violence on people that's not in self-defence. If your definition of violence includes property damage, civil disobedience, etc, we're not arguing about the same thing.

quote:

lol shut the gently caress up, post the raw data and let it be examined. A graph isn't "evidence" in isolation.

This is from on the same study that I linked the article to above - I'll try to find the raw data behind it, but the article itself at least includes some of the examples.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:21

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

enki42 posted:

That's a strawman, the argument isn't between "parades" and violent protest, it's between non-violent resistance (which includes direct action and civil disobedience) and violent resistance.

And here's some evidence:

a graph that says things with no reference

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:24

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

For what it's worth, you can find more detail on the stuff I'm posting here - https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

I don't have this, I'm going to pick it up since it seems interesting, but I don't think the raw data is readily available online.

More info: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.7 (Disclosure: I haven't really dug into the details of this too much, and it's still not raw data)

enki42 fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:24

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

Evidence violence works.

I'm willing to settle on that there has never, ever been a completely non-violent struggle so any claims that it works or doesn't work are stupid

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:28

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Doorknob Slobber posted:

Evidence violence works.

I posted the article that the graph is based on immediately above the graph, the book written by the article of the author on the same subject, and a scholarly article with the methodology behind the study. I don't think I'm the one arguing in bad faith here.

But for what it's worth, I'm buying the book today and digging through that article. If the author decided to completely make up a graph that was unsupported by her study and present it in multiple talks and a book, I'll let you know.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:29

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

enki42 posted:

Are we mixing up definitions here? I'm defining violence as physical violence on people that's not in self-defence. If your definition of violence includes property damage, civil disobedience, etc, we're not arguing about the same thing.

that's fair, I don't agree with the definition though. A state is the monopoly on violence, as I said. It's actions can inflict grevious political and economic harm which inevitably results in the harm on civilians. Action against property by civilians should never be treated as violence on the level of physical harm, regardless of the reasoning. However for a state we have to keep in mind we're dealing with something that gains its power directly from taxes, and uses those taxes to enforce itself. Civil disobedience quickly becomes a matter of violence against the person from both sides.

enki42 posted:
This is from on the same study that I linked the article to above - I'll try to find the raw data behind it, but the article itself at least includes some of the examples.

It's paywalled as far as I can tell but including all uprisings is already sketchy af. My questions would be along the lines of; how many IRAs and parliaments are counted in the establishment of home rule? how many times does mandela pop up? does it count the arab spring as succesful?

There's also the thought that the argument is slightly muddied here. I don't think anyone is arguing against a wider movement, or for a marxist the difference between trots and leninists. Simply headlining that nonviolent protests are more likely to inflinct change is an incredibly strange framing of the position. You don't perform regime change with a single slick movement, it collapses after multiple pressures and then everyone gets to bicker over the spoils. This doesn't change the argument from those in favour of direct violent action that, without said direct violent action, those pacifist protests don't win because the police are never on their side.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:30

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

enki42 posted:

I posted the article that the graph is based on immediately above the graph, the book written by the article of the author on the same subject, and a scholarly article with the methodology behind the study. I don't think I'm the one arguing in bad faith here.

Look you're the one making the claim that non violence is the one true way, but I'm not reading a whole book, an article behind a paywall or a login or a scholarly article.

That graph makes a claim, pick out specifically which struggles were peaceful and then we can start talking about whether or not it works.

I personally don't even buy the notion that there has ever been a peaceful resistance to anything. Even in the most mainstream of white washed struggles there are always fringe elements blowing poo poo up.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:31

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Doorknob Slobber posted:

Look you're the one making the claim that non violence is the one true way, but I'm not reading a whole book, an article behind a paywall or a login or a scholarly article.

That graph makes a claim, pick out specifically which struggles were peaceful and then we can start talking about whether or not it works.

The first article I linked isn't beyond a paywall, and includes many examples (but not every single one)

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:33

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

enki42 posted:

The first article I linked isn't beyond a paywall, and includes many examples (but not every single one)

I'm seeing a paywall

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:34

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

Netflix's Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom should be required watching for this conversation.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:35

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Spangly A posted:

I'm seeing a paywall

Oh, crazy - maybe a geographical thing.

Here's the article text (I think this is kosher? I can remove if it's a problem)

quote:

Over the past three years, the world has witnessed a surge of nonviolent resistance movements. Pictures of huge demonstrations in public squares have become a staple of international news broadcasts, and Time named �the protester� as its Person of the Year for 2011. These days, it seems that at any given moment, thousands of people are mobilizing for change somewhere in the world.

But these movements have varied widely in terms of their duration, their success, their ability to remain nonviolent, and their cost in terms of human life. Building on years of intermittent protests and strikes, Tunisians toppled Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, the dictator who had ruled their country for 23 years, after a sustained period of 28 days of protests beginning in December 2010. Between 300 and 320 Tunisians civilians died in the upheaval, all of them killed by police or security forces. Weeks later, Egyptians ended Hosni Mubarak�s three-decade reign after a decade of lower-level opposition and civil resistance culminated in 18 days of nonviolent mass demonstrations -- but Mubarak�s security forces killed around 900 people in the process. In Libya, scattered protests against Muammar al-Qaddafi that began in February 2011 quickly became an armed rebellion. NATO soon intervened militarily, and within nine months, Qaddafi was dead and his regime demolished, but between 10,000 and 30,000 Libyans, according to various estimates, had lost their lives. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad brutally cracked down on mostly nonviolent demonstrations against his rule between March and August 2011, killing thousands and setting in motion a civil war that has since resulted in over 150,000 deaths and the displacement of around nine million people. Most recently, in February, Ukrainians ousted President Viktor Yanukovych after three months of mass civil resistance and occasionally violent protests. Around 100 Ukrainian protesters died during the clashes between demonstrators and riot police -- fewer than in most of the confrontations of the Arab Spring in 2011. But Russia�s response to Yanukovych�s overthrow -- seizing the Ukrainian territory of Crimea and attempting to destabilize the eastern parts of Ukraine -- has created the most dangerous and unpredictable security situation Europe has seen in decades.

The basic trajectory of these recent movements -- each successive one seemingly more violent and more geopolitically charged -- has encouraged skepticism about the prospects for civil resistance in the twenty-first century. Such doubts are understandable but misplaced. A longer view is required to see the real potential of nonviolent resistance, which is evident in a historical data set that we assembled of 323 campaigns that spanned the twentieth century -- from Mahatma Gandhi�s Indian independence movement against British colonialism, which began in earnest in 1919, to the protests that removed Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from power in 2006. This global data set covers all known nonviolent and violent campaigns (each featuring at least 1,000 observed participants) for self-determination, the removal of an incumbent leader, or the expulsion of a foreign military occupation from 1900 to 2006. The data set was assembled using thousands of source materials on protest and civil disobedience, expert reports and surveys, and existing records on violent insurgencies.

Between 1900 and 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance against authoritarian regimes were twice as likely to succeed as violent movements. Nonviolent resistance also increased the chances that the overthrow of a dictatorship would lead to peace and democratic rule. This was true even in highly authoritarian and repressive countries, where one might expect nonviolent resistance to fail. Contrary to conventional wisdom, no social, economic, or political structures have systematically prevented nonviolent campaigns from emerging or succeeding. From strikes and protests to sit-ins and boycotts, civil resistance remains the best strategy for social and political change in the face of oppression. Movements that opt for violence often unleash terrible destruction and bloodshed, in both the short and the long term, usually without realizing the goals they set out to achieve. Even though tumult and fear persist today from Cairo to Kiev, there are still many reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the promise of civil resistance in the years to come.

In the United States and Europe, policymakers often seem at a loss when confronted with the questions of whether to support civilians resisting authoritarian regimes using nonviolent protest and, if so, what form that support should take. Liberal interventionists cited a �responsibility to protect� civilians to justify NATO�s intervention in Libya and have also invoked that argument in advocating for similar action in Syria. But the promise of civil resistance suggests an alternative: a �responsibility to assist� nonviolent activists and civic groups well before confrontations between civilians and authoritarian regimes devolve into violent conflicts.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Civil resistance does not succeed because it melts the hearts of dictators and secret police. It succeeds because it is more likely than armed struggle to attract a larger and more diverse base of participants and impose unsustainable costs on a regime. No single civil resistance campaign is the same, but the ones that work all have three things in common: they enjoy mass participation, they produce regime defections, and they employ flexible tactics. Historically, the larger and more diverse the campaign, the more likely it was to succeed. Large campaigns have a greater chance of seriously disrupting the status quo, raising the costs of government repression, and provoking defections among a regime�s pillars of support. When large numbers of people engage in acts of civil disobedience and disruption, shifting between concentrated methods such as protests and dispersed methods such as consumer boycotts and strikes, even the most brutal opponent has difficulty cracking down and sustaining the repression indefinitely. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran�s last shah, had little difficulty neutralizing the Islamist and Marxist-inspired guerilla groups that challenged his rule in the 1960s and early 1970s. But when large numbers of oil workers, bazaar merchants, and students engaged in acts of collective nonviolent resistance, including work stoppages, boycotts, and protests, the regime�s repressive apparatus became overstretched and the economy tanked. From there, it didn�t take long for the shah to flee the country.

Broad-based support for a resistance movement can also weaken the loyalty of economic elites, religious authorities, and members of the state media who support the regime. When such figures defect to the opposition, they can sometimes force the regime to surrender to the opposition�s demands, which is what happened with the Philippines� People Power movement of 1983�86. Broad movements also enjoy a tactical advantage: diverse, nonviolent campaigns that include women, professionals, religious figures, and civil servants -- as opposed to violent ones comprised of mostly young, able-bodied men trained to become militants -- reduce the risk of violent crackdowns, since security forces are often reluctant to use violence against crowds that might include their neighbors or relatives. And even when governments have chosen to violently repress resistance movements, in all the cases under review, nonviolent campaigns still succeeded in achieving their goals almost half the time, whereas only 20 percent of violent movements achieved their goals, because the vast majority were unable to produce the mass support or defections necessary to win. In cases in which the security forces remain loyal to the regime, defections among economic elites can play a critical role. In South Africa, boycotts against white businesses and international divestments from South African businesses were decisive in ending the apartheid regime.

But civil resistance requires more than just mass participation and defections; it also requires planning and coordinated tactics. Successful nonviolent campaigns are rarely spontaneous, and the seemingly rapid collapse of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes shouldn�t fool observers: both revolutions were rooted in labor and opposition movements going back nearly a decade. Indeed, between 1900 and 2006, the average nonviolent campaign lasted close to three years. As Robert Helvey, a retired U.S. Army colonel who organized civil resistance workshops in Myanmar (also called Burma), the Palestinian territories, and Serbia in the 1990s and the early years of this century, told activists during his workshops: if they wanted their campaign to succeed in one year, they should plan as if the struggle would last for two.

During the 1980s in the United States, Helvey worked closely with the scholar Gene Sharp, who has identified 198 different tactics that nonviolent resistance movements employ. These include various methods of protest, persuasion, noncooperation, and what Sharp calls �nonviolent intervention� -- all of which have worked in various contexts. Tech-savvy scholars, such as Patrick Meier and Mary Joyce, have updated Sharp�s list to include tactics linked to new technologies, such as using social media to report repressive actions in real time and even using small drones to monitor police movements.

Even campaigns that possess the holy trinity of features -- mass participation, regime defections, and flexible tactics -- don�t always succeed. Much depends on whether state authorities can outmaneuver the protesters and sow division in their ranks, perhaps even provoking nonviolent resisters to abandon their protests and strikes, lose their discipline and unity, and take up arms in response to repression. But even when nonviolent campaigns fail, all is not lost: from 1900 to 2006, countries that experienced failed nonviolent movements were still about four times as likely to ultimately transition to democracy as countries where resistance movements resorted to violence at the outset. Nonviolent civic mobilization relies on flexibility and coalition building -- the very things that are needed for democratization.

Of course, nonviolent revolutionaries are not necessarily equipped to govern during a political transition. In Egypt, for example, the young secular activists who filled Tahrir Square in January and February of 2011 have failed to organize effective political parties or interest groups. Nonviolent mass uprisings cannot always resolve systemic governance problems, such as co-opted institutions, entrenched corruption, and a lack of power sharing between a regime�s military or security forces and the civilian bureaucracy.

But revolutionary campaigns can still maximize their chances of achieving more representative government -- of bringing the successes of the street into the halls of power -- if they develop so-called parallel institutions during the course of their struggles. Poland offers one of the best examples. In 1980, after some 16,000 workers launched a strike at the Gdansk shipyard, Polish labor groups, which had already been fomenting resistance to the Soviet-backed communist regime in Poland for a decade, formed Solidarity, a trade union that morphed into a civil resistance movement and gradually eroded the communist authority�s grip on the country. Solidarity published underground dissident newspapers, organized demonstrations and radical theater performances in churches, and resisted years of repression, including the imposition of martial law in 1981. Eventually, ten million Poles joined the group, which operated as a kind of shadow government, facilitating its ability to step into a leadership role as communism crumbled. In 1988, Solidarity organized a series of strikes that led to direct negotiations with the regime, which resulted in semi-free elections in 1989. When Poland emerged from communist rule a year later, it did so with a new set of electoral rules and practices, many of them shepherded by Solidarity through a series of negotiations, which allowed for a much more durable and confident turn toward democracy. Although problems remained, Polish civil society was fully capable of holding its new leaders to account -- including Solidarity�s Lech Walesa, who was elected president in 1990.

FROM CAIRO TO KIEV

At first glance, recent events such as the struggle to consolidate democratic gains in Tunisia, the counterrevolution in Egypt, the chaotic state of affairs in post-Qaddafi Libya, the seemingly intractable civil war in Syria, and the instability of Ukraine in the wake of the revolution in Kiev appear to provide little evidence for the promise of nonviolent resistance. But a closer look at these five cases actually reinforces why people power is still the most effective method of political change, even in highly repressive countries.

Despite setbacks last year, including the assassinations of two prominent liberal politicians by Islamist militants, Tunisia still looks like the bright spot among all the countries shaken up by the Arab Spring. Indeed, Tunisia�s revolution most closely resembles earlier examples where civil resistance succeeded, such as the Philippines and Poland. The country stands a good chance of completing a full transition to democracy within the next five years. This positive trajectory is in large part a product of how Tunisians organized against Ben Ali. Massive numbers of Tunisians participated in a sustained series of public protests, and the demonstrations included a diverse set of citizens: women helped lead them, and members of labor unions marched alongside lawyers, professors, and students. When it came to tactics, the protesters mostly improvised, but they also relied on a wide range of techniques, alternating between demonstrations and crippling national strikes organized by labor unions. The regime�s repressive countermeasures, such as lethal security crackdowns, backfired, drawing more people into the streets and encouraging defections from the military and among regime loyalists. After the Islamist party Ennahda swept the first post�Ben Ali elections, in 2011, power struggles between the Islamists and their secular rivals, amid flare-ups of protests and political violence, eventually yielded to compromise and a power-sharing deal late last year. The country�s trade unions, notably, played a key role in brokering that deal.

Egypt�s telegenic uprising, like Tunisia�s, illustrated the potential of nonviolent resistance. Protesters employed a wide range of tactics, from occupying major public squares to organizing large labor strikes. Activists found allies in the Egyptian army, which refused to open fire on the crowds and abandoned Mubarak, leading to a victory for civil resistance in 2011. But it soon became clear that the popular refrain �The army and the people are one hand� was a hollow slogan: the Egyptian military (unlike its Tunisian counterpart) intended to hold on to power at all costs. Last year, after the army toppled the democratically elected president, Mohamed Morsi, the military-backed government turned on the same activists who had organized the first protests against Mubarak in Tahrir Square, throwing many of them in jail. With the military�s power firmly intact -- and its former chief, Field Marshal Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, expected to win a presidential election in late May -- Egypt provides ample proof that a successful nonviolent campaign that manages to oust an authoritarian ruler cannot necessarily guarantee greater freedom and stability in the period that follows.

Nevertheless, had the Tahrir Square protests turned violent, the situation in Egypt might well have been far worse than it is today. Armed uprisings tend to reinforce the power of the military even more quickly, discouraging defections. Moreover, they tend to initiate mass atrocities against civilians on a scale much larger than nonviolent action does. Armed revolts rarely succeed, and when they do, they almost never bring about greater stability.

When thousands of Ukrainians mobilized in late 2013, calling for Yanukovych to resign, it appeared to be a vindication for the promise of popular nonviolent resistance. Although most of the international media focused on Kiev as the hub of the protests, people actually rose up in many cities and towns across the country. As in Tunisia and Egypt, the resistance made use of a variety of tactics. People boycotted consumer goods from businesses linked to Yanukovych; in Kiev, a mass car pool ensured that protesters could move in and out of the city�s main square. The demonstrators also exhibited a high degree of commitment to the cause: in one instance, civilians lay down across railroad tracks outside the city of Dnipropetrovsk to prevent a train carrying 500 elite riot police from entering Kiev. The movement was diverse, including men and women from different political groupings, classes, and ages. Its inclusiveness encouraged regime officials and security forces to switch sides in cities and throughout the countryside.

Of course, soon after Yanukovych fled Ukraine, in late February, the victory of civil resistance was undermined by geopolitics, as Russia reacted to the pro-European momentum in Kiev by seizing Crimea and fomenting instability in eastern Ukraine. But none of that changes the fact that it was mostly nonviolent popular protests, and not armed revolution, that brought down Yanukovych.

A FAREWELL TO ARMS

Libya does not fit neatly into this group of countries in which nonviolent resistance led to political change; after all, Qaddafi was toppled by an armed movement with NATO support. But Libya is revealing because it demonstrates the pitfalls of ignoring the strategic possibilities of civil resistance. Libya never saw a coordinated civil resistance campaign; instead, the revolutionaries and regime defectors turned from disorganized mass protests, such as those that rocked Benghazi in February 2011, to violence in the uprising�s first days, killing security forces, torching police stations and security offices across the country, and mobilizing an armed rebellion. Despite their early tactical victories, moreover, the rebel forces were badly outnumbered by Qaddafi loyalists and might have suffered a catastrophic loss without NATO�s help, making them wholly reliant on the international community for their victory. The death toll from the Libyan civil war, furthermore, was far higher than those in Tunisia, Egypt, and other cases in which activists relied on nonviolent means alone. After all, it was the armed revolt that provoked Qaddafi�s famed speech in late February 2011, in which he promised to go �door to door� and �capture the rats� who had betrayed him. And Libya today looks ominously like past cases in which armed rebel groups have toppled authoritarian regimes: dozens of militias roam free, and the feeble central government teeters on the brink of collapse. Relatively free elections in 2011 have not ushered in effective governing institutions. In the end, violent resistance succeeded against Qaddafi -- but it came at a high price. Although it is impossible to know whether nonviolent action could have succeeded, the spontaneous protests of February 2011 that provoked mass defections from Qaddafi�s security forces after just two days indicate that it may not have been fruitless to try.

Although more organized than Libya�s, Syria�s initially nonviolent resistance struggled owing to a lack of sufficient participation and a coherent plan. Activists failed to coordinate protests across the country in a way that could have mitigated government repression and inspired more defections among both the security forces and economic elites. Most of the opposition�s early tactics against the Assad regime were isolated and improvised: sporadic protests after Friday prayers at a mosque or flash mobs in popular markets. Decades of living under a brutal police state, where neighbors spied on neighbors at the behest of one of the many security branches, discouraged trust among the protesters and undermined collective action. Yet during the nonviolent phase of the uprising, some members of the Syrian security forces still defected to the opposition, and the movement featured moderate levels of domestic support.

But taking up arms against the Assad regime�s inevitable brutality destroyed any chance of maintaining the open support for the Syrian opposition on the part of significant numbers of Alawites, Christians, and Druze -- minorities who were represented among the nonviolent movement and were crucial to any inclusive, successful civil resistance. The subsequent civil war has alienated many former participants in and supporters of the revolution, and in many ways, it has fortified the regime. And the costs have been enormous. From March to September 2011, when the uprising was mostly nonviolent, the Assad regime killed an estimated 1,000 people a month and reportedly arrested thousands more. But the ensuing civil war has claimed around 5,000 lives a month, and one-third of the Syrian population are now refugees.

If the Syrian case follows historical precedent, the rebels� future looks gloomy. Even with support from outside states, violent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 had less than a 30 percent chance of succeeding. The successes include dubious cases, such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in 1975 and the mujahideen of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The failures include the Shiite uprising against Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the early 1990s, after the Gulf War. And as bad as the situation in Syria is, it could get worse. Since 1900, the average civil war has lasted over nine years. Even if the rebels win in the end, their victory will likely not satisfy the opposition�s original hope for more freedom. Less than four percent of rebel victories in armed resistance struggles from 1900 to 2006 ushered in democracy within five years; nearly half relapsed into civil war within ten years.

The odds were probably against any opposition campaign in Syria, nonviolent or violent, given the brutality of the regime. But as counterintuitive as it might seem, civil resistance was working in Syria and would have had a greater chance of success than armed struggle. Indeed, rather than illustrate the limits of nonviolent resistance, Syria�s path shows how devastating the choice of violence can be. It has played to Assad�s strengths while making the opposition wholly reliant on external armed intervention. Although entirely understandable given the scale of repression, engaging Assad on his own violent terms has had tragic -- yet predictable -- consequences.

YOU SAY YOU WANT A REVOLUTION

Comparing these cases brings out a few key points. First, nonviolent campaigns attracted far more diverse participation than armed ones, which increased the chances of defections among security forces and other regime elites. There is, in fact, safety in numbers, especially when protesters represent a cross section of society. Second, the nonviolent campaigns that succeeded used a variety of tactics. In Syria, on the other hand, nonviolent activists tended to rely solely on demonstrations and occupations, which are among the riskiest methods of civil resistance. Attempted strikes, boycotts, and other forms of mass noncooperation were weak, localized, and lacked support.

Third, although the protests of the Arab Spring inspired one another and were united by a similar, iconic slogan that was first chanted in Tunisia -- �The people want the fall of the regime!� -- they were hardly all the same. In fact, the different outcomes in each country underscore why nonviolent groups must resist the temptation to replicate a mass demonstration in another country without a broader strategy of their own, especially when that mass demonstration represents the endgame of a much longer nonviolent campaign. Fourth, in addition to killing more unarmed civilians and undermining participation, armed resistance makes rebel groups dangerously dependent on outside support. In both Libya and Syria, that total reliance made the rebels more vulnerable to accusations that they were agents of foreign enemies. Moreover, international support for armed groups is usually conditional and fickle, subjecting rebel groups to the whims of their sponsors (as Washington�s reluctance to follow through on its pledges of significant help for the Syrian rebels shows).

During last year�s UN General Assembly meeting, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke to a roundtable about the essential role that civil society has played in nearly every major social and political transformation of the last half century, from the civil rights movement in the United States, to the fight against communism in Eastern Europe, to the antiapartheid struggle in South Africa. The right of peaceful assembly and association, Obama said, is �not a Western value; this is a universal right.� But the space for this right is shrinking in many parts of the world. Countries are passing laws to stifle civil society, restrict nongovernmental organizations� access to foreign funding, crack down on communications technology, and, in more extreme cases, arrest and harass journalists and activists. Obama called on governments to embrace civil society groups as partners and, in a slightly edgier appeal, pressed governments and nongovernmental organizations to come up with more innovative and effective ways to support groups and activists fighting against injustice and oppression.

But that raises the question of which forms of external assistance to nonviolent civic groups work and which ones don�t. The idea of �do no harm� remains an anchoring principle for how outside governments and institutions should promote democracy and aid civil society groups in other countries. International support to such movements can take many forms, such as monitoring trials of political prisoners, engaging in solidarity movements to support the right of peaceful assembly, providing alternative channels of news and information, targeting warnings to security officials who might be tempted to use lethal force against nonviolent protesters, and supporting general capacity building for civic groups and independent media. But local actors are in the best position to determine which type of support is appropriate and if it is worth the associated risks.

Strengthening civil society is not only a precondition for sustained democratic development. It can also protect civilians from the worst excesses of violent repression. Although regimes may not refrain from using violence against peaceful protesters, history suggests that helping civic groups maintain nonviolent discipline -- a practice that often requires coordination, preparation, and training -- can ultimately minimize civilian casualties. In addition to staving off armed rebellion, sticking to civil resistance can insulate protesters from the most extreme forms of state violence by raising the costs of repression (although as Tunisia and Egypt proved, hundreds of protesters could still pay with their lives). Nonviolent movements are not as reliant on outside support as armed ones are, but the international community can help ensure that civil society groups maintain the space they need to exercise their basic rights of free speech and assembly while avoiding the temptation to turn to arms to pursue their goals.

Policymakers should prioritize a �responsibility to assist� nonviolent activists and civic groups, rather than only seeking to protect civilians through military force, as in NATO�s Libya intervention. Of course, civil resistance campaigns are and must remain homegrown movements. But in recent years, the international community has done much to undermine civil resistance by quickly and enthusiastically supporting armed actors when they arrive on the scene. Syria�s tragedy is a case in point. Although regime repression, supported by Iran and Russia, undoubtedly helped turn a principally nonviolent uprising into a civil war, external actors could have done more to aid civil resistance and prolong the original nonviolent uprising. They could have helped encourage, coordinate, and exploit for political gain regime defections (including from key Alawite elites); demanded that Assad allow foreign journalists to remain in the country; accelerated direct financial support to grass-roots nonviolent networks and local councils; and provided more information to Syrian activists about what it takes to remain nonviolent under highly repressive conditions. Instead, the international community provided political recognition and sanctuary to armed actors, supplied both nonlethal and lethal aid to them, and helped militarize the conflict, undermining the momentum of the nonviolent movement. There was no silver bullet for effectively aiding the nonviolent Syrian opposition. But speed and coordination on the part of external actors, particularly early on in the revolution, were lacking.

Syria highlights the moral and strategic imperative of developing more flexible, nimble ways to support nonviolent resistance movements. The local champions of people power will continue to chart their own future. But outside actors have an important role to play in assuring that civil resistance has a fighting chance.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:43

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

enki42 posted:

The first article I linked isn't beyond a paywall, and includes many examples (but not every single one)

After reading the article the biggest problem with it is that it isn't making an argument for non-violent struggle so much as against violent struggle. It claims that:

quote:

In South Africa, boycotts against white businesses and international divestments from South African businesses were decisive in ending the apartheid regime.

But its easy to also forget that the struggle in South Africa was extremely loving violent. Nelson Mandela, one of the key figures of the struggle in South Africa was responsible for hundreds of violent attacks and he never, ever apologized or renounced violence.

It even brings up one of the biggest non-violent struggles in recent memory, the arab spring and I think we can safely say that it accomplished very little, and what has risen out of the ashes of that is an extremely violent struggle. Just look at Rojava in Syria. There is not a single successful non-violent struggle referenced in the entire article, unless I missed it.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:45

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

holy poo poo they claimed that egypt, where the army have literally taken control of the country, was non violent?

This was the sort of question I had in mind

As for south africa it's flat out wrong. Apartheid was ended by the cuban air force and umkomto we sizwe.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:49

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

I think to me it boils down to two key points, there has never been non-violent struggle and violence and non-violence are tools to be used and the decision to use them rests on those in the streets making those decisions. I wrote this long thing in response to an article in the atlantic because I was so tired of this conversation on the left, its long but I'll share it here because it feels pretty relevent.

quote:

I'm seeing a lot of opinion pieces in news outlets about how the left should protest and organize. Most of these articles misunderstand what protest should be and also seem to come from a place of privilege. Especially when I see articles that say things like "You want to scare Trump? Be orderly, polite, and visibly patriotic."(The Atlantic) Privilege that is obvious when police show up to Black Lives Matter and labor marches and anti-trump marches in riot gear with batons and rubber bullets, but show up to the women's march to shake hands. This cowed orderly, polite patriotism is exactly what the 'establishment' would like.
In terms of effective protest I disagree with the notion that the left should reign in the radical elements that may or may not cause property destruction and other forms of violence. These articles betray a fundamental misunderstanding of why protests work and how effective they can be when done properly. Protest is unrest. The main threat that the state has from unrest is violence. Falling into the trap that a lot of mainstream or establishment democrats have of worrying about 'optics' is wrong. Just look at Trump's and the Tea Party's success for proof. The Tea Party and Trump have been wildly successful in advancing a far right agenda by saying whatever they want regardless of validity or regard for how it will play in the media.
A lot of groups on the left right now are seeking to emulate the success of the Tea Party. Lets face it, we are living in a Tea Party wet dream right now. Deregulation, white nationalism, fascism, a corporate state. The Tea Party was rude and it was vocal. It didn't rely on protest, violent or otherwise, but they didn't have to because the Tea Party's power base was extremely wealthy businessmen willing to put up millions and millions of dollars across the country to push their agenda by supporting far right candidates and policies.
With the potential loss of life and general suffering due to climate change(and US politicians on both the left and the right dragging their feet on making concrete progress on the issue), when I go to meetings for various groups and I hear people say that without the ACA they could die because they might not be able to afford their medication, when I think about how the republican party thinks Trump should have the power to at will make it so that members of immigrant families simply can't return home if they were to leave the country or even be deported after living here for decades. We should be in the streets, not marching on some pre-arranged route, playing by the rules of a state that has decided that it values profits over human lives, we should be in the streets agitating and demanding that the government at least pretend it cares, by any means necessary.
I'm not saying everyone should be burning things down, breaking things or punching white nationalists in the face. What I am saying is that instead of demonizing or casting off our brothers and sisters in black, we embrace them. They are our warriors, they are our heroes. They are on the front lines putting their lives' and their freedom at risk so that those of us who are only comfortable protesting peacefully can do so while maintaining the direct threat of violence and unrest that protest relies on to be effective. What we need is to develop a system to protect them and to rally around them. Court support, donations for legal defense and even other more radical ideas including putting pressure on judges and elected officials to send a clear message that says: Leave our warriors alone.
Make no mistake, without radical, extreme change in the US, where we are heading right now with the Republican party is very similar to where the establishment Democratic party would like us to be. The Republicans are just doing it faster and with greater disdain for human life. The attacks in the media against the radical left, the calls for free speech and to give these people a legitimate platform are proof that their tactics are effective. On the left people are radicalizing at a pace we haven�t seen in decades. The political establishment is shaken and we should not slow down or change course. Harness this energy and use it for progress, bring the hope and the change the democrats failed to provide over the past eight years.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 18:51

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

Spangly A posted:

holy poo poo they claimed that egypt, where the army have literally taken control of the country, was non violent?

For what it's worth, I think they're classifying Egypt as an initially non-violent movement that ultimately failed to enact lasting change (which I think is uncontroversial?) So it's in the 50% of non-violent movements that fail.

Apartheid I agree is an example where violence was probably an essential element.

quote:

I think to me it boils down to two key points, there has never been non-violent struggle and violence and non-violence are tools to be used and the decision to use them rests on those in the streets making those decisions. I wrote this long thing in response to an article in the atlantic because I was so tired of this conversation on the left, its long but I'll share it here because it feels pretty relevent.

For me it comes down to effectiveness more so than it's moral standing. I don't disagree that there's a moral argument for people to employ violence in a lot of cases. But if violence is less effective at accomplishing their goals, justification and your moral standing on whether you're allowed to employ it feels a lot more just-world than advocating for non-violence.

If you agree with the argument that a violent counterpart to a non-violent movement allows the non-violent movement to succeed, by making the non-violent movement seem reasonable in comparison, that's all the more reason to distance yourself from the violent elements of the movement. I'm not arguing that you should actively work against them, but by tacitly supporting them by supporting a diversity of tactics, etc, you're giving the state an easy tool to justify violence against the movement.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:01

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

enki42 posted:

For me it comes down to effectiveness more so than it's moral standing. I don't disagree that there's a moral argument for people to employ violence in a lot of cases. But if violence is less effective at accomplishing their goals, justification and your moral standing on whether you're allowed to employ it feels a lot more just-world than advocating for non-violence.

well, what of the goals? The IRA aren't controlling ireland, they aren't the official army again, but the peace process remained intact for two decades. Did they then succeed? Have they now failed?

I'm 100% happy with the violent resistance not taking control when the regime is toppled, for example. I'm pretty glad the nation of islam didn't "win". This is why their data needs examining to, at least, make sure they've solidified the difference between movements and conflicts. Again, movements do not win conflicts on their own.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:12

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

With nonviolent protests you can get pictures like this that will spread through the media and make a lot more people aware of what you're doing and how bullshit the other side is:

gently caress I don't even remember what these people were protesting but I automatically agree with them more than I agree with Fat Mace Cop

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:22

Keeshhound: Jan 14, 2010; Mad Duck Swagger

Spangly A posted:

There were 200,000 angry negroes marching in an atmosphere where Malcolm X was training young black men en masse to kill the white man, and this was constant media coverage.

What's actually wrong with you that you think it was a nonviolent protest? There was an incredibly clear threat of force.

As I already said, I'm not arguing as to which protests were or were not violent, or even whether or not violence is an effective tool for societal change. I'm saying that the claim that nonviolent action is ineffective without being paired with violent action is one that should not go unchallenged, especially in the context of a thread that is ostensibly to be a resource for people looking for advice on how to advocate for their political beliefs in the current climate.

If someone genuinely believes that violence is a necessary component of social change, great, I'm glad that they have those convictions, but they should be able to back those claims up if they're going to present it as advice for someone asking for direction.

That goes double when they are advising something that may have serious repercussions for anyone who follows through, and claiming that you need to have a violent movement for any kind of success falls into that category, because it increases the likelihood of criminal activity or serious injury.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:29

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

ate all the Oreos posted:

With nonviolent protests you can get pictures like this that will spread through the media and make a lot more people aware of what you're doing and how bullshit the other side is:

gently caress I don't even remember what these people were protesting but I automatically agree with them more than I agree with Fat Mace Cop

and look how successful occupy wall street was.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:37

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

ate all the Oreos posted:

gently caress I don't even remember what these people were protesting

This is hilarious given your argument.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:43

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Internet Explorer posted:

This is hilarious given your argument.

I very carefully said what you're doing and not why you're doing it :colbert:

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:48

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

ate all the Oreos posted:

I very carefully said what you're doing and not why you're doing it

How are the peaceful protests at DAPL working out?

# ? Feb 9, 2017 19:49

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Dr King also did a good job of pointing out that protest requires long term commitment to be effective, same document I linked before:

quote:

Marches must continue in the future, and they must be the kind of marches that bring about the desired result. But the march is not a �one shot� victory-producing method. One march is seldom successful, and as my good friend Kenneth Clark points out in Dark Ghetto, it can serve merely to let off steam and siphon off the energy which is necessary to produce change. However, when marching is seen as a part of a program to dramatize an evil, to mobilize the forces of good will, and to generate pressure and power for change, marches will continue to be effective.

Our experience is that marches must continue over a period of thirty to forty-five days to produce any meaningful results. They must also be of sufficient size to produce some inconvenience to the forces in power or they go unnoticed. In other words, they must demand the attention of the press, for it is the press which interprets the issue to the community at large and thereby sets in motion the machinery for change.

Along with the march as a weapon for change in our nonviolent arsenal must be listed the boycott. Basic to the philosophy of nonviolence is the refusal to cooperate with evil. There is nothing quite so effective as a refusal to cooperate economically with the forces and institutions which perpetuate evil in our communities.

In the past six months simply by refusing to purchase products from companies which do not hire Negroes in meaningful numbers and in all job categories, the Ministers of Chicago under SCLC�s Operation Breadbasket have increased the income of the Negro community by more than two million dollars annually. In Atlanta the Negroes� earning power has been increased by more than twenty million dollars annually over the past three years through a carefully disciplined program of selective buying and negotiations by the Negro minister. This is nonviolence at its peak of power, when it cuts into the profit margin of a business in order to bring about a more just distribution of jobs and opportunities for Negro wage earners and consumers.

But again, the boycott must be sustained over a period of several weeks and months to assure results. This means continuous education of the community in order that support can be maintained. People will work together and sacrifice if they understand clearly why and how this sacrifice will bring about change. We can never assume that anyone understands. It is our job to keep people informed and aware.

To my mind he's describing a sustained campaign of action, violent or not. This even being only on the scale of marches in particular areas. This does not begin to address the enormity of the entire civil rights movement.

So, I think the efficacy of individual protests needs not to be conflated with the efficacy of sustained campaigns. The scale of organizing involved is very important and, I think, not one seen outside of armed conflict today.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 20:01

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Internet Explorer posted:

How are the peaceful protests at DAPL working out?

They rerouted it on Dec. 5th in response to protests so... not... bad? Like I know it's all gone to poo poo since then but it's not like they had no effect.

e: Okay "not bad" is probably too generous, "not as bad but still very bad"

# ? Feb 9, 2017 20:02

ChickenOfTomorrow: Nov 11, 2012; god damn it, you've got to be kind

I'm going to violently protest this loving derail

# ? Feb 9, 2017 20:28

Doorknob Slobber: Sep 10, 2006; by Fluffdaddy

ate all the Oreos posted:

They rerouted it on Dec. 5th in response to protests so... not... bad? Like I know it's all gone to poo poo since then but it's not like they had no effect.

e: Okay "not bad" is probably too generous, "not as bad but still very bad"

I think that (so far at least) DAPL is a good example of why peaceful protest by itself doesn't really work (especially) if there isn't a sympathetic power willing to step in and intervene. There was that quote thats floating around that peaceful protest doesn't do anything if the people you're protesting against don't give a poo poo about you that applies pretty well in this case. One of the the arguments for peaceful only protest that I've seen so far here is that it you can garner sympathy and draw people to support your cause.

But if the media is mostly silent when the police/security use attack dogs and put people in cardiac arrest by spraying you with water in freezing temperatures and throw concussion grenades or whatever it turned out they were using and blow off peoples' arms then its going to be very hard to draw people to your cause because no one knows that these things are happening. Especially in a world where facts no longer matter, and the state just says "No we didn't do that!" even though there is video evidence of it and people (including the media) just accept that answer without really digging deeper into whats going on.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Feb 9, 2017

# ? Feb 9, 2017 20:30

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

The media perspective seems to be turning toward a desire to establish and publicize empirical truth rather than the "some say"/"but the police chief says" model of the last 20 years. What difference will that make? No idea.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 21:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 07:40

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

Jack Gladney posted:

The media perspective seems to be turning toward a desire to establish and publicize empirical truth rather than the "some say"/"but the police chief says" model of the last 20 years. What difference will that make? No idea.

you can't simply switch to being good journalists. It requires a shitload of resources, money, and time. There aren't enough journalits left at all, and if we remove the human opportunity cost that most of them represent, even less.

# ? Feb 9, 2017 22:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Effective Leftism: Practical Organisation and Involvement Thread

«‹›42 »