Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.
It’s also important to remember that non-violence serves the interest of entrenched power. The state is at its core a violence-control structure. When people excersize the power of violence in their own interests, the state must reassert it’s dominion or risk collapse.
Non-violent requests can be accommodated without elites feeling like their ill-gotten power is threatened. But it’s often the violent demands that scare them into doing so.
My theory is that you need both. You need figures that are non violent, but also the threat of more violent leaders around the corner if the non violent ones get ignored. You need Malcolm X to make MLK look like the compromise.
100%. A credible threat of violence is the real sweet spot, it’s the currency that the whole world operates by. Actual violence is primarily only useful for establishing that threat.
Like, Brian Thompson was an evil person but he was just a cog in a machine and not that hard to replace. However, his killing spooked the industry, and at least for a time, they stopped denying so many claims, which saved many lives - because there was a credible threat that if they deny someone’s claim, they (or someone who cares about them) might kill those responsible. On the other side of the equation, the state was very concerned about finding the killer/someone to pin the blame on, because they needed to establish a credible threat of violence against anyone who might follow his example.
People in America seem to love “going postal,” just one big dramatic act that only you know about and that you won’t walk away from. But that doesn’t really set up a credible threat for the future. Thompson’s killer at least had the good sense to try to get away - if he did, then he could continue providing a credible threat, and he would also provide a “proof of concept” for people looking to fight back without necessarily dying.
Ideally, if you could have a more formal organization that could lay out demands and red lines, it would add to predictability and help keep the threat of violence consistent and predictable. Otherwise, there’s just a vague sense that maybe someone out there will be set off by something, but it’s hard to negotiate with that, hard to say which actions might set someone off. Stochastic violence isn’t ideal, but if more formal organizations are subverted in the various ways they are, then violence becomes less controlled and directed, and the credible threat of violence becomes harder to establish.
I think you are equating those with disruptive. Peaceful doesn’t necessarily mean non-disruptive. Peaceful and disruptive protests can certainly still make people in power sweat
Strikes are peaceful and disruptive
Shutting down freeways can be peaceful and disruptive
Boycotts are peaceful and can be disruptive
Sit-ins are peaceful and can be disruptive
etc.
Not that 3.5% is necessarily an iron-clad guarantee
Absolutely. We are seeing some great civil resistance tactics in the anti-ICE protests right now. These are quite different from rallies where people just stand around, they are actually interfering with ICE and slowing down their abducitons. If enough people participated, they could shut them down altogether.
That said, it’s risky too. The police will retaliate with violence, which sucks if you are the recipient. But the imagery of peaceful protesters being attacked is great propaganda.
It’s also important to remember that non-violence serves the interest of entrenched power. The state is at its core a violence-control structure. When people excersize the power of violence in their own interests, the state must reassert it’s dominion or risk collapse.
Non-violent requests can be accommodated without elites feeling like their ill-gotten power is threatened. But it’s often the violent demands that scare them into doing so.
My theory is that you need both. You need figures that are non violent, but also the threat of more violent leaders around the corner if the non violent ones get ignored. You need Malcolm X to make MLK look like the compromise.
The phrase that’s been rolling around my head is “credible threat of violence”.
100%. A credible threat of violence is the real sweet spot, it’s the currency that the whole world operates by. Actual violence is primarily only useful for establishing that threat.
Like, Brian Thompson was an evil person but he was just a cog in a machine and not that hard to replace. However, his killing spooked the industry, and at least for a time, they stopped denying so many claims, which saved many lives - because there was a credible threat that if they deny someone’s claim, they (or someone who cares about them) might kill those responsible. On the other side of the equation, the state was very concerned about finding the killer/someone to pin the blame on, because they needed to establish a credible threat of violence against anyone who might follow his example.
People in America seem to love “going postal,” just one big dramatic act that only you know about and that you won’t walk away from. But that doesn’t really set up a credible threat for the future. Thompson’s killer at least had the good sense to try to get away - if he did, then he could continue providing a credible threat, and he would also provide a “proof of concept” for people looking to fight back without necessarily dying.
Ideally, if you could have a more formal organization that could lay out demands and red lines, it would add to predictability and help keep the threat of violence consistent and predictable. Otherwise, there’s just a vague sense that maybe someone out there will be set off by something, but it’s hard to negotiate with that, hard to say which actions might set someone off. Stochastic violence isn’t ideal, but if more formal organizations are subverted in the various ways they are, then violence becomes less controlled and directed, and the credible threat of violence becomes harder to establish.
I think you are equating those with disruptive. Peaceful doesn’t necessarily mean non-disruptive. Peaceful and disruptive protests can certainly still make people in power sweat
Strikes are peaceful and disruptive
Shutting down freeways can be peaceful and disruptive
Boycotts are peaceful and can be disruptive
Sit-ins are peaceful and can be disruptive
etc.
Not that 3.5% is necessarily an iron-clad guarantee
Absolutely. We are seeing some great civil resistance tactics in the anti-ICE protests right now. These are quite different from rallies where people just stand around, they are actually interfering with ICE and slowing down their abducitons. If enough people participated, they could shut them down altogether.
That said, it’s risky too. The police will retaliate with violence, which sucks if you are the recipient. But the imagery of peaceful protesters being attacked is great propaganda.