Sidenote: if you're ever a dictator somewhere, move your capital away from the big population centers. Invent some nutcase reason like "God told me to do it in a dream". Make sure that most inhabitants of your new capital are civil servants, whose livelihoods directly depend on your government's stability. Civil Resistance, violent or not, will be significantly less effective.
Eg Naypidaw (Myanmar), Astana / Nur-Sultan[1] (Kazachstan), Brasilia, Islamabad (Pakistan), Ciudad de la Paz (Equatorial Guinea), etc.
I'm not sure if there's statistically sufficiently many capitals-in-the-middle-of-nowhere but I bet there's a direct correlation between "capital is also the major population center" and "success rate of uprisings". It even holds for functioning democracies. I don't think the "yellow vests" people in Paris would've had a similar impact in Australia, where the government is comfortably far away from Where People Live.
[1] Woa check the new name! It's like renaming Washington DC to "Donald". [2]
[2] EDIT: Omg I just realized that George Washington did exactly that. Some ego! I had always assumed that it had been founded/named long after Washington was dead, but nothing like that was the case. It's really the "Trump Hotel" of cities.
> If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it,” Trump reportedly said. “You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”
> On the subject of whether anyone remembers George Washington, The Washington Post, which is based in the capital city of Washington (not Washington state) near George Washington University, would refer readers to the fact that Washington has come in first or second in nearly every “best presidents” poll conducted, including the most recent one, in 2018, by Siena College Research Institute.
The nonviolent civil resistance is only effective when your opponent is a regime that is beholden to the opinion of its people or of the world. For oppressive opponents who don't actually care very much about human rights, nonviolent resistance is simply ineffective at all.
As she explains in the video, that was Erica Chenoweth's a priori guess too, before looking at the data. Her study, looking at all the available data from every resistance movement involving more than 1000 people since 1900, apparently suggests otherwise.
Non-empirical 'commonsense' guesswork turns out to be wrong far more often than most people think. So it's great that the Chenoweth's of this world are curious enough to put their guesses to the test.
Exactly. Ghandi was very brave, it's true, but his success in India says as much about the British as it does about the power of nonviolence. Try the same stunt against ISIS or North Korea and you'll only achieve being shot out of hand.
Normally I would agree with you. But right now in Sudan a non-violent revolution is occurring. The civilians are demanding a civilian government from Hemeti, the head of a militia that is responsible for war crimes in Darfur. Hemeti doesn't care what the western governments think, he is only beholden to the Gulf governments who are propping up the economy with money. They Gulf governments would prefer he uses force quickly and ruthlessly. His troops have used some violence, 4+ died about a week ago. But they haven't cleared the sit-in with their full force yet.
I think this is because if Hemeti used full scale violence he wouldn't have a state to rule over. The non-violent protesters have enough support that a violent response would fracture the armed forces, militias, civilians, and government into non-governable chaos.
If you are an oppressive regime, you likely have the maximum capability for violence many times over in your region.
Hence violent civil resistance will start off with a bad footing in two ways:
1. People are not so keen to take up arms
2. For any amount of violence, the government will likely respond with an overwhelming amount of violence.
Non-violent strategies, on the other hand beat these two stepping stones:
1. Non violent strategies, if they are at all popular, are way less riskier for individual participants and due to their non violent nature are easier for people to copy
2. Government has a way harder time to respond to non-localized non-violent influence strategies, as their oppressive regime is likely specialized in fielding force projection troops to localized events
Next thing destruction of property is also called violence.
Let's think of the abolition of slavery as an example. This was a huge, important change that came about by civil resistance: slave owners were mostly backed by law during the period of resistance.
It was not non-violent, especially if destruction of property (e.g. freeing a slave) is counted as an act of violence against the slave owner/ law. I do not believe this change was easier to provoke non-violently and/or non-property-destructively.
Another case of violent successful resistance is the cuban revolution. My guess is only small changes that can be coopted/incorporated into current system can do so non-violently.
The statement about the successrate is based on the following database
>To these ends, we constructed the Nonviolent andViolent Conºict Outcomes (NAVCO) data set, which includes aggregate dataon 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006.35
>The NAVCO data set contains a sample of resistance campaigns based on consensus data ofscholars of both violent and nonviolent conºict. Resistance campaigns include campaigns for do-mestic regime change, against foreign occupations, or for secession or self-determination. Omittedfrom the data set are major social and economic campaigns, such as the civil rights movement andthe populist movement in the United States. To gain inclusion into the NAVCO data set, the cam-paign must have a major and disruptive political objective, such as the ending of a current politicalregime, a foreign occupation, or secession. About ten campaigns (four nonviolent and six violent)did not ªt into any of these categories but were nevertheless included in the data set. The codingscheme assumes that each campaign has a uniªed goal, but most campaigns have multiple fac-tions. The dynamics created by these circumstances will be further explored in a later study
Humans and most animals tend to naturally resist along a spectrum (sometimes referred to as the force continuum), and for most that spectrum will include violence at the extreme end.
Nonviolent civil resistance scales tends to scale more quickly because there is less at stake for the individual participants under most circumstances. But it's still resistance, and still an indicator that some percentage of the populace has less tolerance for provocation before things begin to turn violent. That's where i think at least some of the effectiveness of the nonviolent approach comes from...the threat of a lot more people turning violent.
About the only thing I would take away from this is that if I want to organize resistance, it might be more effective to spend time marketing it and scaling horizontally first than to flame out on a skirmish and scare possible supporters off. Once the tribe starts to grow, however, it becomes much easier to turn up the heat when necessary.
A while back I read "The failure of non violence" by Peter Gelderloos on the topic who argued for the opposite. Not an academic work but I found it interesting to read about a different point of view.
It seems he's arguing that a diversity of tactics is more effective than nonviolence alone. Chenoweth's methodology if I understand correctly was to divide a lot of civil resistance campaigns into violent and nonviolent, and compare the success of the two groupings.
It's possible that they're both right, that a diversity of tactics wins, but is more likely to win when that diversity is skewed toward nonviolence.
"Deep and long-lasting levelling of both the absolute and relative degree of income and wealth inequality has found its place primarily in conjunction with the ‘Four Horsemen’ of levelling: namely, mass mobilisation warfare; transformative revolutions (such as communism); state collapse; and plague and pandemic episodes"
I read it best put in the book "Blueprint for Revolution" (which, believe it or not, was mentioned in Adam Grants' "Originals").
Long to short, Popovic wrote: nonviolence is more successful because it casts a wider / deeper net. Adding violence to your tactic severely reduces the number who will embrace and participate in your change movement.
A black bloc uncle old me once, that in political struggle you need a militant and a civil/political branch. With as little direct connection between the two as possible. One of his reasons was the one you pointed out. The other that the persons that participates in violent struggle, are a bad fit for dialogue and building something lasting up afterwards.
This is probably the reason why the Israeli state is so fearful of the BDS movement. Violent resistance is easy to quell, but reduced trade due to the boycott is harder to do something about. It is also hard to motivate how people exercising their right to not purchase goods for ethical reasons are acting in bad faith.
I believe that is how South Africa's Apartheid system was brought down. The ANC actually engaged in terrorism - but that wasn't what ended the system - it was the global economic boycott.
Nonviolent or violent civil resistance can easily be co-opted by other actors like the CIA or KGB for their own nefarious agendas. Be wary of being pawns for assholes. Transforming your country into a liberal, democratic country requires the fact the country evolved itself into some sort of democracy. Not someone forced that on you through a manufactured war or revolution.
Popular protest is part of the evolution of a country into some sort of democracy, and it's generally much bigger assholes complaining that every popular protest against them is backed by the CIA/KGB/Iran/Saudis/neighbours (even when that claim has a grain of truth to it...)
We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?"
History class in U.S. high schools greatly emphasize the success of nonviolent protest, and it was surprising to me that they actually are twice as effective. I had recently come to the conclusion that this history lesson was mostly an intended plan to indoctrinate people away from tendencies to perform violent protest; it is nice to see that it is actually measureably correct.
Solidarity in Poland would be an outstanding example of successful non violent civil resistance that was a catalyst for a cascade of largely(but not entirely) non violent revolutions across Eastern Europe and Russia between 89-91.
It is also a successful example of external non-violent support as the CIA provided strictly non violent support in the form of cash, communication, printing, and copying equipment and supplies.
Largely shipped covertly via Swedish maritime cargo and other means.
The key learning point, especially for governments interested in interfering in the affairs of other countries, is that it requires a committed and motivated existing and self sustaining organisation.
In the case of Solidarity/Poland, CIA simply provided some additional momentum to what already existed.
Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan also provides considerable moral support and political capital to put the spotlight on the existent Solidarity.
Not only are non violent movements twice as successful(on average) than violent revolutions, but they are also more sustainable/resilient.
There was an excellent course run out of Harvard JFK School called “Leading Non-Violent Movements for Social Change”.
It was led by Srdja Popovic, founder of Otpor! that helped remove Milosevic fro. Power in Serbia.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
So you can have a 'violent' movement that does not get round to using violence. The movement can be effective enough to not need to fire a single shot.
Because of this it is a bit silly to compare and categorise non-violent vs. violent resistance.
If you read The Art Of War then the keep the powder dry idea is quite key to winning. Timing and leadership matters more. How many 'leaderless' movements, e.g. Extinction Rebellion, Occupy Wall Street etc. have got anywhere? Precisely zero.
Modern day capitalism demands war and terrorism. It is all part of the illusion. Over the centuries UK/US interests have got to be good at it. The terrorism meme invariably gets rolled out but no genuine resistance movements ever use terror tactics. It is a sure way to lose popular support. The distinction between sabotage and terrorism isn't widely appreciated. So although 'burning down the parliament building' might be a perfectly valid act of sabotage it will always be an act of terror in the media whether it is Guy Fawkes or Hitler doing it.
I would be more interested in knowing what resistance movements succeeded based on their counter surveillance skills. If a movement has a non English language and other culture that is hard for spies to learn then success is much more likely.
The article says that nonviolent civil resistance is effective
But truth is that nonviolent civil resistance is not effective. The few "regimes" that were "toppled" by it never stood in ranks of real regimes, or were at their dying breath.
I wish authors of the article ever told that to Ugandans, North Koreans, and after all Chinese.
China sees sporadic riots nearly weekly (which are almost never covered by Western press.) I'd say that as a percentage of population, the amount of people who ever raised a hand on policeman/official person and served term should be around 5-7%.
That was way higher in eighties when forced sterilisation campaign was at its peak (imagine men having to stand still while a communist pokes his dirty finger into their wives'...)
Literally the first sentence of the video description:
> Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as successful as violent campaigns.
You're just saying "No." without providing anything more than an opinion and some anecdotal evidence. You're absolutely right that under many oppressive regimes like China pretty much any kind of protest beside outright civil war is suppressed, but that doesn't defeat the point of the article.
[+] [-] skrebbel|6 years ago|reply
Eg Naypidaw (Myanmar), Astana / Nur-Sultan[1] (Kazachstan), Brasilia, Islamabad (Pakistan), Ciudad de la Paz (Equatorial Guinea), etc.
I'm not sure if there's statistically sufficiently many capitals-in-the-middle-of-nowhere but I bet there's a direct correlation between "capital is also the major population center" and "success rate of uprisings". It even holds for functioning democracies. I don't think the "yellow vests" people in Paris would've had a similar impact in Australia, where the government is comfortably far away from Where People Live.
[1] Woa check the new name! It's like renaming Washington DC to "Donald". [2]
[2] EDIT: Omg I just realized that George Washington did exactly that. Some ego! I had always assumed that it had been founded/named long after Washington was dead, but nothing like that was the case. It's really the "Trump Hotel" of cities.
[+] [-] ForHackernews|6 years ago|reply
> If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it,” Trump reportedly said. “You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”
> On the subject of whether anyone remembers George Washington, The Washington Post, which is based in the capital city of Washington (not Washington state) near George Washington University, would refer readers to the fact that Washington has come in first or second in nearly every “best presidents” poll conducted, including the most recent one, in 2018, by Siena College Research Institute.
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
Been selling widgets to rapid transit company there. Can't wait to go back to China, but it seems that there is a new local client on the horizon =(
[+] [-] mikeash|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ReptileMan|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsoonhui|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crispinb|6 years ago|reply
Non-empirical 'commonsense' guesswork turns out to be wrong far more often than most people think. So it's great that the Chenoweth's of this world are curious enough to put their guesses to the test.
[+] [-] taneq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thekid314|6 years ago|reply
I think this is because if Hemeti used full scale violence he wouldn't have a state to rule over. The non-violent protesters have enough support that a violent response would fracture the armed forces, militias, civilians, and government into non-governable chaos.
[+] [-] fsloth|6 years ago|reply
If you are an oppressive regime, you likely have the maximum capability for violence many times over in your region.
Hence violent civil resistance will start off with a bad footing in two ways: 1. People are not so keen to take up arms 2. For any amount of violence, the government will likely respond with an overwhelming amount of violence.
Non-violent strategies, on the other hand beat these two stepping stones: 1. Non violent strategies, if they are at all popular, are way less riskier for individual participants and due to their non violent nature are easier for people to copy 2. Government has a way harder time to respond to non-localized non-violent influence strategies, as their oppressive regime is likely specialized in fielding force projection troops to localized events
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goto11|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cies|6 years ago|reply
Let's think of the abolition of slavery as an example. This was a huge, important change that came about by civil resistance: slave owners were mostly backed by law during the period of resistance.
It was not non-violent, especially if destruction of property (e.g. freeing a slave) is counted as an act of violence against the slave owner/ law. I do not believe this change was easier to provoke non-violently and/or non-property-destructively.
[+] [-] sudoaza|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cf141q5325|6 years ago|reply
>To these ends, we constructed the Nonviolent andViolent Conºict Outcomes (NAVCO) data set, which includes aggregate dataon 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006.35
>The NAVCO data set contains a sample of resistance campaigns based on consensus data ofscholars of both violent and nonviolent conºict. Resistance campaigns include campaigns for do-mestic regime change, against foreign occupations, or for secession or self-determination. Omittedfrom the data set are major social and economic campaigns, such as the civil rights movement andthe populist movement in the United States. To gain inclusion into the NAVCO data set, the cam-paign must have a major and disruptive political objective, such as the ending of a current politicalregime, a foreign occupation, or secession. About ten campaigns (four nonviolent and six violent)did not ªt into any of these categories but were nevertheless included in the data set. The codingscheme assumes that each campaign has a uniªed goal, but most campaigns have multiple fac-tions. The dynamics created by these circumstances will be further explored in a later study
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file...
https://www.du.edu/korbel/sie/research/chenow_navco_data.htm...
[+] [-] Joeboy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcims|6 years ago|reply
Humans and most animals tend to naturally resist along a spectrum (sometimes referred to as the force continuum), and for most that spectrum will include violence at the extreme end.
Nonviolent civil resistance scales tends to scale more quickly because there is less at stake for the individual participants under most circumstances. But it's still resistance, and still an indicator that some percentage of the populace has less tolerance for provocation before things begin to turn violent. That's where i think at least some of the effectiveness of the nonviolent approach comes from...the threat of a lot more people turning violent.
About the only thing I would take away from this is that if I want to organize resistance, it might be more effective to spend time marketing it and scaling horizontally first than to flame out on a skirmish and scare possible supporters off. Once the tribe starts to grow, however, it becomes much easier to turn up the heat when necessary.
Also, no tiki torches.
[+] [-] cf141q5325|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brlewis|6 years ago|reply
It seems he's arguing that a diversity of tactics is more effective than nonviolence alone. Chenoweth's methodology if I understand correctly was to divide a lot of civil resistance campaigns into violent and nonviolent, and compare the success of the two groupings.
It's possible that they're both right, that a diversity of tactics wins, but is more likely to win when that diversity is skewed toward nonviolence.
[+] [-] clydethefrog|6 years ago|reply
"Deep and long-lasting levelling of both the absolute and relative degree of income and wealth inequality has found its place primarily in conjunction with the ‘Four Horsemen’ of levelling: namely, mass mobilisation warfare; transformative revolutions (such as communism); state collapse; and plague and pandemic episodes"
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/02/23/book-rev...
[+] [-] chiefalchemist|6 years ago|reply
Long to short, Popovic wrote: nonviolence is more successful because it casts a wider / deeper net. Adding violence to your tactic severely reduces the number who will embrace and participate in your change movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_for_Revolution
[+] [-] tokai|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjourne|6 years ago|reply
I believe that is how South Africa's Apartheid system was brought down. The ANC actually engaged in terrorism - but that wasn't what ended the system - it was the global economic boycott.
[+] [-] devoply|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notahacker|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chriselles|6 years ago|reply
In that specific ring fences example, did anyone outside of the Soviet/Polish regimes have issue with it then or since?
Would any/many Poles consider it a mistake or criticise the effort or result?
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hprotagonist|6 years ago|reply
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....
[+] [-] challenger22|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chriselles|6 years ago|reply
It is also a successful example of external non-violent support as the CIA provided strictly non violent support in the form of cash, communication, printing, and copying equipment and supplies.
Largely shipped covertly via Swedish maritime cargo and other means.
The key learning point, especially for governments interested in interfering in the affairs of other countries, is that it requires a committed and motivated existing and self sustaining organisation.
In the case of Solidarity/Poland, CIA simply provided some additional momentum to what already existed.
Pope John Paul II and President Ronald Reagan also provides considerable moral support and political capital to put the spotlight on the existent Solidarity.
Not only are non violent movements twice as successful(on average) than violent revolutions, but they are also more sustainable/resilient.
There was an excellent course run out of Harvard JFK School called “Leading Non-Violent Movements for Social Change”.
It was led by Srdja Popovic, founder of Otpor! that helped remove Milosevic fro. Power in Serbia.
Check out CANVAS: https://canvasopedia.org/
Great free resources.
[+] [-] jcora|6 years ago|reply
This is a meaningless comparison because they aim at entirely different things. The French revolution was different than the fall of communism.
Funny enough, the October revolution was also largely a non-violent event, with just a few casualties. The ensuing Civil War, however...
[+] [-] Theodores|6 years ago|reply
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
So you can have a 'violent' movement that does not get round to using violence. The movement can be effective enough to not need to fire a single shot.
Because of this it is a bit silly to compare and categorise non-violent vs. violent resistance.
If you read The Art Of War then the keep the powder dry idea is quite key to winning. Timing and leadership matters more. How many 'leaderless' movements, e.g. Extinction Rebellion, Occupy Wall Street etc. have got anywhere? Precisely zero.
Modern day capitalism demands war and terrorism. It is all part of the illusion. Over the centuries UK/US interests have got to be good at it. The terrorism meme invariably gets rolled out but no genuine resistance movements ever use terror tactics. It is a sure way to lose popular support. The distinction between sabotage and terrorism isn't widely appreciated. So although 'burning down the parliament building' might be a perfectly valid act of sabotage it will always be an act of terror in the media whether it is Guy Fawkes or Hitler doing it.
I would be more interested in knowing what resistance movements succeeded based on their counter surveillance skills. If a movement has a non English language and other culture that is hard for spies to learn then success is much more likely.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tuxxy|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baybal2|6 years ago|reply
But truth is that nonviolent civil resistance is not effective. The few "regimes" that were "toppled" by it never stood in ranks of real regimes, or were at their dying breath.
I wish authors of the article ever told that to Ugandans, North Koreans, and after all Chinese.
China sees sporadic riots nearly weekly (which are almost never covered by Western press.) I'd say that as a percentage of population, the amount of people who ever raised a hand on policeman/official person and served term should be around 5-7%.
That was way higher in eighties when forced sterilisation campaign was at its peak (imagine men having to stand still while a communist pokes his dirty finger into their wives'...)
[+] [-] fiala__|6 years ago|reply
> Between 1900-2006, campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance were twice as successful as violent campaigns.
You're just saying "No." without providing anything more than an opinion and some anecdotal evidence. You're absolutely right that under many oppressive regimes like China pretty much any kind of protest beside outright civil war is suppressed, but that doesn't defeat the point of the article.
Also, saying things like
> dirty communist pokes his finger ...
really doesn't help you here.
[+] [-] tremon|6 years ago|reply
Why is "toppling a regime" your only benchmark for measuring success?
What is your justification for favouring your own anecdata over the article's statistics?
How is "sporadic riots in China" an example of nonviolent resistance, and how does it further your argument?