[martin-t]

This article is on my to-read list and I am a great fan of Mr. Devereaux's work. But I also feel like promoting non-violence outside the context of western democracies is misleading and potentially dangerous. Maybe he addresses it somewhere in the article but I have yet to read it so forgive me if he does.

But how does he explain the failure of peaceful revolutions in Belarus or China?

My understanding of social dynamics is that being peaceful only works as long as it gains you more supporters than you lose by government action against the movement. Some governments give in but if not, at some point, the scale tips and violence or surrender are your only options.

In Belarus, I knew they were fucked as soon as I heard that police support the protests by putting down their guns and joining the protesters.

They gave up their ability to use violence and therefore became as irrelevant as the other protesters. They should have kept their guns. They should have tried to use their openly armed protest to incite other armed people to also join. At some point, the potential violence would materialize but hopefully at that point, enough of the armed people would be on the side of the protest.

Maybe the dictator would give up if he saw the situation spiraling out of control (and hopefully be executed as punishment anyway).

Maybe the dictator would try to flee and get caught and executed ("gunned down"). Maybe his bunker would get overrun.

Maybe someone close to him would try to get favor from the protesters and kill him.

But all of those potential outcomes were closed off if people opposing him didn't have enough guns.

[watwut]

> But how does he explain the failure of peaceful revolutions in Belarus or China?

Does that need special explanation? Violent revolutions fail too ... revolution does not guarantee a success.

[m4rtink]

You mean how Russia shipped in Wagner thugs to protect Lukashenko in Belarus ?

[JumpCrisscross]

> feel like promoting non-violence outside the context of western democracies is misleading and potentially dangerous

The article discusses "efforts, in a sense, directed against the state itself, both violent approaches (what we might call ‘terroristic insurgency’) and non-violent approaches (protest)" (Id.).

> Maybe he addresses it somewhere in the article but I have yet to read it

"The ‘center of gravity’ – the locus of the most important strategic objective – for most insurgencies thus often becomes the political support that sustains a government, be that a body of key supporters in non-democratic regimes or the voters in democratic ones. That body of key voters or supporters, of course, is often not even located in the theater of operations at all: the Taliban ultimately won their insurgency in Afghanistan because they persuaded American voters that the war was no longer worth the cost, leading to the election of leaders promising to pull the plug on the war" (Id.).

> how does he explain the failure of peaceful revolutions in Belarus or China?

"All that said, there are very obviously regimes in the world that have rendered themselves more-or-less immune to non-violent protest. This isn’t really the place to talk about the broader concept of ‘coup proofing’ and how authoritarian regimes secure internal security, repression and legitimacy in detail. But a certain kind of regime operates effectively as a society-within-a-society, with an armed subset of the population as insiders who receive benefits in status and wealth from the regime in return for their willingness to do violence to maintain it. Such regimes are generally all too willing to gun down thousands or tens of thousands of protestors to maintain power.

The late Assad regime in Syria stands as a clear example of this, as evidently does the current regime in Iran. Such regimes are not immune to an ‘attack on will,’ but they have substantially insulated themselves from it and resistance to these regimes, if it continues, often metastasizes into insurgency or protracted war (as with the above example of Syria) because the pressure has nowhere else to go" (Id.).

[martin-t]

Thanks, looking forward to reading the full article myself.

Hopefully there's more about how these regimes have failed in the past and how to make them fail in the future. Because AFAICT at that point, violence is the only possibility apart from waiting for the dictator to die from natural causes and the system to disassemble itself as potential successors fight each other.

[buran77]

His is a very idealistic take which weirdly omits that every major example of non-violent protest working to topple a regime involved some foreign super power spending trillions of dollars to wage very much violent wars for the purpose. The insight that he's missing in so many words is that you need to crack the door open just enough for a foreign (super)power to want to come barging in for some reason. Non-violent protests might work as good optics for this, but good optics don't launch rockets on the enemy.

> there are very obviously regimes in the world that have rendered themselves more-or-less immune to non-violent protest.

This sounds like a cop-out to the original blanket statement, or at least this is how I interpret it from your earlier quote. Regimes copy methodologies from others wherever possible and learn from failure to coup-proof themselves faster than the population can keep up. This is why most authoritarian regimes have endured for so long despite many being otherwise failed states, and almost always need some sort of external covert or military intervention to tip the scales.

It's like saying that you can hit the target every time by just meditating. And having a professional take the shot for you.