How would that even be scientifically determined? Protest movements are rarely a singular thing, some elements are violent, some are peaceful, how does that get categorized? Not to mention, if a country has a violent revolution, and then a neighboring country has a successful peaceful revolution based on the same demands as the violent revolution next door, well technically it’s a successful peaceful revolution. But it’s also blatantly obvious that larger, violent international politics created pressure on the rulers to acquiesce to the peaceful protesters.
Really, the whole argument falls apart because revolutions and protest movements always occur within specific contexts. It can’t be reduced to an average of what worked and go off of that.
Through investigation of revolutions in twentieth century Latin America, Lehoucq (2016) discovered that the sample of resistance movements presented by the NAVCO (Nonviolent and Violent Conflict Outcomes) data set suffers from omitted cases of failed nonviolent movements as well as successful violent movements. Others have pointed out that the NAVCO data feature several observational and coding deficiencies pertaining to the dichotomization of violence/nonviolence (Pressman, 2017; Anisin, 2018; Kadivar and Ketchley, 2018). Many campaigns were labeled as being nonviolent when empirically, these movements actually contained a substantial degree of unarmed violence that manifested in the form of rioting, rock throwing, car and building burning, and even the usage of Molotov cocktails.
Fixing the issues, it found the opposite result:
The analysis reveals surprising findings – nonviolence is less effective than previously assumed, while violent insurgency is a bit more effective than assumed, and campaigns featuring reactive unarmed violence and unarmed violence are the most successful of all. To make sense of these results and their implications, subsequent sections of this study present an overview of the soundness of causal mechanisms that have been associated with nonviolent campaign success. It is demonstrated that causal mechanisms that have been linked to nonviolent strategy and campaign success are not necessarily tied to only nonviolent strategies, but are also complimentary to other forms of resistance.
Look at that sign of Trump in a diaper! We’re going to keep non-violently protesting while pushing for zero demands! We’re gonna win!
I dunno. Maybe not?..
Many campaigns were labeled as being nonviolent when empirically, these movements actually contained a substantial degree of unarmed violence that manifested in the form of rioting, rock throwing, car and building burning, and even the usage of Molotov cocktails.
How would that even be scientifically determined? Protest movements are rarely a singular thing, some elements are violent, some are peaceful, how does that get categorized? Not to mention, if a country has a violent revolution, and then a neighboring country has a successful peaceful revolution based on the same demands as the violent revolution next door, well technically it’s a successful peaceful revolution. But it’s also blatantly obvious that larger, violent international politics created pressure on the rulers to acquiesce to the peaceful protesters.
Really, the whole argument falls apart because revolutions and protest movements always occur within specific contexts. It can’t be reduced to an average of what worked and go off of that.
But the libs are sure the no-demands, let’s have fun, orange man bad No Kings protests are working!
Vibes + 3.5% math = facts!I assume nobody wants to read it but here’s the BBC article anyway - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
I found a counter of the study that seems to justify my thoughts:
Fixing the issues, it found the opposite result:
Look at that sign of Trump in a diaper! We’re going to keep non-violently protesting while pushing for zero demands! We’re gonna win!
I dunno. Maybe not?..