199
Do protests like No Kings still matter? Here’s what experts say (www.sfchronicle.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
121 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • They help individuals channel their frustration, isolation and desperation
  • They are a show of strength
  • They typically lead to more political involvement
  • They have already produced wins
  • They must remain nonviolent to be effective
  • They must be in small towns in the heartland, not just big coastal cities

Find one near you at nokings.org

This post uses a gift link, but some people do seem to be prompted to register. I can't change SF Chronicle policy about that. They also have a history of sending lawyers after people who post archive.today links to their articles, so whatever you do, don't plug the URL into that site.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

They don't have to, but data shows over and over that non violent ones more often end to being more successful at regime change.

Benefits for the non violent:

  • more people are willing to join protests
  • much harder to use force to squash protesters (they can still try, but that often motivates more people to join, that is what for example happened in Euromaidan)
  • it is much harder to frame that those protesters are there to hurt ordinary people
  • sends signal for good people in power to do the right thing and that we have their back
  • validates people that they aren't alone and that it is a lot of us

We actually have more power than them, they only succeed if we get scared and think there's nothing we can do. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I've seen many statements to that effect. I have not seen political science studies that support it though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It's a little more nuanced.

    Violent resistance tends to swap one regime for another.

    Non-violent resistance tends to create more positive social change.

    If the only goal is to get rid of Trump, either one can work. If the goal is to have a brighter future then a revolution with minimal violence is preferable.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452292924000365

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Because there is none. The state always preaches nonviolence to keep us passive and not a threat to the status quo. They want peaceful from us but subject the working class to violence with every action.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Solidarity movement in Poland was a peaceful protest and last to end of the communism there.

    Color revolution (including orange revolution in Ukraine)

    Euromaidan (it was peaceful, although the government wasn't).

    Statistically peaceful protests succeed 53% of the violent ones succeed 26%

    Note though it isn't just showing up one day and be done, it's about having a sustained protest with at least 3.5% of population involved.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent