3 ms·
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
by cf141q5325 7y ago
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.
- clydethefrog 7y agoSee also The Great Leveler by Scheidel: "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-review-the-great-leveler-violence-and-the-history-of-inequality-from-the-stone-age-to-the-twenty-first-century-by-walter-scheidel/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2018/02/23/book-rev...
- brlewis 7y agoI skimmed the first 6 pages here: https://web.stanford.edu/group/peacejustice/Gelderloos-Failure-of-Nonviolence.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/peacejustice/Gelderloos-Failu... 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.