3 ms·
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) n
by chriselles 7y ago
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.
Check out CANVAS: https://canvasopedia.org/ https://canvasopedia.org/
Great free resources.
- jcora 7y ago> Not only are non violent movements twice as successful(on average) 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...
- chriselles 7y agoIt is a perfectly meaningful comparison. A domestic, intrinsically motivated movement, supported externally with non violent diplomatic, financial, and moral aid, acted as a catalyst to the largely non violent removal of many authoritarian repressive regimes. All of which have largely avoided civil war with the exception of Ukraine due to a resurgent Russia responding to excessive NATO expansion. Former Yugoslavia doesn’t count as it excluded itself from the Soviet Warsaw Pact sphere Nd attempted non alignment.
- jcora 7y agoOkay? You haven't shown that it's a meaningful comparison. What does it mean for nonviolent movements to be "twice as successful"? Nothing, because you can construct any arbitrary measure of movement or success.
- chriselles 7y agoIt's actually quite simple and easy. Did a fundamental shift in incumbent political power occur? Yes/No Was that fundamental shift away from the previous incumbent political power sustainable, or did it fall as well(after X time)? Yes/No I sincerely hope I'm not coming across in an unintentionally rude or abrasive way, if so, I apologise. To be honest, you kind of are.
- watwut 7y agoThere was violence before October revolution and bulk of it performed by the same people who got violent after.
- jcora 7y agoThere was also the Great War which they were instrumental at ending, and the Civil War which was propped up by other regimes. Way more bloody than the prelude to the revolution, which also included Tzarist oppression and slaughter of workers.
- watwut 7y agoI am saying that exactly same people who got violent after non-violent revolution were violent before it. Not some other people in the same geographical area. The same people.