5 ms·

History is littered with graveyards upon graveyards of violent struggles for independance that didn't end up so well. Meanwhile, in the modern times, peaceful p

History is littered with graveyards upon graveyards of violent struggles for independance that didn't end up so well. Meanwhile, in the modern times, peaceful protests can being down even nuclear armed superpowers as we've seen in the 80s. Take a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...

mikeash 7y ago
And peaceful protestors can also be massacred and completely fail to bring about any change. Peaceful protests can work sometimes. Other times they do nothing. Same with armed resistance. Declaring one or the other to be the only possible way to bring about change is in direct contradiction to the facts.
- rayiner 7y ago
  And protest movements don’t always need to be all violent or all peaceful. School children are taught about Nelson Mandela peacefully bringing down Apartheid. But there is a reason the logo of the ANC is a hand holding a spear and shield. Mandela co-founded the military arm of the ANC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe.
- bouncycastle 7y ago
  > And peaceful protestors can also be massacred and completely fail to bring about any change Can you give an example? Every example I can think of right now that had a massacre of innocent protestors and no armed struggle either led to some change later down the road (eg. galvanizing the movement, reforms, or total collapse of the opressor), or became a major problem for the oppressor later down the track. A massacre is not that easily forgotten. Just some random examples: The Polish protests of 1970, resulted in 42 people killed and protestors were overpowered by tanks and military, but the killings arguably accelerated the popularity of the movement. Look up the story of "Janek Wiśniewski" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janek_Wi%C5%9Bniewski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janek_Wi%C5%9Bniewski
  - nickik 7y ago
    Your reading history backwards. You assume that while 1970 protest, leads to 1980 protest and that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. However that is wrong way to look at it, the right way is that in 1970 the Soviet Union had the will do stop the protesters, but not later. Those things mostly have to do with the discussions and political institutions the elites were working in. The protesters in late 1980 might have been larger and more popular, but if the Soviet unreleased it might, it would not have mattered.
    - bouncycastle 7y ago
      Nope. Totally wrong. Those early protests, even though seemingly unsuccessful at the time, gave the people one important thing: hope. Of course, the other motivating factor was that the economy went to shit. People were hungry and tired of waiting in long queues with shelves at the stores almost empty. Nothing to do with "discussions and political institutions the elites were working in" though.
      - nickik 7y ago
        You are totally fundamentally wrong. You are disagreeing with most scholarship on how revolutions happen in political science. Hope doesn't work if there are tanks who shoot at you. The people in Poland were not braver then those in China or those in Hungary. The difference is that in those cases the political system had the will to oppose them with the force required. Unarmed protestors simple can not win against an army. Its pure idealism to believe that.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    Tiananmen Square. Rabaa (Egypt, 2013). Prague Spring. Some more are scattered around this Wikipedia list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres The aftermath of a massacre comes down to the government’s willingness and ability to control the narrative and suppress further dissent. Some governments can be quite successful at this. There’s absolutely no guarantee that a massacre of protestors results in anything beyond dead protestors.
nickik 7y ago
This is the typical old and wrong view about both the end of the cold war and other situations. Revolutions, specially non-violent once succeed if the political establishment does not have the will or tools to resist. The protestors in Europe and China were probably equally as brave. While in the Soviet system the elites had already divided and paralyzed themselves, that was the fundamental condition that allowed protest to be successful in eastern Europe. The people in China, were simply shot down and 30 years after the CCP is in control still. The exact same thing could have happened in the Soviet Union, if the elites had not already crippled themselves. Governments with modern arms don't fall to rebellions unless some significant part of the elite is either at least passive or actively supporting the revolution.

mikeash 7y ago

And peaceful protestors can also be massacred and completely fail to bring about any change. Peaceful protests can work sometimes. Other times they do nothing. Same with armed resistance. Declaring one or the other to be the only possible way to bring about change is in direct contradiction to the facts.

rayiner 7y ago
And protest movements don’t always need to be all violent or all peaceful. School children are taught about Nelson Mandela peacefully bringing down Apartheid. But there is a reason the logo of the ANC is a hand holding a spear and shield. Mandela co-founded the military arm of the ANC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe.
bouncycastle 7y ago
> And peaceful protestors can also be massacred and completely fail to bring about any change Can you give an example? Every example I can think of right now that had a massacre of innocent protestors and no armed struggle either led to some change later down the road (eg. galvanizing the movement, reforms, or total collapse of the opressor), or became a major problem for the oppressor later down the track. A massacre is not that easily forgotten. Just some random examples: The Polish protests of 1970, resulted in 42 people killed and protestors were overpowered by tanks and military, but the killings arguably accelerated the popularity of the movement. Look up the story of "Janek Wiśniewski" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janek_Wi%C5%9Bniewski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janek_Wi%C5%9Bniewski
- nickik 7y ago
  Your reading history backwards. You assume that while 1970 protest, leads to 1980 protest and that lead to the fall of the Soviet Union. However that is wrong way to look at it, the right way is that in 1970 the Soviet Union had the will do stop the protesters, but not later. Those things mostly have to do with the discussions and political institutions the elites were working in. The protesters in late 1980 might have been larger and more popular, but if the Soviet unreleased it might, it would not have mattered.
  - bouncycastle 7y ago
    Nope. Totally wrong. Those early protests, even though seemingly unsuccessful at the time, gave the people one important thing: hope. Of course, the other motivating factor was that the economy went to shit. People were hungry and tired of waiting in long queues with shelves at the stores almost empty. Nothing to do with "discussions and political institutions the elites were working in" though.
    - nickik 7y ago
      You are totally fundamentally wrong. You are disagreeing with most scholarship on how revolutions happen in political science. Hope doesn't work if there are tanks who shoot at you. The people in Poland were not braver then those in China or those in Hungary. The difference is that in those cases the political system had the will to oppose them with the force required. Unarmed protestors simple can not win against an army. Its pure idealism to believe that.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Tiananmen Square. Rabaa (Egypt, 2013). Prague Spring. Some more are scattered around this Wikipedia list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_events_named_massacres The aftermath of a massacre comes down to the government’s willingness and ability to control the narrative and suppress further dissent. Some governments can be quite successful at this. There’s absolutely no guarantee that a massacre of protestors results in anything beyond dead protestors.

nickik 7y ago

This is the typical old and wrong view about both the end of the cold war and other situations. Revolutions, specially non-violent once succeed if the political establishment does not have the will or tools to resist. The protestors in Europe and China were probably equally as brave. While in the Soviet system the elites had already divided and paralyzed themselves, that was the fundamental condition that allowed protest to be successful in eastern Europe. The people in China, were simply shot down and 30 years after the CCP is in control still. The exact same thing could have happened in the Soviet Union, if the elites had not already crippled themselves. Governments with modern arms don't fall to rebellions unless some significant part of the elite is either at least passive or actively supporting the revolution.