7 ms·

That reminds me of a truism I heard about protesting: The purpose of protesting is to demonstrate the need for violence to the fence-sitters. If protesting res

That reminds me of a truism I heard about protesting: The purpose of protesting is to demonstrate the need for violence to the fence-sitters. If protesting results in change non-violently, so much the better. But the purpose is to demonstrate that violence is absolutely necessary.

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
It's a measure that's a few steps before violent revolutions - its a "we could, if we wanted to, but we hope there's another way", sort of statement. I think a more correct way to put it/think about it is: protesting is a threat, not a statement that "violence is absolutely necessary". If violence were absolutely necessary, then they'd all just skip the protesting and do the violence.
shaki-dora 7y ago
I really don't understand how protests became conflated with violence (mostly in the US, as far as I can tell). Protests are a basic right in every democracy. The vast majority of protests (as in: >99%) is peaceful. Protests are among the basic set of methods and institutions that form the public sphere where democracy actually happens. They are no better or worse than newspapers, public libraries, TED talks, Trump rallies, call-your-senator-campaigns, Twitter, Sunday sermons, bumper stickers, the NAACP, triple-A, or, yes, even the Star Wars franchise. Each of these forums has different strengths and weaknesses, and protests are somewhat unique in being basically free and accessible to everyone (as active participants, not just consumers). Not a single protest since the Civil Rights Movement got anywhere close to being large enough to threaten the sort of overthrow-the-system violence that would be required in an outright confrontation challenging the US government.
- drjesusphd 7y ago
  And what protest movement since has had significant success? (I include Vietnam War protests as meeting the threshold).
  - shaki-dora 7y ago
    In the US, very little. That's because there really aren't many meaningful protests these days, because the US has effectively killed the public spaces protests rely on. But the Tea Party movement was arguably influential, and protests were its main tool. Occupy Wall Street was also far more successful than commonly believed: the 1%-vs-99% divide has become a central narrative of US politics, even on the right. Outside the US? The Arab Spring was nothing but protests, and it did topple something like a dozen governments. Yes, the new ones mostly failed, but that's a different matter. In Ukraine the protests succeeded. In Hong Kong, they certainly seem to be a major pain for the local government as well as China. Environmental protests have succeeded almost spectacularly over the last decade or so. Germany's anti-nuclear movement relied on protests as their main method-the Green party was actually founded by a group of people who first met at a protest. Today, Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future and similar keep climate change in the news week by week. That's the sort of pressure without which the Paris accord would have never been attempted. Compare any agenda from a G7/G8/G20 meeting a decade or two ago, and you'll notice that issues such as the environment, labor protection, or fair trade have gone from zero to dominating these meetings. The US-EU trade agreement basically died on the day that half a million people in Berlin protested against it. Obviously, it is often impossible to unambiguously assign causality. It's a complex system where everything affects everything. But purely subjectively, I am actually surprised by how effective protests are. Consider Ukraine, where a single protest at a central square toppled the government. In practical terms. a Tiannanmen-style massacre was entirely possible. But the protesters won. Why? How?
humanrebar 7y ago
What about non-violent protests? Seems like they often exist to expose systemic violence that is underappreciated, undocumented, forgotten, etc. That is, show what the violent are really willing to do to get them to alienate themselves.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  That’s great for showing people that the violent people are bad guys, but the violent ones aren’t going to get any less violent by being exposed. It’s the threat of reprisal from the entire population that does that.
  - danenania 7y ago
    It's partly that, but it also serves to fracture and de-motivate the "violent people". A ruler cannot necessarily count on blind obedience from the military and the police if they start ordering them to attack their fellow citizens. While some regimes get overthrown by mass uprisings, many more lose power because they either lose support from the security state or create an insurrection inside of it. Of course the lines here are often fuzzy.
richk449 7y ago
That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?
- int_19h 7y ago
  One does have to wonder if MLK and Gandhi would have been successful, if they weren't alternatives to something much more violent. Or if their opponents weren't willing to ramp violence up enough. The thing about Gandhi in particular is that he is famous precisely because he won. How many like him were there that didn't win, and we have no idea that they even existed, because their body was dumped into a ditch behind a prison tucked away in the middle of nowhere? And sometimes we do know about them, because they did survive to tell the story - but it's not a very inspiring story when they lose, and so it gets eclipsed. This guy was a Gandhi to his people before Gandhi was even born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji - how many have heard of him?
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Probably not, but there were other leaders within those larger protests who did believe in violence and called for it, but were not followed as much. From the government perspective, those leaders did present a threat of violence. Meaning that at any point Gandhi/MLK could fade into irrelevance and one of those leaders could lead the charge.
- harimau777 7y ago
  MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" basically says that one reason that the non-violent movement should be supported is because the alternative is violent Black Nationalism. As an aside, if you haven't read it I highly recommend it. I think it's an excellent example of arguing that a position is consistent with people's existing worldview instead of trying to force them to adopt a different worldview.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  It's a gambit that can be used as leverage. I think they were expecting those in power to cave to their demands when those in power realized that people realized that peacefully protesting wasn't going to work, which is ironically what made it work. Furthermore, in other cases, people don't have to realize the purpose of the strategy that they're applying in order to apply it. Intention isn't function.

SmirkingRevenge 7y ago

It's a measure that's a few steps before violent revolutions - its a "we could, if we wanted to, but we hope there's another way", sort of statement. I think a more correct way to put it/think about it is: protesting is a threat, not a statement that "violence is absolutely necessary". If violence were absolutely necessary, then they'd all just skip the protesting and do the violence.

shaki-dora 7y ago

I really don't understand how protests became conflated with violence (mostly in the US, as far as I can tell). Protests are a basic right in every democracy. The vast majority of protests (as in: >99%) is peaceful. Protests are among the basic set of methods and institutions that form the public sphere where democracy actually happens. They are no better or worse than newspapers, public libraries, TED talks, Trump rallies, call-your-senator-campaigns, Twitter, Sunday sermons, bumper stickers, the NAACP, triple-A, or, yes, even the Star Wars franchise. Each of these forums has different strengths and weaknesses, and protests are somewhat unique in being basically free and accessible to everyone (as active participants, not just consumers). Not a single protest since the Civil Rights Movement got anywhere close to being large enough to threaten the sort of overthrow-the-system violence that would be required in an outright confrontation challenging the US government.

drjesusphd 7y ago
And what protest movement since has had significant success? (I include Vietnam War protests as meeting the threshold).
- shaki-dora 7y ago
  In the US, very little. That's because there really aren't many meaningful protests these days, because the US has effectively killed the public spaces protests rely on. But the Tea Party movement was arguably influential, and protests were its main tool. Occupy Wall Street was also far more successful than commonly believed: the 1%-vs-99% divide has become a central narrative of US politics, even on the right. Outside the US? The Arab Spring was nothing but protests, and it did topple something like a dozen governments. Yes, the new ones mostly failed, but that's a different matter. In Ukraine the protests succeeded. In Hong Kong, they certainly seem to be a major pain for the local government as well as China. Environmental protests have succeeded almost spectacularly over the last decade or so. Germany's anti-nuclear movement relied on protests as their main method-the Green party was actually founded by a group of people who first met at a protest. Today, Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for Future and similar keep climate change in the news week by week. That's the sort of pressure without which the Paris accord would have never been attempted. Compare any agenda from a G7/G8/G20 meeting a decade or two ago, and you'll notice that issues such as the environment, labor protection, or fair trade have gone from zero to dominating these meetings. The US-EU trade agreement basically died on the day that half a million people in Berlin protested against it. Obviously, it is often impossible to unambiguously assign causality. It's a complex system where everything affects everything. But purely subjectively, I am actually surprised by how effective protests are. Consider Ukraine, where a single protest at a central square toppled the government. In practical terms. a Tiannanmen-style massacre was entirely possible. But the protesters won. Why? How?

humanrebar 7y ago

What about non-violent protests? Seems like they often exist to expose systemic violence that is underappreciated, undocumented, forgotten, etc. That is, show what the violent are really willing to do to get them to alienate themselves.

Aeolun 7y ago
That’s great for showing people that the violent people are bad guys, but the violent ones aren’t going to get any less violent by being exposed. It’s the threat of reprisal from the entire population that does that.
- danenania 7y ago
  It's partly that, but it also serves to fracture and de-motivate the "violent people". A ruler cannot necessarily count on blind obedience from the military and the police if they start ordering them to attack their fellow citizens. While some regimes get overthrown by mass uprisings, many more lose power because they either lose support from the security state or create an insurrection inside of it. Of course the lines here are often fuzzy.

richk449 7y ago

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

int_19h 7y ago
One does have to wonder if MLK and Gandhi would have been successful, if they weren't alternatives to something much more violent. Or if their opponents weren't willing to ramp violence up enough. The thing about Gandhi in particular is that he is famous precisely because he won. How many like him were there that didn't win, and we have no idea that they even existed, because their body was dumped into a ditch behind a prison tucked away in the middle of nowhere? And sometimes we do know about them, because they did survive to tell the story - but it's not a very inspiring story when they lose, and so it gets eclipsed. This guy was a Gandhi to his people before Gandhi was even born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji - how many have heard of him?
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Probably not, but there were other leaders within those larger protests who did believe in violence and called for it, but were not followed as much. From the government perspective, those leaders did present a threat of violence. Meaning that at any point Gandhi/MLK could fade into irrelevance and one of those leaders could lead the charge.
harimau777 7y ago
MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" basically says that one reason that the non-violent movement should be supported is because the alternative is violent Black Nationalism. As an aside, if you haven't read it I highly recommend it. I think it's an excellent example of arguing that a position is consistent with people's existing worldview instead of trying to force them to adopt a different worldview.
guerrilla 7y ago
It's a gambit that can be used as leverage. I think they were expecting those in power to cave to their demands when those in power realized that people realized that peacefully protesting wasn't going to work, which is ironically what made it work. Furthermore, in other cases, people don't have to realize the purpose of the strategy that they're applying in order to apply it. Intention isn't function.