4 ms·

Protests are rarely effectual, they serve more to gauge interest of others and provide connections. In the end the state is a force of violence. Voting works

Protests are rarely effectual, they serve more to gauge interest of others and provide connections. In the end the state is a force of violence. Voting works in so much as it is roughly a tally of who would win if we all pulled knives on each other. Democracy was formed at a time when guns and knives were the most effectual tools the state had to fight against the populace. Now that the government has more asymmetric tools democracy is likely a weaker gauge of how to avoid violence, because the most practical thing voting does is bypass violence by ascertaining ahead of time who would win in a fight. As this asymmetry becomes more profound, the bargaining power of the populace erodes, and voting becomes more of a rigged game. If the populace can't check the power of the elite, the elite has no carrot to respect the human rights of others.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Protests are rarely effectual False “Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change” [1]. Exhibit A: the same region, literally last month. First protesters in Bangladesh lead “to the ouster of the then-prime minister, Sheikh Hasina” [2]. Then Indonesia “pledged to revoke lawmakers’ perks and privileges, including a controversial $3,000 housing allowance, in a bid to ease public fury after nationwide protests” [3]. [1] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rule-how-small-minority-can-change-world https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rul... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Revolution_(Bangladesh) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Revolution_(Bangladesh) [3-] https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-protests-subianto-privileges-32d253883d107fcfe7f17752bc46b7d9#:~:text=Indonesia%27s%20president,six%20dead. https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-protests-subianto-privi...
- christabsmith 1y ago
  [dead]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mothballed 1y ago
  That study appears to be comparing violent protests to non-violent protests. At 3.5% of the populace taking up arms (not in protest but in war), that would far outnumber armed government officials in most countries. I don't doubt that a government choosing to concede at the point those 3.5% signaled peacefully they are likely to get violence soon, since the government conceding before that happens indicates they are weak enough to not be able to fight it off. Of course, If you have 3.5% of the populace fighting you can defeat even a horribly asymmetric situation, as the Chechens showed when they gained independence in the first Chechen war against Russia where almost everything beyond small arms were obtained via capture from the enemy. At best your study shows that a government that capitulates before violence is more likely to be defeated, which makes sense since both sides tend to pick violence when they actually think they can win -- and if both sides think they can win then odds are quite good the odds of winning lie somewhere closer to the middle of the odds if the actors are rational. Concession before violence is more likely to indicate the odds lie outside the middle.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > study appears to be comparing violent protests to non-violent protests No. The 3.5% figure specifically refers to nonviolent resistance [1]. Would note that “new research suggests that one nonviolent movement, Bahrain in 2011-2014, appears to have decisively failed despite achieving over 6% popular participation at its peak” [2]. But the fact remains that it’s harder to identify ineffective mass protests than effective ones. > which makes sense since both sides tend to pick violence when they actually think they can win This assumes a lot more rationality than violent resistance (and corrupt governments) tend to have. Instead, the evidence is that violent resistance fails more often than nonviolent resistance. In part because violent resistance helps the government consolidate power over its own violence apparatus in a way nonviolent protest inhibits. [1] https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820/ https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/978... [2] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questions-answers-and-some-cautionary-updates-regarding-35-rule https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questi...
  - vharuck 1y ago
    I listened to an interview with one of the article's authors, and she said the reason non-violent protests defeat a state willing to order violent crackdowns is because the soldiers performing those crackdowns are regular people. They are not the people who most benefit from an authoritarian state. So when they find themselves being told to beat up or shoot a nun sitting in the street, there's a good chance the soldier would defect.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  I think when people, particularly in America, think "protest", they think of people walking around with placards and other such relatively low effort involvement. That article is talking about incidents where you have 3.5% of people (that would be 12 million people in the US) engaging in things like organized and real boycotts (as opposed to 'Yeah I'm boycotting [this place I've never even heard of, let alone shopped at]), strikes, and so on. You could have tens of millions of students and otherwise unemployed individuals walking around with placards, and nobody's going to care. But get 50,000 truckers (let alone 12 million people) to go on strike over something, and the whole country will grind to a halt.
  - dmbche 1y ago
    Then again, Canada had a whole convoy that tried to protest but that got stamped out.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Canada had a whole convoy that tried to protest but that got stamped out It was an anti-vax protest [1]. Canada isn't anti vax [2]. The protests were unpopular [3][4]. The convoy didn't go anywhere because it had nowhere to go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest#cite_note-470 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest#cite_not... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/measles-vaccination-poll-1.7547398 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/measles-vaccination-poll-1.75... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/fact-check-canadian-protests-polls-trudeau-support-oppose-truckers-mandates https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/fact-check-canad... [4] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/two-thirds-of-canadians-support-use-of-emergencies-act-and-want-freedom-convoy-cleared-out-poll https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/two-thirds-of-canadia...
      - aianus 1y ago
        It was an anti-lockdown protest. Canada continued to have extreme lockdowns well after the vaccine was available.
      - 1y ago
fruitworks 1y ago
The new tools are largely tools of surveilance and censorship, etc. Essentially they are tools that affect democratic coordination more so than fighting. If you can still coordinate despite them, then the amtal rule applies.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Protests are rarely effectual False “Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change” [1]. Exhibit A: the same region, literally last month. First protesters in Bangladesh lead “to the ouster of the then-prime minister, Sheikh Hasina” [2]. Then Indonesia “pledged to revoke lawmakers’ perks and privileges, including a controversial $3,000 housing allowance, in a bid to ease public fury after nationwide protests” [3]. [1] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rule-how-small-minority-can-change-world https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/35-rul... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Revolution_(Bangladesh) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Revolution_(Bangladesh) [3-] https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-protests-subianto-privileges-32d253883d107fcfe7f17752bc46b7d9#:~:text=Indonesia%27s%20president,six%20dead. https://apnews.com/article/indonesia-protests-subianto-privi...

christabsmith 1y ago
[dead]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mothballed 1y ago
That study appears to be comparing violent protests to non-violent protests. At 3.5% of the populace taking up arms (not in protest but in war), that would far outnumber armed government officials in most countries. I don't doubt that a government choosing to concede at the point those 3.5% signaled peacefully they are likely to get violence soon, since the government conceding before that happens indicates they are weak enough to not be able to fight it off. Of course, If you have 3.5% of the populace fighting you can defeat even a horribly asymmetric situation, as the Chechens showed when they gained independence in the first Chechen war against Russia where almost everything beyond small arms were obtained via capture from the enemy. At best your study shows that a government that capitulates before violence is more likely to be defeated, which makes sense since both sides tend to pick violence when they actually think they can win -- and if both sides think they can win then odds are quite good the odds of winning lie somewhere closer to the middle of the odds if the actors are rational. Concession before violence is more likely to indicate the odds lie outside the middle.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > study appears to be comparing violent protests to non-violent protests No. The 3.5% figure specifically refers to nonviolent resistance [1]. Would note that “new research suggests that one nonviolent movement, Bahrain in 2011-2014, appears to have decisively failed despite achieving over 6% popular participation at its peak” [2]. But the fact remains that it’s harder to identify ineffective mass protests than effective ones. > which makes sense since both sides tend to pick violence when they actually think they can win This assumes a lot more rationality than violent resistance (and corrupt governments) tend to have. Instead, the evidence is that violent resistance fails more often than nonviolent resistance. In part because violent resistance helps the government consolidate power over its own violence apparatus in a way nonviolent protest inhibits. [1] https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820/ https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/978... [2] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questions-answers-and-some-cautionary-updates-regarding-35-rule https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr/publications/questi...
- vharuck 1y ago
  I listened to an interview with one of the article's authors, and she said the reason non-violent protests defeat a state willing to order violent crackdowns is because the soldiers performing those crackdowns are regular people. They are not the people who most benefit from an authoritarian state. So when they find themselves being told to beat up or shoot a nun sitting in the street, there's a good chance the soldier would defect.
somenameforme 1y ago
I think when people, particularly in America, think "protest", they think of people walking around with placards and other such relatively low effort involvement. That article is talking about incidents where you have 3.5% of people (that would be 12 million people in the US) engaging in things like organized and real boycotts (as opposed to 'Yeah I'm boycotting [this place I've never even heard of, let alone shopped at]), strikes, and so on. You could have tens of millions of students and otherwise unemployed individuals walking around with placards, and nobody's going to care. But get 50,000 truckers (let alone 12 million people) to go on strike over something, and the whole country will grind to a halt.
- dmbche 1y ago
  Then again, Canada had a whole convoy that tried to protest but that got stamped out.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Canada had a whole convoy that tried to protest but that got stamped out It was an anti-vax protest [1]. Canada isn't anti vax [2]. The protests were unpopular [3][4]. The convoy didn't go anywhere because it had nowhere to go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest#cite_note-470 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_convoy_protest#cite_not... [2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/measles-vaccination-poll-1.7547398 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/measles-vaccination-poll-1.75... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/fact-check-canadian-protests-polls-trudeau-support-oppose-truckers-mandates https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/fact-check-canad... [4] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/two-thirds-of-canadians-support-use-of-emergencies-act-and-want-freedom-convoy-cleared-out-poll https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/two-thirds-of-canadia...
    - aianus 1y ago
      It was an anti-lockdown protest. Canada continued to have extreme lockdowns well after the vaccine was available.
    - 1y ago

fruitworks 1y ago

The new tools are largely tools of surveilance and censorship, etc. Essentially they are tools that affect democratic coordination more so than fighting. If you can still coordinate despite them, then the amtal rule applies.