Erica Chenoweth initially thought that only violent protests were effective. However after analyzing 323 movements the results were opposite of what Erica thought:
For the next two years, Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change.
If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.
Every country in the world was started with violence and has been held with the threat of violence, your statement is a pretty nothing.
not the czech republic or singapore
the czech republic has over 40 thousand police officers and singapore routinely executes drug dealers
So while it may be technically true in that no actual violence was involved in the latest changes of government system, the threat of violence is always there
Is that why they all imagine external threats to justify their militaries at the cost of the people? Much secure, very safe. Lol you’ve said nothing to disprove my point.
What country has ever been won through peace?
New Zealand is about as close as it gets, but even they broke out in to war after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi
Countries are problematic artificial constructions. That historically have almost always turned against those they govern when the alternative becomes inconvenient. Who ever implied that having a county was a goal or condition of winning? You’re thinking at the wrong level.
Unless you are taking over the entire world (through peace somehow), countries are what we have. Honestly doesn’t really matter the name. Call it what you like but the concept is going to exist.
How are you going to keep other groups from just conquering you?
If I’m not understanding, can you explain what level I’m supposed to be thinking at? Is this some sort of anarchy thing where everyone exists as their own tiny little sovereign homestead?
No one should want to take over the world Etc. Everyone should leave everyone to live their lives. Just because we’re peaceful doesn’t mean we’re not armed. We just don’t use the bullets against our neighbors. We reserve them for tankies and fashies with boners for world domination. That’s how you keep other groups from conquering you.
This isn’t rocket surgery it’s basic Anarchy. And it’s really sad how so many replies to my comment just completely lack any self-awareness or irony.
Let me ask you this. Where you live are there any national elected political parties that aren’t largely an embarrassment. That can be expected to do things that benefit yourself and other people over enriching themselves and their friends? Have you never stopped to ask why it’s always that way?
Our neighbors are literally the fashies right now. They’re dismantling our government as we speak. We’re literally being conquered.
You said violence isn’t ‘secure’ but then said you need violence to protect yourself from tankies and fascists, unless they’re already in your country I guess?
I’m just not following. And I’m not sure how your last statements relate to the idea of ‘nothing won by violence is secure’? How is the embarrassment that is the Democrats related to fighting back against tyranny with violence if necessary? If anything Democrats are the argument that peaceful methods are failing, not an argument that violence will gain us nothing.
And lol @ “artificial constructions” literally every single human creation is an artificial construction
“Countries are problematic” lol be serious