In a capitalist system, all protests are violent because the capitalist system is violent by definition.
As long as we industrially murder people all around the globe, protests have not been successfull.
And nobody cares if women got the right to vote in this system. Its like making a party about women being able to join the NSDAP.
We are imperialist. We need to be stopped by any means necessary.
A lot of violent protests have succeeded too. Such as the suffragettes gaining the right to vote for women or unions gaining the right to exist, and the 8 hour work day.
The problem with the statement from the title is that a non-violent movement that big won’t happen in many countries, or sometimes won’t happen without turning violent. Both should be accounted for when talking about this.
I’ve been fed up with logic, common sense and such as opposed to stats at some point, because I was mostly reading ancap stuff and ancaps are a bit too detached in that direction.
But it’s rightfully said often that throwing stats is just another kind of lies. Interpreting statistics is too complex, most people can’t do that, common sense and logic are indeed more important.
Data presented to you by BBC the same network that lied to you about WMS in Iraq, genocide of the Palestinians people, and most likely more.
That statistic only works if the government cares what we think. Voters have trained politicians that they can do whatever they want with no repercussions. Therefore, they do not need to care what we think.
Er… Hong Kong?
Non-violent protests still need to come with a credible threat of becoming violent if the protesters’ safety is being attacked or if their human rights are compromised.
How many of those were backed by much more powerful foreign powers?
Considering the UK’s biggest export is independence days, it’s kind of hard to think that all of those were solved through non violent means.
Tell that to Hong Kong demonstrators on June 16, 2019, estimated by organizers at 2 million people marching. Hong Kong had a population of 7.5 million at the time.
Sure there was violence both before and after that protest, but mostly caused by violent crackdown by police.
But did it fail because there was violence or was violence a sign of stronger opposition? Causation vs correlation and all that.
That second part is especially encouraging.
Non violent protests work on a platform of sympathy, violence is fear, a lot of people lack any sympathy for no kings protests and those against it don’t seem to fear it
How are you going to demand change when a ragtag militia force can stop it?
there has to be a big ass asterisk on his post. generally things like the civil rights movement got partially undone and then success can be nebulous since even in a movement there are subset of goals that might not have been achieved
Also there was a study done of what outcomes violent protests have. You think you’re going to make things better but usually violently instilled governments aren’t good people no matter if you’re left or right.
You end up instilling another extreme regime for the one you initially wanted to fight.
sure, BBC. tell us how youd like us to express our dissatisfaction.
the fact msm is doing this so desperately rn 🤔
