No Revolution Works Without Violence!

[ladsin]

Blood alone moves the wheels of history! -Mussolini

You haven't got a revolution that doesn't involve bloodshed and you're afraid to bleed I said you're afraid to bleed -Malcolm X

This is a very common belief that does not appear to be validated by the research. Thus, in this Take I am going to contest this widely held belief. I will primarily use the work of Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan in Erica in Why Civil Resistance Works. Read their work! I'm just going to give a short summary here.

What are the facts?

Chenoweth and Stephan point out that between the period of 1900 and 2006 non-violent movements were over twice as likely to succeed than their violent counterparts. Also, violent movements were 3 times more likely to fail. This trend has been increasing rather than decreasing over the time studied. Chenoweth and Stephan had to construct their own data set which is now called "Nonviolent and
Violent Conflict Outcomes" (NAVCO). This data set looked at a total of 323 violent and nonviolent campaigns. Their results were as follows:

*I DO NOT OWN*

Why?

This may be quite shocking to many of you, but hopefully you are willing to accept the data. Moving on you may understandably ask, "why?" Why is this the case? This is so counter-intuitive. Chenoweth and Stephan pointed out several reasons that this is the case, but I will just mention three here.

1.) Violence against non-violent campaigns backfires against the oppressor. This happens both internally and externally. Within the organization (military members, civil service members etc) division is far more likely to occur. It's far harder to justify the oppression of non-violent campaigns as they grow. One example of this would be a Serbian police officer who disobeyed the order to shoot on sight, and when asked why he stated, "I knew my kids would be in the crowd."

2.) Violent revolutions actually prevent the defection of military service members or civil servants because it threatens their safety. They could be tortured or killed just as likely by a violent regime or revolutionary movement, so why would they risk it?

3.) Nonviolent campaigns allow everyone to participate. Your age, physical ability, gender, etc don't matter. Everyone can join a non-violent campaign and this greatly increases the amount of people involved. It has been demonstrated that no government can survive if only 4% of their population stands up against it. In their study it was discovered that no group which got more than 3.5% of the population involved in civil resistance failed, and non-violent groups were far more able to get this proportion of the population to join.

Ok, so I just need to be a keyboard warrior to enact change?

Not really. Certainly the internet and various other medias are important to raise awareness, but when talking about non-violent conflict this is not what they're talking about. Civil disobedience, protests, economic boycotts, and labor strikes.

This was a short one today. Had some nonsense happen at work so it's hard to concentrate. As always, criticism appreciated.

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf

[madhatters4]

yea when i saw the "no revolution works without violence" i immediately started thinking of all the non-violent revolutions i could think of

it seems to me if you really total it up the number of failed violent revolutions would seem rather disproportionately outnumbered by successful peaceful revolutions. decolonization in india jumps to mind. Even when there are successful violent revolutions they were usually preceded by at least one failed attempt (cuba comes to mind)

[ladsin]

Yup, non-violent ones are twice as likely to succeed and violent ones are three times more likely to outright fail.

[BrownBratzDoll]

I use to think violent revolution was the answer too. But then as i got older wasn't as strongly for it. Got to think about the outcome and risk, is it worth a blood bath... it rarely is worth it.

[vishna]

You are seriously a breath of fresh air in the wasteland of GaG.

[ladsin]

I appreciate it!

[FatherJack]

Good take and agree , esp as an ex soldier. I think a very large storm is brewing in Europe , as the bankers puppets in power will never listen to reason or the people , they will follow their masters orders , people are becoming wiser to their " divide and rule " tactics !

[ladsin]

Which part do you agree with?

[ladsin]

Thanks for your service though

[FatherJack]

I agree that violence will be inevitable , to cut out the malignant Rothschild led Cartel , when enough people finally " wake the flock up " Thank you for your appreciation , ex British Army... ironically this led to my " awakening " !!

[ladsin]

Awesome. You should read the article. The opposite is my entire point XD

[oddwaffle]

That depends on the revolution. I mean... Look at the iPhone. We were all liberated from the trappings of the flip phones with the unimaginable flat phone.

Now we have a fablet size phone which is inconceivable back when everyone wanted their phones to be small.

Then there was the slave trade in England. That revolution went fairly quiet too compare to major wars.

Also industrial revolution. Some with riots but compare to wars they are miniscule.

I think the better analysis is that there is no revolution without money. It doesn't matter if you are going with swords, guns or just shouting match. You absolutely need a massive amount of resources.

Heavens, Earth, Man, Officers and Discipline are your starting point. It was never about violence. It was about winning and it doesn't matter how you do it.

[ladsin]

Wow. Why did no one read?

[oddwaffle]

Because your title is misleading and the take is tldr level?

Again it's really depends on the type of revolution. You still need the 5 basics: heaven, earth, man, officers and discipline. Violence or peaceful, it doesn't really matter. It's sort of like a tool to use.

If you read into China history then you know they had this heaven mandate thing going. It's the sole reason why every time it needs to change the actual regime it required a coup of some sort or an invasion.

The idea is simple. A good dynasty will ha e the will of heaven. Everything is great. However, once the people experience hardship like famine, plague, bandit plague, corruption and war then the dynasty have lost the heaven mandate.

A new hero will rise from the ashes and carry with him the heaven destiny. He will defeat the old dynasty that had failed the heavens and build a new dynasty. Then peace will return and everything will be great again.

Of course, anyone smart enough knows it's an excuse.

[ladsin]

What's tldr?

[oddwaffle]

For articles that don't give a structured standard, they get a too long didn't read or tldr from most people.

Keep it short and precise to the point.

[ladsin]

But this one is really short 😂

[oddwaffle]

But it's not to the point and is confusing.

[ladsin]

How is it confusing? I'd appreciate you letting me know so I can clarify in the future.

"Is blood needed?" No. Blood is worse.
"Why" X, Y, Z
"What should we do?" Get out and do something.

[oddwaffle]

Begins with the title. Change it to something less misleading. You need a comma or a period to separate the word "No". Ideally don't use that word at all. Avoid using incomplete sentences.

Structure your paragraph by using the 1st sentence as a statement and everything else within the paragraph to support that statement.

For example, "revolutions without violence works better than those with violence." Then you provide supporting evidence.

Check the writing course for college. Those works wonderfully.

[ladsin]

I think you're being disingenuous.
"Those works"
See? You're writing is incomprehensible because you made a grammatical error.

I admit I'll make a few errors, but none of what I wrote appears to be incomprehensible. The issue was that you didn't care to read a position that may contradict your own. Now it seems like you're just being petty. On that note, I think I'll just leave this conversation aside because if there's no truly conducive conversation then it's just a waste of time.

[oddwaffle]

Structural. Not an error. You didn't make errors. You just didn't make your ideas clear.

The reason you think your article is comprehensible is because you wrote it. Everything needs proof reading. Reread your article and tell me if you have followed the normal, easy to write method of starting with the statement.

[ladsin]

I will, thanks.

[PervinMervin29]

The Peaceful Revolution (German: Friedliche Revolution) was the process of sociopolitical change that led to the end of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany of the German Democratic Republic (GDR or East Germany) and the transition to a parliamentary democracy which enabled the reunification of Germany. This turning point was wholly created through the violence-free initiatives, protests, and successful demonstrations, which decisively occurred between the local elections held in May 1989 and the GDR's first free parliamentary election in March 1990.

[ladsin]

Hmm?

[PervinMervin29]

Hmm?

[ladsin]

Did you read the myTake?

[PervinMervin29]

Historically is very hard to find examples of non violent revolutions that worked

[ladsin]

Did you read the take? The opposite is true.
Nonviolent ones are twice as likely to succeed and violent ones are three times more likely to fail. It's only like two paragraphs long...

[PervinMervin29]

Based on what? I still can't find many historical examples of peaceful revolutions. We are talking about over 5000 years.

[ladsin]

In the past 100 years at least several dozen have.

[PervinMervin29]

6 out of 5000 years. Can you list them?

[ladsin]

1905-1906 -- In Russia, peasants, workers, students, and the intelligentsia engaged in major strikes and other forms of nonviolent action, forcing the Czar to accept the creation of an elected legislature.


1917 -- The February 1917 Russian Revolution, despite some limited violence, was also predominantly nonviolent and led to the collapse of the czarist system.

1913-1919 -- Nonviolent demonstrations for woman's suffrage in the United States led to the passage and ratification of the Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.


1920 -- An attempted coup d'etat, led by Wolfgang Kapp against the Weimar Republic of Germany failed when the population went on a general strike, refusing to give its consent and cooperation to the new government.

[ladsin]

1923 -- Despite severe repression, Germans resisted the French and Belgian occupation of the Ruhr, making the occupation so costly politically and economically that the French and Belgian forces finally withdrew.


1920s-1947 -- The Indian independence movement led by Mohandas Gandhi is one of the best known examples of nonviolent struggle.


1933-45 -- Throughout World War II, there were a series of small and usually isolated groups that used nonviolent techniques against the Nazis successfully. These groups include the White Rose and the Rosenstrasse Resistance.

1940-43 -- During World War II, after the invasion of the Wehrmacht, the Danish government adopted a policy of official cooperation (and unofficial obstruction) which they called "negotiation under protest." Embraced by many Danes, the unofficial resistance included slow production, emphatic celebration of Danish culture and history, and bureaucratic quagmires.

[ladsin]

m.dailygood.org/.../
I got those from this site of you want more. Although Erika goes into her research if you look at the link at the end of the take

[PervinMervin29]

Only two of these are revolutions (russian&indian) and both ended in colossal deaths in the millions.

[ladsin]

I think you're utilizing a hyperspecific definition of revolution that doesn't at all address the point of this little article.

[PervinMervin29]

Maybe but either it's a revolution or it's just social change.

[ladsin]

I was talking about:
Revolution (noun)
"Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure"

But it's becoming increasingly worrying to me that either I'm completely impotent at conveying information, or you simply still aren't reading any of what I wrote and are just talking about your thoughts regardless of what the conversation is about.

If the latter... Well I simply don't know what to do.

[ladsin]

*Inept

[ryanrhino]

It is incredibly hard to maintain non-violence. I wonder how many non-violent revolutions began as such, then failed when they succumbed to violence...

[ladsin]

Very few. In fact the graph shows that violent ones were actually 3x more likely to fail.

[Darklydarkened]

Mustaf Kemal Ataturk made a somewhat peaceful revolution.

Sure, he hung a portion of the wannabe Ottoman Empire and shariah supporters.

But they peacefully exiled the ruling families and didn't kill any of them.

[ladsin]

Peaceful revolution is better at enacting change

[jacquesvol]

Anti revolution forces did often use force to stop it.
But the whole of Central Europe liberated itself from Communism without thousands of deaths. So did Russia.

I'm not sure it would be the same in the US, of course.

[ladsin]

Read the take

[jacquesvol]

I read several Republicans on Gag writing they want their AR-15 in case a revolution starts in the US.

[ladsin]

Blue Lives Matter

[jacquesvol]

There's an armed private militia in nearly every state. Andthese are not leftist.

[ladsin]

I was actually part of the Unorganized Militia back home. I technically could've been called to serve XD
Thankfully that didn't happen. My rifle was welded shut.

[jacquesvol]

The notion of an "unorganized" ,"unarmed" and "undisciplined", "militia" must be one of the most perverse and dangerous subterfuges of the Constitution ever.

[John_Doesnt]

This actually seems pretty obvious to anybody that studied history. Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, Caesar Chavez: all non-violent yet insanely successful.

[ladsin]

My friend disagrees XD

[John_Doesnt]

Does your friend work for aliens?

[ladsin]

Nah, he's a very smart historian kind of guy, albeit strange. He thinks MLK actually destroyed the work of black activists like Malcolm X, and he said he's going to get me an article relatively soon about how Gandhi actually didn't do anything for the movement.

[Nivinxus]

Great take, would have my vote for one of the best this month.

[ladsin]

Favorite part?

[Nivinxus]

Well since it's a short take, that's hard to say, but your third point is quite interesting in the need of a fairly small amount of population needed to make a significant impact. That's both surprising and interesting.

[ladsin]

Haha cool enough!

[Goochbreaker]

I'm here to shit all over everything. No revolution works without guns is the truth, but not a single bullet need be shot. If 10% of the population would not file their taxes one year, that would be enough to COMPLETELY CRIPPLE the federal government. That is THE ONLY KIND of revolution we need. It doesn't matter if we replace the man in the white house as long as we are still mentally enslaved to the idea of government

[ladsin]

What? Did you read the little "article" or are these just your first thoughts?

[Goochbreaker]

they are just my thoughts :D I read a bit into it and then couldn't keep it inside. What do you have to say?

[ladsin]

The article states that non-violent revolution is the best means at enacting societal change and only 3.5-4% of the population is needed.

[Goochbreaker]

okay I've read it now and I take back the demeanor of my comment but still stand by what I said, although it seems we agree mostly. What do you think of my idea of a tax revolt in which we have guns but do not use them, just threaten to if they try to take our property? We do need guns.

[ladsin]

Cool.

Not my business I suppose. I won't kill police officers or service members if they come to take my guns. I would certainly take part in a protest, boycott, etc though.

[Goochbreaker]

you won't kill them if they come to take your guns? So you are a willing slave then? I wouldn't kill them either tbh, but I think we have every right to kill them. The only reason I wouldn't kill them is because there are too many pussies like yourself who would never dream of killing them. Why should you not be able to shoot somebody who comes to take your property? Do you support the fallacy of government? If a common criminal came to take your gun, walked up to your doorstep and said 'give me your firearm now, sir' while pointing a gun at you, what would you do? Would you obey his authority, or is that subservience reserved for those with a badge/dogtags? To be clear, you would be willing to take part in a tax revolt?

[ladsin]

Are you saying our police officers and service members are crooked criminals? XD
I suppose the right in Canada is a little different than here. No, I won't kill police officer's for doing their jobs, and they won't come to take my things. If a criminal came after me that would be a different story, I have no need to, nor do I, respect his position.

[Goochbreaker]

rofl, a revolutionary that respects authority and respects CROOKED CRIMINALS 'doing their jobs'

you are a naive child and not fit for any kind of revolution, why don't you just stay asleep and leave the revolution to the real men. They may very well come to take their things and when they do, you won't be able to do anything about it, and the fact that you won't do anything about it IS WHAT IS KEEPING ME ENSLAVED so now that we have gotten to the point where you are ready to hear it allow me to extend a giant FUCK YOU to you and all the other pussies who pretend to be revolutionaries but are in fact massive cucks. Every nazi officer was just a good samaritan doing their job, remember that. Here's another question, do you think it's okay that people are imprisoned for smoking weed or whatever drug they want? Is it okay when a police officer just 'doing their job' physically assaults a nonviolent pot smoker/shroom eater/whatever drug they want user and maims them?

[Goochbreaker]

you are damn fucking right i am saying they are criminals, criminals of the highest order.

[ladsin]

Alrighty bud. That's why I said, "Not my business I suppose. I won't"

You have information that is not privy to me.

[Goochbreaker]

that last comment you wrote, I have no idea what it means. No idea at all.

[ladsin]

Cool. Have a good day

[Goochbreaker]

cool LOL OKAY BUDDY EVERYTHING IS COOL IN YOUR WORLD you sound like a fucking douche.

[LegateLanius]

I like how you titled this one as a point to dismantle.

[ladsin]

Perhaps one person read it XD

[neb34]

regime change doesn't happen in countries like China, France, USA, Germany and maybe Iran. The more powerful the military and police are the less likely chances of a violent revolution can succeed for example the attempt to overthrow president Erdogan in turkey a year and a half ago.

[ladsin]

Did you read the article/ take?

[neb34]

no...

[ladsin]

Ah, you should try it. It's really short.

[lilaqua]

wait what about both Hungary's and Germany's overthrow of communism. Both were peaceful and successful.

[ladsin]

Reading is power.

[Giacomanzo]

It very depends on the times and periods, I'm afraid. You can't follow the same logic for the same eras and the same nations, believing that that would work the same.

[ladsin]

Hmm?

[Giacomanzo]

Think of Middle Age. Do you think that "Not Working in the farms of the Lords" would have had granted farmers improvement in working environment? Soldiers would have just started slaining whoever decided to do so, and out of fear people would have started to work again. Also, people would have just startved to death as well while protesting.

Saying that something is absolutely true or false regardless of the periods, the locations, etc. is very optimistic.

[ladsin]

Oh, there's a reason I pointed out this was 20th century on.

[Giacomanzo]

Exactly my point, we are not in the 20th century anymore, we cannot know for sure (even if most likely they will) if the same rules as the previous century will apply.

[ladsin]

Well... We know that this trend was increasing up until the point that the research was written in ~2013. I can't get access to the updated NAVCO without paying, but I see no reason to think the trend has changed in the past 4 years.

[Giacomanzo]

Of course not. As I said, even assuming it to be absolutely false is wrong. I just think that analyzing the current society by taking the previous data as important is not that correct.

[BrownBratzDoll]

Ummmmm martin luther king and civil rights movement

[ladsin]

Read

[BrownBratzDoll]

Im bout to. Gosh *rolls eyes*

[BrownBratzDoll]

Interesting can i share?

[ladsin]

Sure? The whole point was that the position, "No Revolution Works Without Violence!" is false.

[ladsin]

If you share with anyone be sure to credit the authors of the study though... Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan.

[proudebritishbulldog]

Just shoot all the pinko liberal Guardian reading fagots and impose martial law.

[Anonymous]

the satanic agenda lol
get that through your head lol

this world is run by satanist

[ladsin]

I thought it was lizard people?

[Mountain_Hermit]

It is the lizard people

[Opinion Owner]

there is a damn dome over the earth created by GOD its all over the internet idiots

Job 37:18
hast thou with him spread out the sky which is strong and as a molten looking glass

you fucking idiots don't have any excuse

[ladsin]

How could I have forgotten about the fucking dome?

[Gawblin]

It's true, the more bloodshed, the better.

[ladsin]

Mhm.

[markscott]

Good thoughts.

[GinaTina]

Vey good read!!!

[Waffles731]

Interesting