this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
709 points (99.2% liked)

Political Memes

7900 readers
1871 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.

Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field. They primarily considered attempts to bring about regime change. A movement was considered a success if it fully achieved its goals both within a year of its peak engagement and as a direct result of its activities. A regime change resulting from foreign military intervention would not be considered a success, for instance. A campaign was considered violent, meanwhile, if it involved bombings, kidnappings, the destruction of infrastructure – or any other physical harm to people or property.

Source in article from 2019

[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

One of the key things is that if 3-5% working adults start protesting and a general strike, you don't need violence. Because that would cause most countries to stop functioning.

It doesn't sound like a lot, but it will impact enough different jobs that at least one link in almost every supply and service chain will break. It wont immedately stop, but give it some time and "everything" will be impacted.

Excellent point. This threshold for action is also affected by the related societal events.

Willfully fracturing the global market, dismantling the largest employer in the country, and violently exiling the ever-exploited backbone of the economy will force those potential disruptions and dysfunctions to the surface much faster than it would have otherwise.

We are about to see a lot of goods and services and fundamental aspects of society that we take for granted suddenly become unreliable, unsustainable, unaffordable, or literally just unavailable.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago

We had around half of the 3.5% (6 million+) at the Hands Off protest. If it had more coverage, it probably could have been 75% of that.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

"Nonviolent protests" are a myth. That article has been debunked.

In 1986, millions of Filipinos took to the streets of Manila in peaceful protest and prayer in the People Power movement.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-05-mn-4360-story.html

In 2003, the people of Georgia ousted Eduard Shevardnadze through the bloodless Rose Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War

While in 2019, the presidents of Sudan and Algeria both announced they would step aside after decades in office, thanks to peaceful campaigns of resistance.

JFC. Sudan? This propaganda did not age well. Algeria is not much better. I'll stop here.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 17 hours ago

This is an opinion by an anarchist.

I think the thing that is most important from the study, is that getting 3.5% of the population works every time and you can ignore the rest. That works with what you just posted. In my opinion, he's focusing on the wrong thing.