The DHS secretary also argued to the reporter that she doesn’t know of “any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign."
You’re probably right, but i think the point is worth making - a surprisingly small number of people acting in concert can make topple an authoritarian regime.
The thing is, grumbling on Facebook isn’t enough. If 5% of people could boycott oligarchs indefinitely, that might undermine Trump’s support. That’s actually quite hard to achieve though.
The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it’s categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.
Personally, I don’t think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it’s useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it’s actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don’t listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.
In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.
Yeah, that “rule” is bullshit. It’s cherry picked at best.
Edit: for those downvoting, even the wiki page says as much right at the top.
You’re probably right, but i think the point is worth making - a surprisingly small number of people acting in concert can make topple an authoritarian regime.
The thing is, grumbling on Facebook isn’t enough. If 5% of people could boycott oligarchs indefinitely, that might undermine Trump’s support. That’s actually quite hard to achieve though.
The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it’s categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.
Personally, I don’t think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it’s useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it’s actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don’t listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.
In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.