A thing that's just occurred to me, and I'm thinking aloud here, is that there's way too much focus on the violence vs perfect non-violence question.
On the one hand you've got the whole pearl-clutching, "Noooo, violence is bad! You must be completely non-violent and just let the cops pummel you or you completely invalidate your cause and just give them what they're looking for", and this is clearly bullshit, though very widespread bullshit.
And of course, self-defence is legitimate, and throwing back the tear gas canisters is legitimate, and property damage is not actually violence and is sometimes entirely legitimate. And all of these things are going to happen when you have mass spontaneous protest in response to state violence, and condemning people for such things is shitty.
But that doesn't answer the question of how you plan and organise for a mass uprising to have the greatest chance of success while minimising the likely level of violence and harm your people suffer at the hands of state forces - and there, planning things around a strategy with non-violence at its core and that seeks to avoid or minimise use of violence by your side for as long as possible may well be the best option in most case. The data from researchers like Erica Chenoweth certainly suggests this.
The reality of any broad resistance movement is going to be that there's different groups using different tactics, and a lot of stuff that's unplanned, and that's fine, and that's where you need to absolutely refuse the division into good and bad protesters. But centering a non-violent strategy is not the same as pearl-clutching insistence that no-one must ever diverge from pure pacifism
Of course sometimes, like Syria or Myanmar, this doesn't work, and the state engages in such an extreme violent response that non-violence is no longer a feasible strategy in that situation, and generally this means that things are going to get very, very grim whatever you do. (A lot of folk in Myanmar, so I understand, have abandoned what was previously a quite strongly held pacifist outlook as a result of what happened there).
But in at least a good number of cases, the non-violent strategy has got results - despite being met with state violence - and has led to the overthrow of regimes with far less bloodshed than any armed rebellion.
I really hope the US proves to be one of those cases. The way LA has responded gives some cause for hope, but very early days, and the regime has only just got started, unfortunately.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2025-06-10 12:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-06-10 03:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-06-10 04:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-06-10 10:19 am (UTC)That Australian journalist they carefully shot from behind was totally asking for it.
Somehow.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-06-10 01:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2025-06-10 11:53 pm (UTC)On the one hand you've got the whole pearl-clutching, "Noooo, violence is bad! You must be completely non-violent and just let the cops pummel you or you completely invalidate your cause and just give them what they're looking for", and this is clearly bullshit, though very widespread bullshit.
And of course, self-defence is legitimate, and throwing back the tear gas canisters is legitimate, and property damage is not actually violence and is sometimes entirely legitimate. And all of these things are going to happen when you have mass spontaneous protest in response to state violence, and condemning people for such things is shitty.
But that doesn't answer the question of how you plan and organise for a mass uprising to have the greatest chance of success while minimising the likely level of violence and harm your people suffer at the hands of state forces - and there, planning things around a strategy with non-violence at its core and that seeks to avoid or minimise use of violence by your side for as long as possible may well be the best option in most case. The data from researchers like Erica Chenoweth certainly suggests this.
The reality of any broad resistance movement is going to be that there's different groups using different tactics, and a lot of stuff that's unplanned, and that's fine, and that's where you need to absolutely refuse the division into good and bad protesters. But centering a non-violent strategy is not the same as pearl-clutching insistence that no-one must ever diverge from pure pacifism
Of course sometimes, like Syria or Myanmar, this doesn't work, and the state engages in such an extreme violent response that non-violence is no longer a feasible strategy in that situation, and generally this means that things are going to get very, very grim whatever you do. (A lot of folk in Myanmar, so I understand, have abandoned what was previously a quite strongly held pacifist outlook as a result of what happened there).
But in at least a good number of cases, the non-violent strategy has got results - despite being met with state violence - and has led to the overthrow of regimes with far less bloodshed than any armed rebellion.
I really hope the US proves to be one of those cases. The way LA has responded gives some cause for hope, but very early days, and the regime has only just got started, unfortunately.
(no subject)
From: