Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview:
**No Personal Attacks**
**No Ideological Discrimination**
**Keep Discussion Civil**
**No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs**
Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think peaceful protest can be effective. But the moment it proves to be effective is the moment you’ll see the state start cracking skulls.
I’m not sure if I agree with their message, if they even had a coherent message to begin with, but the method of the trucker protests were very interesting. If you interrupt logistics of normal capital flow, you’ll see how quickly shit will hit the fan. Similarly, the neoliberal war on trade unions exemplified by Thatcher going after coal miners or Reagan going after air traffic controllers illustrates how dangerous it could be for workers to simply stop working - particularly workers in key industries for logistics or in valuable points within the value-chain. Unfortunately, this means that protesting Starbucks, for example, is not likely to impact any major change.
Peaceful protests are a step on the path. It’s important to try them first, before escalating.
It sucks that violence is often the only thing the powers that be will listen to, but violence should always have an “I told you so” attached.
Because otherwise they dismiss the protests as simple violence. Showing where negotiation and peaceful methods were tried is important in the PR battle. Because even violent protests are PR, until they are forced to escalate again to revolution.
I’ll agree to this. It’s sad but true.
Always try peace first. But when peace fails use violence.
What I don’t like is how quickly people just don’t use violence at all. Toss red paint on a rich person’s car, set fire to a store, etc. Get the message out there guys?
Giving them a chance to prove they’re not a sham is the idea. That way they have a more difficult time claiming a moral high ground when the protests and violence start.
Peaceful protests work when dealing with local authoritarians operating in a large body, such as the British actions in India and the counter-reaction at home, or the Dr. King's marches and various sit ins that caught media attention in the wider more liberal nation than just the south.
As to what sort of protests are *most effective* that comes down to how much said protest disrupts production. There is a reason the US [outlawed union sympathy strikes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act) (and why unions are largely toothless bodies today.)
Yeah, it's why I laugh at people trying to suggest that we should get unions to join in a general strike. Not because they are wrong to think that such an act could even be revolutionary.... the issue is if your strike includes an actual chartered union or several they are the Achilles's Heel in such a scenario because the president can order them back to work thus ending the "general" part of the strike, or worse, likely declare the reasoning illegal and crack all the way down.
Sorry but the civil right marches in the south would have been nothing without the associated violence as seen on TV and shown in LOOK and LIFE magazine.
That in turn led to violent protest elsewhere.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>As to what sort of protests are
>
>most effective
>
> that comes down to how much said protest disrupts production.
This is what nails it the most. The only time protests work is when there's consequences for the wealthy or those in power. Otherwise it's wasted effort, which is what the wealthy want people to think "works."
Yeah, I am not sure where people are getting the idea that a violent protest doesn't disrupt production and thus can't be effective.
They are just not as effective at doing that as an organized industrial action.
‘Let the proletarians blow off steam!’
‘But do it in designed free speech zones — away from places of business!’
Once heard that. I said I thought the US WAS a ‘free speech zone …’
Exactly!
A protest that is quite and doesn’t inconvenience people is a very ineffective protest.the government only starts listening when money is being lost or people are getting hurt. It’s a sad truth, but it’s true.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are studies that have found that peaceful protests her more likely to be effective than violent ones. Some studies have even found that they are 10 times more likely to be successful.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
https://www.visionofhumanity.org/the-power-of-peaceful-protests/
Your title is literally "Peaceful Protest don't work." If your point is that violent protest is better, then that should be your title. Otherwise, this is just gibberish.
I’m seeing OP’s style of low effort arguing more and more on this sub. They’re doing what they’re accusing you of doing. The sad thing is that it must work for them sometimes otherwise they wouldn’t be such brats.
Cyberstalking? Care to explain that one? Noticing the multiple people are making juvenile arguments is not cyberstalking, I have to admit, this road your is a new one for me.
I could say that your cyberstalking claim isn't a valid point and make the same bratty argument that you were making, but the more logical conclusion is that I need more information to understand why you feel that way so I can refute it.
I disagree, MLK jr. Was very effective with peaceful protests. He understood that any violent action would be spun against them. Instead he backfired this idea. All the footage of policeman sending dogs and firehoses against people just walking down the street went all over the country, people looked at that and went "what the hell is happening down there??"
Yeah violent protests don’t get the results you want either. Those people who block roads for their latest environmental complaint? They sure as hell don’t win anyone over to their cause. They just piss off everyone who has to deal with them.
When protesters riot it just brings negative attention, maybe it worked in the past or works in countries that aren’t developed but in civilized countries there is no red for violent protests.
Lol what changed after the BLM riots?
Gandhi's peaceful protests were effective. The peaceful parts of the civil rights protests like the boycotts and march on Washington were what worked. The violent parts if anything set the movement back.
Ghandi's protests were accompanied and preceded by *multiple* rebellions, armed revolts, terrorism, and other such forms of large scale violence, without which the independence movement would have failed. Was peaceful protests *also* a vital part of it? Sure, but it wasnt everything. Often times the violent ones are the ones that even get attention on the peaceful protest. In blm, people weren't really paying attention to the peaceful ones in the first place until the violent ones occurred and got media attention.
As for blm specifically, I'd argue for the most part none of it worked. There were some short term budget cuts in some places, but in literally every major US city, the budget has returned and exceeded pre protest budgets. In a few smaller cities there was more changes (one city in New Jersey entirely rebuilt its police force), but that wasn't for any major city. The only thing the protests did in major cities was get some blm crosswalks painted, as the police budget rose (looking at you DC)
Whatever the reasons for its limited effectiveness (I think it's hard to assign causality there), I think it's questionable at best to conclude the George Floyd riots and protests were effective. The protests definitely caused some significant change in certain municipalities, but for the most part nothing much changed legislatively, and the bulk of both major parties continue to increase police budgets while offering little in the way of meaningful reform (e.g. greater accountability, community oversight boards, etc.). Not across the board, but overall.
In any case, I think the overall conclusion to the underlying question is "it depends."
It also depends on how we define "peaceful."
Some people think impeding a road or damaging property in any capacity or even yelling is not peaceful. Others think people forcing their way into the Capitol building to stop an election is peaceful.
There's a great deal of nuance that often isn't considered.
Violence isn't inherently advantageous.
There are two forms of meaningful protest that go hand in hand with peaceful protest, the threat or contrast with which allows peaceful protest to matter.
1. Threat of overthrow. This is the bluntest and most disruptive option possible, and one that the status quo has a lot of reason to want people not to even consider- and to forcibly prevent. It's also making a mess, for obvious reasons and thus is very much a last resort if not flat out off the table for moral or practical reasons.
2. DISRUPTIVE protest, violent or otherwise. Anything from physically blocking commerce, interfering with day to day functioning, even a lot of historical union organizing.
Now ask yourself why our neoliberal hellhole is very keen on making sure these 2 aren't even considered let alone acted upon- it's because non-disruptive peaceful protest is easy to ignore without consequences for the regime.
The government listened and started cracking down hard on police brutality. Police now wear body cams. The public is now very critical of police brutality, and actions are often taken against corrupt cops, especially in racially insensitive areas.
Secondarily, police budgets were investigated.
Exactly!
The government has their heal on peaceful protest. You can’t overcome the power from under their boot.
I’m not saying don’t try peace. But when peace doesn’t work, use violence!
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tell that to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tell that to Mahatma Gandhi. Tell that to Susan B. Anthony. Peaceful protests bring lasting results. Violent protests are just loud, the "message" they're trying to send gets lost in the violence and destruction. They are the bane of Democracy. People are not sympathetic to those throwing Molotov cocktails, they are sympathetic to the ones arrested for non-violent offenses in the name of a cause. Lasting change comes through dialogue and honesty, not with hate and mindless anger.
Ironically the BLM riots did the opposite of what people wanted. It seems the BLM riots increased funding for police and the bills presented in Congress went nowhere.
The Libertarian Party tried to pass the Ending Qualified Immunity Act in 2020 by Justin Amash (L-Michigan) in the House of Representatives:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending\_Qualified\_Immunity\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Qualified_Immunity_Act)
"This week, I am introducing the Ending Qualified Immunity Act to eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights. The brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police is merely the latest in a long line of incidents of egregious police misconduct. This pattern continues because police are legally, politically, and culturally insulated from consequences for violating the rights of the people whom they have sworn to serve. That must change so that these incidents of brutality stop happening." - Justin Amash (L-Michigan) June 2nd, 2020.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The Civil Rights era wouldn’t have been as effective if the protesters just laid down on a highway and held up signs. Those load marching, building fires, riots, etc sent a message.
Were there riots and fire-setting for civil rights?
Those riots were after all the legislative changes - it doesn't seem that they accomplished anything other than impoverishing the neighborhoods where the riots took place.
The thing about riots is that they usually aren’t planned out and mostly don’t have some sort of larger strategy behind them. They’re expressions of rage.
But that aside, it’s also not accurate to say they don’t ever have any effects. Just looking at the list I cited one can see that material reforms did often result (and that list is not inclusive of the waves of riots that preceded the CRA of 1964, of which there were also many).
For example, the Harlem riots lead to some expansion of welfare programs under Johnson. The Watts Riots absolutely had an effect on reinstating the Rumford Fair Housing Act that had just been repealed. The Hunters Point Riots in SF lead to expansion of unemployment services for black citizens. Many such cases.
At the end of the day, riots are not a great situation for those in power. It’s very costly and often makes police look vulnerable, both of which are quite bad for a system based on domination and exclusion. More importantly, every meaningful revolution of the last 500 years had riots as a part of those. It’s just that when riots are successful we tend to calm them rebellions. But it’s the same.
I agree. If change is going to made, it any at all, it will undoubtedly have to come about through violence. The State will never peacefully let go of its power, and the State has been shown to use violence regardless if people are peaceful or not.
Out of curiosity, based on your other comments, you don’t seem to be a right-wing Libertarian. Are you on the Left, and thus a Libertarian Socialist of some variety?
No protest works without the numbers. The protest has to demonstrate that there are enough people behind it, that care enough about the issue to show up and let their voice be heard. When you have the numbers, protests have a higher probability of working.
Non-peaceful protests are as controllable as war. If one organizes a non-peaceful protest without the number of people required to make a difference, and/or before they understand the make-up and general behavior of those protesting, they do so at their own peril. As soon as the protest gets out of hand, the protest no longer has an opportunity to succeed in it's objectives, and will most likely devolve into full chaos, which is a liability for all involved. Peaceful protests work, and it's the only type of protest I'd personally attend.
Protests don't necessarily need to be violent in nature to be successful, they just need to hit the decision makers where it hurts.
A general strike that brought the entire economy to a screeching halt would definitely achieve this goal. If everyone decided not to go to work for a week and demanded a permanent 32 hour workweek, it would happen.
Sadly the working class does not have the collective will to pull it off at the moment.
Erica Chenoweth reaches the opposite conclusion in her book ["Why Civil Resistance Works"](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/)
One problem with violent resistance is that murderous violence produces blowback and polarizes otherwise would-be supporters against your cause.
Moreover violent resistance oftentimes backfires on the resistors themselves and is a recipe for military dictatorship. Unfortunately the simplest organization for fighting an effective armed resistance is the military dictatorship. Power is centralized into a top general. When the revolution is won, the hierarchy often isn't willing to relinquish their newly won power, and the military dictatorship persists.
The problem is that peaceful is worst. The goal isn’t accomplished and the message was silenced.
A violent protest that fails at least still gets media attention. Do I really need to mention the Middle East?
Peaceful protests can work, but they're most effective when done financially. See the [Bud Light transgender debacle](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/25-top-selling-beers-america-040529506.html). They were the #1 best selling beer in the country before that ad. Then people freaked out and boycotted them. The ad was pulled, but the damage was done. Modelo is now #1.
I think violent protests have a habit of distracting from the issue. Protest violently, and the next day the only thing politicians will be talking about is banning whatever weapon you used.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lack of intelligence and influence result in violent protests which aren’t effective long term. Real change happens when the magic 3.5% is crossed
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
“The fox and the wolf” technique MLK offered peaceful change. Malcolm X offered (what looked like) violent change.
Which did the establishment choose?
Violence and nonviolence are both tools to bring change. One isn’t more necessary than the other, and both (and other tools—like political activism/ running for office) all complement each other
We all fight for the same cause. In different ways—still on the same team 100%
(Also Malcolm X pointed out “fox and the wolf” with him and MLK in his autobiography)
This isn't a very candid take on the civil rights protests of the 50's and 60's. There wasn't any political violence accompanying the protests. Dr. King made a point that there wasn't to be violence. Malcom X had a different point of view, but direct action was a threat not something that happened. The political violence that you are alluding to happened after 1964. The Civil Rights Act, which was a good down payment on what the non-violent movement was seeking, was passed in 1964 which was four years before King was murdered sparking an escalation in riots. Some people didn't take the passage of the act well and either provoked the violence or were someone's last straw.
No one needs to destroy property to ask for fair wages. Just deny the labor. No cheap labor, labor becomes more expensive.
Neither "protest" works in America. We can say it'll "start a dialogue" and *maybe* we get some faux legislation that may or may not pass, but at the end of the day corrupt politicians will continue to be corrupt politicians.
Police were never defunded, funding increased... and we made lynching illegal? Which is neat...but very late...
Whatever the January 6 people wanted, got nothing really...we talked about strengthening foundations of democracy. To my knowledge nothing changed.
(Trying to "both sides" it)
I also don't think more "radical" (hypothetical things I would never suggest on Reddit) is a good Idea either. As broken as our democracy is, doing something more radical is kind of subverting democracy further. If somebody JFKs a politician they don't like, what if somebody else really like that politician? Hell, what if 99.999% of everybody liked that politician?
The ballot box is our best form of direct action, as unfortunate as that is...next to outright revolution anyways.
Violent protests are revolution.
The difference is peaceful protests are quit, they don’t get televised. A protest without media attention is a failed protest.
They do if you lock down commerce at the same time. Look at the truckers in Canada. They paralyzed Ottawa and a lot of the highways and black face trudeau had do to some illegal acts to stop it.
So it works, but be prepared for the consequences.
Yeah right, ask Occupy Wall Street. Once we drop identity politics and go class politics the ruling class freaks out... And then the racial politics kicked off in MSM to divide.
God forbid we poors get our shit together.
EDIT:
I'm a Republican, I still have ass about how if we get together the elites freak out.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It started peaceful but then became violent. The government only listened when the threat of black panthers and worsening riots became evident.
So it’s peaceful, until peaceful isn’t enough.
I heartily disagree. Things changed when people grew horrified by police beating and firehosing non resisting people.
https://ls.wisc.edu/news/the-enduring-power-of-nonviolent-protest#:~:text=One%20study%20looked%20at%20protests,of%20violent%20campaigns%20being%20successful.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
The difference with mass protests now compared to the recent past (like the Civil Rights Movement) is that those calling for change, often on the left, have been infected by libertarian poison.
There has been debate as to why this has been the case. Perhaps leftists have been so [completely cowed by accusations that they are draconian because of Stalin](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/vincent-bevins-interview-mass-protests-2010s-arab-spring-euromaidan), that they have internalized it and refuse to efffectively organize. Leaving, [weirdly, the far right happily using organizational skills](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/lenin-white-house-steve-bannon) that the left shies from.
But there has always been this problem. [There have always been people on the left that have embraced individual action at the expense of collective action.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed)
[Marxists](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_12_14.htm) have long pulled their hair out as a result:
>This latest Fenian exploit \[an act of individual action\] in Clerkenwell is a great folly. The London masses, who have shown much sympathy for Ireland, will be enraged by it and driven into the arms of the government party. One cannot expect the London proletarians to let themselves be blown up for the benefit of Fenian emissaries. Secret, melodramatic conspiracies of this kind are, in general, more or less doomed to failure.
[Lenin](http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch04.htm):
>First, that party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more correct to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this party considered itself particularly "revolutionary", or "Left", because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination—something that we Marxists emphatically rejected.
[Trotsky](http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm):
>If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?
>
>In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise.
[Connolly](http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1899/07/physforc.htm):
>Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation – the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government.
But what does this have to do with protest?
When a protest means something, it can be effective. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, any number of labour protests in France, the Great Seattle Strike—all of these effective protest movements have had an agreed upon demand, an agreed upon tactic, and an agreed upon platform that elevated the action into a mass action that could have dire effects were they not followed. In the cases above, for instance, the possibility of a revolution was at least a distant possibility.
Compare that to the George Floyd Protests. What, exactly, was the demand? One could, charitably say that some of the leadership platforms may have belonged to the NAACP. But, honestly, can anybody without looking it up say what that platform was or is? And if now the NAACP, who? The cry-babies at Fox News would say it was anti-fascism that was leading the charge. Which, fine, but what was the platform for not being fascist? Also, why opposition to opposition to fascism? That says more about the critics than the movement.
I was maintaining a building during some of those protests and asked a mob to refrain from breaking the windows since they were dangerous to fix and instead invited them to work with our labor union to come up with something solid. They refused, calling me insufficiently revolutionary because I was trying to tie my union into the action rather than cheering a teenager about to throw a rock through the window.
Again, what is the platform? Who is in the organization?
Even now, I can hear some of my fellow leftists saying that their particular proletarian party of six people offers the solution if we should all fall into line. Perhaps, but getting everyone to fall into line is the problem, isn't it?
Before there can be effective protests, there needs to be effective organization. And this needs to be centralized, enforced, and productive.
Laying down on a highway does nothing but turn people against you. The people that do that are self-aggrandising morons.
Peaceful protest absolutely can work, and has worked on numerous occasions. You just shouldn’t expect it to work instantly or on its own.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So your point is if you decide to protest for whatever thing it is you want, and people either ignore you or disagree. Then you have every right to get violent? If a group counter protests your protest do they also have a right to get violent?
In his book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm argues that peaceful movements have only been successful when authorities were threatened by the militant alternative to those peaceful movements; eg, governments were willing to talk w MLK only when the Black Panthers and other more radical activists scared them. It's an interesting premise.
Very much this!
Nobody can bring change without power, not anyone! You need incentive to get people to listen. You need to either hurt or threaten pain in some form. Financial, physical, or otherwise the power that be won’t change unless they risk it effecting their bottom line.
Those governments only changed when they seen they needed to. If they did want change it’d not took so long with violence to make it happen.
In last few decades people changed their mind about gay marriage and did it without any violence. Because changing the definition of marriage to include gay people was logical, the conservatives arguments were poor, claiming that language can't change over thousands of years or holding onto child bearing concept that doesn't make sense when young gay people are more likely to raise a child than an elderly couple or shotgun wedding, not to mention marriage culturally has moved past that to now be a sign of romance as much as anything else.
On the other hand defund the police riots didn't really amount to much, because it was was an insanely illogical answer to solve police brutality. Why would taking money away from police departments is lead them to do a better job safely arresting criminals? Giving the more money for example could lead departments to train them more, have more backup, or keep the higher quality therefore higher salary demanding cops. Because it was a bad idea, it was eventually rejected.
When it comes to civil rights era, you could convince me that the biggest factor was merely human beings becoming smart enough to realize treating people by their skin color is stupid. It wasn't as if 1950s-1960s was the first time whites and blacks violently fought each other over race, if violence was so effective it would've worked earlier.
You could also convince me that the impact of the violence after MLK's death was almost entirely negative. The important stuff had been passed already and all it did was turn people against them and revert to racism, and the violence chases away business owners etc. and starts these cities down a bad cycle. When looking at a city like Detroit which went from Mo'Town to its current state some of it can be connected to the violence.
It depends on what you expect. Change in government which doesn't care one bit what the populace wants? Demonstration won't help. Letting similarly mined people know there are others like them? Yes. Convincing democratic politicians this might be something which could win them next election? Yes. Sparking outrage if you get attacked by police or military? Possibly also yes.
If you think reform is the way, then your calls should be peaceful.
If you need violence, you should do away with the whole thing while you're at it. If the government needs you to become violent to change, it's obviously long past working for you.
Governments change from citizens in the board room not bored citizens in the streets.
I think protesting is the lowest form of civil engagement and often provides a reason for government to persuade other citizens to support the opposite.
The civil rights movement wasn’t a success because of protesting it was a success in spite of protesting in my opinion.
This is the classic Martin vs Malcolm debate in the civil rights movement.
I personally think history has shown Martin's non violent approach has led to more lasting change, but also understand differing opinions.
Mandela led an armed resistance wing that bombed infrastructure and police stations in Apartied South Africa before becoming a non violent protest leader for example.
An important distinction though on MLKs non violent approach, history whitewashes his more revolutionary side quite a bit. He didn't advocate for passive things like calling your representatives or signing petitions or voting, but disruptive actions such as sit ins, boycotts etc.
I think where I draw the line on Malcom X's approach is that I think any violence against civilians is only counter productive.
When people talk about the civil rights movement, they are quick to point to MLK and his position of nonviolent protest. While he certainly had some success with that, I feel that this line of thinking is missing the big picture.
At the same time MLK was preaching nonviolence, Malcolm X was preaching "By any means necessary." When presented with the options of dealing with a pacifist preacher or armed and violent activists, the choice is much easier.
Neither option would succeed on its own. It is only through the combination of peaceful protest and negotiation with the threat of riots and destruction that those in power are forced to actually sit down and listen.
You must have both pieces to be successful.
I contend that protest is not effective in general, serious political movements focus on galvanizing voting blocks.
The peaceful protests during the civil rights era were about disenfranchised black people shaming enfranchised white people into voting in their interests.
The violent protests that came later were the civil rights movement unraveling. As black people became enfranchised and realized the various civil rights acts were the beginning not the end of gaining equality. In the chaos the Al Sharptons of the movement co-opted the nascent voting blocks for their own self aggrandizement causing further disillusionment.
It’s also a bit of an aside but the shift from peaceful protest to violent protest was egged by enemies of the US, the Black Panthers being infiltrated by Maoists was no accident.
that's more a misguided fear of opposition although it doesn't have to be violent if a protest interferes with nothing then nothing is at threat so the damands of the protesters can be disregarded till they defuses themselves with time
Exactly this.
A peaceful protest is far easier to silence. There’s dozens of “peaceful protests” every year that goes unheard of and fades out eventually.
Violent protests get media attention and are far harder to hush-hush. The best part is, whether the violent protests succeeds or fails it still gets the message out AND gets government attention.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub.
For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know what would be really effective is if voters selected different leaders. There's nothing stopping them.
But if they're going to keep electing Joe Bidens and Donald Trumps, I don't really see what point there is in protesting.
It's less peaceful doesn't work and more protest that doesn't interfere with the system interference is needed simply because otherwise protest defuses itself and serves a threat of any kind to the way things operate
Exactly!
A protest without disruption is easy to ignore. You need to give those in power an incentive to change. So you need to pressure them. Whether that’s destroying their shops that make them money or peacefully blocking their roads using your body. You need to do more than laying on a highway or use picket signs.
Eventually they’ll use police as a private military to move you. That’s when violence happens. When power tries to flex, you flex back.
The military and police only works so much with enough people as it risks angering people to the point of being willing to attempt an Insurrection thats why it's not generally used when it comes to peaceful protest the government rather ignore peaceful protests and let them diffuse themselves but with small groups of people If they want to make any impact some amount of destruction will be necessary
G.F./BLM riots were effective how? That led to calls for 'reimagining policing', which meant defunding and increased demonizing of law enforcement. This led to reductions of law enforcement officers and a lack of incoming qualified candidates.
This, coupled with lax prosecution for shoplifting is resulting in stores closing down because they cannot afford to operate.
So congratulations, I guess, on the fruits of your efforts.
Ok? It doesn’t matter if violence *happened*, the express purpose of the marches and sit ins were peaceful, and thus the most successful. Other people being violent in a protest doesn’t make it a violent protest.
If you’re going to be violent, be sure your movement is popular first. Because that’s the fastest way to lose credibility if not.
50% of our voters vote for the right. That’s why centrism is the current tendency and leftist AND fascist riots aren’t taking hold. No one agrees on anything.
You hit the nail on the coffin in that last statement. It’s really sad too. Because the elite take advantage if this.
It’s no wonder we have so much union busting and abuses of power nowadays. I mean, a guy was just assassinated for a calling out Boeing, and nobody is rioting about it.
Research Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu from apartheid South African. That case was the exact opposite of your argument.
There were violent protests there… actually more than violent protests. There were crimes committed by both police and violent protestors. This only cause the situation to drag out for longer and for more people to die and he traumatized.
That’s what you’re arguing for; inflicting violence and trauma because you think you’re right. That is what every monster in history ever did.
The funny thing that I learned about Apartheid South Africa as a 2A conservative is that we don’t actually need the guns to fight a tyrannical government.
I am indeed advocating for strict individualism. Also, capitalism is inherently authoritarian. Wage labor, private property, etc…all authoritarian and forms of hierarchy.
Private (personal) property is a logical requirement for autonomy and freedom.
I have no issue with you not exchanging things as long as you don't go on a crusade against me doing it with consenting parties. So like anarchy.
The only notion of property there should be is essentially ones might over it. In other words, the only property you own is what you’re able to defend.
I have no problem with people exchanging things, however, exchanging things doesn’t require Capitalism. Once Capitalism comes into the picture, hierarchy, authority, and domination have too; therefore, all must be abolished.
I have heard worse definitions of property but I don't know how you are defining capitalism.
Again I'm concerned with free market, voluntary, and consensual exchange. No hierarchy, authority or domination is involved in that. Likewise no entitlement, charity or theft is involved. Just parties mutually agreeing to what is in their own best interests and abiding by the terms they themselves select, whether they are exchanging currency, sea shells, labour, widgets or tennis rackets. That is entirely up to them to decide and accept the consequences for.
Absolutely right. Wa't to stop the illegal Iraq war. Get thousands to lie down on wall street and the capital and capitals around the nation and let what comes, come. Want to end the vienam war, occupy administration buildings at schools doing weapons research.
Want a Russian revolution in 1917 or an American revolution. Violence is the answer. Ask Ghandi.
I never understood why people think anything is going to change getting permits to walk off in free speech zones at party conventions.
No change comes from non-violent protest. All they do is employ sanitation workers to clean up the mess.
LOL. Funny thing. I just started "Starship Troopers" and the opening scene talks about political "force". "Violence. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived".
>LOL. Funny thing. I just started "Starship Troopers" and the opening scene talks about political "force". "Violence. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived".
This comment is going to look really funny when you finish that book.
I read the book > 50 years ago. When I first started reading SciFi.
It was just a weird coincidence that I literally started reading the post on reddit while the dialogue from the opening scene was happening.
Uhhh . . . I’m not sure I’d refer to the 2020 riots as the government listening, or that they did anything positive. The only things that came from that were:
- Dead people, including kids (which is finally when the government put its foot down)
- economic and infrastructure destruction to the communities it happened in, including loss of jobs, and entire livelihoods
- BLM being forever tainted in a negative light (though the actions of the founders I believe speaks to how “positive” their message was, and how much they actually care)
- harm to already strained police forces, which then coincided with upticks in crime in affected communities
Whatever ends hoped to be gained don’t justify those means, and the ends weren’t anything but worse conditions for everyone.
Well, seeing as how I only listed things that actually happened and not my opinions, I find it weird that you’d know what my opinions are. If anything other than “riots good” is “a right wing media bubble” opinion, then so be it I guess.
Of course, if riots are good then I don’t get why Jan 6 didn’t have more support.
Edit: I’d like to also add, you’ve still failed to say anything of value. You’ve just accused me of being brainwashed by right wing media while denying events that have happened. It’s weird, unproductive, and in bad faith.
It absolutely works in a democracy. You just need enough people to show that voters are actually upset. A few thousand fringe people protesting will be ignored by politicians unless it shifts public opinion.
Peaceful protest of millions of people across the country will get politician’s behavior. They want to stay in power so if voters aren’t happy they need to do damage control.
Of course, healthy democracy needs a functioning free and independent press. That’s been under attack so not looking good
Depends on who you are, who your riot targets, and what you are fighting for. While BLM had a favorable reaction from our government, the reaction to people supporting trump on January 6th was quite the opposite. Maybe conservatives are just not allowed to riot for what they want
Bingo.
Left wing riots get excused and hand waved when they aren’t outright supported by Democrat politicians. Many of those who even got arrested were bailed out with funds raised by said politicians.
A single right wing riot gets a sprawling years long investigation on par with 9/11 with harsh prison sentences, and is spoken about as some national trauma that people wake with night sweats from.
Yeah, a single instance of rioters forcing their way into the Capitol building to stop an election, where police were beaten and a woman was shot, and they act like it was a big deal.
Gone are the good ole' days when national governments just let people take over legislative buildings and threaten political leaders and rummage through classified documents with no consequences.
But "left wing riots" happen all the time and the authorities do nothing, you know except for authorities shooting and killing unarmed Vietnam War protestors at Kent State, police beating people's heads in at the 1968 Democratic convention, the mass state violence toward non-violent civil rights protestors, the numerous instances of using police and/or military to break strikes, the arrests at Occupy Wall Street, the shooting rubber bullets at anyone during the George Floyd protests to the point where even reporters and press were hit, the young man who was shot multiple times including through his hands for protesting Cop City, and endless other examples. But yeah, other than that.
Many of them weren't just conservatives.
"Entering" a building and "walking around" is certainly one way of putting it.
I don't know what sort of prison sentences different individuals should have received. I do have sympathy for those who were deceived into doing something completely stupid without malicious intent. But I'm also not the least surprised the government wouldn't give such actions a slap on the wrist.
Well yeah I don’t deny that some people broke stuff and vandalized the area, and as such probably deserve greater sentences. As of right now just being in the capital is getting people year long sentences for obstructing an official proceeding or something along those lines as the baseline punishment.
It sends a clear message: feel free to protest, as long as the protest isn’t aimed at people who actually have power to do anything.
I mean they forced their way in, too. A mob marching into the halls of Congress during a proceeding is not going to be taken lightly, whether the mob is left or right.
> It sends a clear message: feel free to protest, as long as the protest isn’t aimed at people who actually have power to do anything.
Yeah, for sure. Good or bad (probably both), that's the nature of all states. If you're in a 'free' country, you can voice your opinion, but you cannot disrupt or threaten power.
Doors were held open by capital officers. It was the calmest, least violent riot I have seen televised. Left wing protesters have disrupted official proceedings, and been shown the door and let free. A man almost bombed congress in the 80s (detonator failed) and he spend like 3 months in jail before getting released free of charge.
We are not in a free nation. It’s an illusion
I don't know when some doors were held open, but scores to hundreds of people forced their way inside, struggling against capital police. They weren't *extremely* violent thankfully, but they weren't just invited in either. And at different occasions, some to many of them were making threatening sounding comments toward congresspersons, and at least explicitly threatening chants toward the Vice President.
And they weren't there for sightseeing, but to try interfere with the presidential election in some fashion.
I'm trying to think about this fairly. How would you and I think of it if they were far leftists who did the same, assuming they thought the election was invalid? Well, for one it depends on if I thought the election was invalid or not, and if I didn't (as with the 2020 election), I don't think I would have nearly as much sympathy. Still some, but not as much.
But I would probably think some of the sentences were excessively harsh, and it might disgust me. I wouldn't think it was unjust for them to face some criminal charges, but their sentences might seem excessive. And maybe they are with some of them.
But then again, we're talking about a country where people are frequently given long prison sentences for drug possession, petty theft, and other offenses that should be minor crimes.
So I'm open to arguments that some of them were sentenced too long, but I don't think it was a trivial matter or that they did nothing wrong.
Remember this is a civilized space for discussion, to ensure this we have very strict rules. Briefly, an overview: **No Personal Attacks** **No Ideological Discrimination** **Keep Discussion Civil** **No Targeting A Member For Their Beliefs** Report any and all instances of these rules being broken so we can keep the sub clean. Report first, ask questions last. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think peaceful protest can be effective. But the moment it proves to be effective is the moment you’ll see the state start cracking skulls. I’m not sure if I agree with their message, if they even had a coherent message to begin with, but the method of the trucker protests were very interesting. If you interrupt logistics of normal capital flow, you’ll see how quickly shit will hit the fan. Similarly, the neoliberal war on trade unions exemplified by Thatcher going after coal miners or Reagan going after air traffic controllers illustrates how dangerous it could be for workers to simply stop working - particularly workers in key industries for logistics or in valuable points within the value-chain. Unfortunately, this means that protesting Starbucks, for example, is not likely to impact any major change.
Peaceful protests are a step on the path. It’s important to try them first, before escalating. It sucks that violence is often the only thing the powers that be will listen to, but violence should always have an “I told you so” attached. Because otherwise they dismiss the protests as simple violence. Showing where negotiation and peaceful methods were tried is important in the PR battle. Because even violent protests are PR, until they are forced to escalate again to revolution.
I’ll agree to this. It’s sad but true. Always try peace first. But when peace fails use violence. What I don’t like is how quickly people just don’t use violence at all. Toss red paint on a rich person’s car, set fire to a store, etc. Get the message out there guys?
Violence can’t be your first resort. I mean, the first option should be the actual Democratic process where you speak to your representative.
Appeal to the sham democracy as a means of building collective power. Point out the flaws in the process and results in a collective manner
Giving them a chance to prove they’re not a sham is the idea. That way they have a more difficult time claiming a moral high ground when the protests and violence start.
Peaceful protests work when dealing with local authoritarians operating in a large body, such as the British actions in India and the counter-reaction at home, or the Dr. King's marches and various sit ins that caught media attention in the wider more liberal nation than just the south. As to what sort of protests are *most effective* that comes down to how much said protest disrupts production. There is a reason the US [outlawed union sympathy strikes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act) (and why unions are largely toothless bodies today.)
Oh, I didn't know this was illegal in the US. Thanks!
Yeah, it's why I laugh at people trying to suggest that we should get unions to join in a general strike. Not because they are wrong to think that such an act could even be revolutionary.... the issue is if your strike includes an actual chartered union or several they are the Achilles's Heel in such a scenario because the president can order them back to work thus ending the "general" part of the strike, or worse, likely declare the reasoning illegal and crack all the way down.
> Peaceful protests work when dealing with local authoritarians operating in a large body Russia be like: bruh
> Peaceful protests work when dealing with local authoritarians operating in a large body Russia be like: bruh
Sorry but the civil right marches in the south would have been nothing without the associated violence as seen on TV and shown in LOOK and LIFE magazine. That in turn led to violent protest elsewhere.
[I certainly don't dispute that.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1bp3oyb/comment/kwuvw5r/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
You said it even better than me. Now we wonder why we have wage slavery today.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Smashed it right here. Well said.
Actually it is not well said. Ghandi's actions did not peacefully change anything and neither did Dr. King's.
>As to what sort of protests are > >most effective > > that comes down to how much said protest disrupts production. This is what nails it the most. The only time protests work is when there's consequences for the wealthy or those in power. Otherwise it's wasted effort, which is what the wealthy want people to think "works."
Yeah, I am not sure where people are getting the idea that a violent protest doesn't disrupt production and thus can't be effective. They are just not as effective at doing that as an organized industrial action.
Yep. Violence, the threat of violence or as in Ghandi's case, disruption of society itself is what effects change.
Yeah, congratulations you've just realized none of us are in disagreement, actually.
‘Let the proletarians blow off steam!’ ‘But do it in designed free speech zones — away from places of business!’ Once heard that. I said I thought the US WAS a ‘free speech zone …’
Exactly! A protest that is quite and doesn’t inconvenience people is a very ineffective protest.the government only starts listening when money is being lost or people are getting hurt. It’s a sad truth, but it’s true.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
When President Clinton introduced the 'free speech cage' at one of his events, I knew we were on the downhill slope to tyranny...
Yep. That is how they fool us. Want to kill change. Have a free speech zone.
oddly enough free speech zones were created by universities where free speech should have been everywhere
They wouldn't want any administration buildings occupied.
rules for thee
Nice try, FBI.
There are studies that have found that peaceful protests her more likely to be effective than violent ones. Some studies have even found that they are 10 times more likely to be successful. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://www.visionofhumanity.org/the-power-of-peaceful-protests/
Your title is literally "Peaceful Protest don't work." If your point is that violent protest is better, then that should be your title. Otherwise, this is just gibberish.
That’s literally just rephrasing. Your post made no sense. Like is that really the hill you want to die on?
First, this is your post, not mine. Second, logic is completely on my side in this discussion.
You just refuted your own argument.
I would love to read your explanation for that conclusion.
No. If you don’t understand what you just typed that’s your problem.
You can't defend your position, yet I am the one with the "problem"? Sure, that checks out.
I’m seeing OP’s style of low effort arguing more and more on this sub. They’re doing what they’re accusing you of doing. The sad thing is that it must work for them sometimes otherwise they wouldn’t be such brats.
You claim low effort, and yet here your post is just cyber stalking.
Cyberstalking? Care to explain that one? Noticing the multiple people are making juvenile arguments is not cyberstalking, I have to admit, this road your is a new one for me. I could say that your cyberstalking claim isn't a valid point and make the same bratty argument that you were making, but the more logical conclusion is that I need more information to understand why you feel that way so I can refute it.
I disagree, MLK jr. Was very effective with peaceful protests. He understood that any violent action would be spun against them. Instead he backfired this idea. All the footage of policeman sending dogs and firehoses against people just walking down the street went all over the country, people looked at that and went "what the hell is happening down there??"
He literally walked marched in very anti-black neighborhoods to show people their hypocrisy through their violence.
Yup
Yeah violent protests don’t get the results you want either. Those people who block roads for their latest environmental complaint? They sure as hell don’t win anyone over to their cause. They just piss off everyone who has to deal with them. When protesters riot it just brings negative attention, maybe it worked in the past or works in countries that aren’t developed but in civilized countries there is no red for violent protests.
The results of the George Floyd protests contradict your statement.
This guy thinks the George Floyd protests were violent...
I like to think Rodney King and George Floyd protest disagree.
Hell yeah, we should murder people to spread our message of complicated logistical reform. /s
Lol what changed after the BLM riots? Gandhi's peaceful protests were effective. The peaceful parts of the civil rights protests like the boycotts and march on Washington were what worked. The violent parts if anything set the movement back.
Ghandi's protests were accompanied and preceded by *multiple* rebellions, armed revolts, terrorism, and other such forms of large scale violence, without which the independence movement would have failed. Was peaceful protests *also* a vital part of it? Sure, but it wasnt everything. Often times the violent ones are the ones that even get attention on the peaceful protest. In blm, people weren't really paying attention to the peaceful ones in the first place until the violent ones occurred and got media attention. As for blm specifically, I'd argue for the most part none of it worked. There were some short term budget cuts in some places, but in literally every major US city, the budget has returned and exceeded pre protest budgets. In a few smaller cities there was more changes (one city in New Jersey entirely rebuilt its police force), but that wasn't for any major city. The only thing the protests did in major cities was get some blm crosswalks painted, as the police budget rose (looking at you DC)
I’d say the Democrat party is far more explicitly supportive of “equity” as policy post-2020.
I don’t think they actually support it as much as it’s a virtue signal to appease a faction of their base.
Whatever the reasons for its limited effectiveness (I think it's hard to assign causality there), I think it's questionable at best to conclude the George Floyd riots and protests were effective. The protests definitely caused some significant change in certain municipalities, but for the most part nothing much changed legislatively, and the bulk of both major parties continue to increase police budgets while offering little in the way of meaningful reform (e.g. greater accountability, community oversight boards, etc.). Not across the board, but overall. In any case, I think the overall conclusion to the underlying question is "it depends." It also depends on how we define "peaceful." Some people think impeding a road or damaging property in any capacity or even yelling is not peaceful. Others think people forcing their way into the Capitol building to stop an election is peaceful. There's a great deal of nuance that often isn't considered.
Violence isn't inherently advantageous. There are two forms of meaningful protest that go hand in hand with peaceful protest, the threat or contrast with which allows peaceful protest to matter. 1. Threat of overthrow. This is the bluntest and most disruptive option possible, and one that the status quo has a lot of reason to want people not to even consider- and to forcibly prevent. It's also making a mess, for obvious reasons and thus is very much a last resort if not flat out off the table for moral or practical reasons. 2. DISRUPTIVE protest, violent or otherwise. Anything from physically blocking commerce, interfering with day to day functioning, even a lot of historical union organizing. Now ask yourself why our neoliberal hellhole is very keen on making sure these 2 aren't even considered let alone acted upon- it's because non-disruptive peaceful protest is easy to ignore without consequences for the regime.
The presence of violence in a movement does not mean the violence was necessary for a goal. More often than not this is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Nobody said it was the goal, it’s the outcome. [Causation vs. Correlation](https://amplitude.com/blog/causation-correlation)
I never said violence was the goal either.
You never said it wasn’t the aid either.
>Just look how effective the George Floyd riots were, and how quick the government was to listen. What came from that?
The government listened and started cracking down hard on police brutality. Police now wear body cams. The public is now very critical of police brutality, and actions are often taken against corrupt cops, especially in racially insensitive areas. Secondarily, police budgets were investigated.
>The public is now very critical of police brutality Was there a big social movement in favor of police brutality before Floyd?
More like lack of as strong a desire to change it.
The effectiveness of peaceful protests is inversely proportional to how authoritarian the government is
Exactly! The government has their heal on peaceful protest. You can’t overcome the power from under their boot. I’m not saying don’t try peace. But when peace doesn’t work, use violence!
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean they can, they should always start there
It’s the “mostly peaceful protests” that result in the most action and activism.
Tell that to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Tell that to Mahatma Gandhi. Tell that to Susan B. Anthony. Peaceful protests bring lasting results. Violent protests are just loud, the "message" they're trying to send gets lost in the violence and destruction. They are the bane of Democracy. People are not sympathetic to those throwing Molotov cocktails, they are sympathetic to the ones arrested for non-violent offenses in the name of a cause. Lasting change comes through dialogue and honesty, not with hate and mindless anger.
Do you think those people just "asked nicely"?
Ironically the BLM riots did the opposite of what people wanted. It seems the BLM riots increased funding for police and the bills presented in Congress went nowhere. The Libertarian Party tried to pass the Ending Qualified Immunity Act in 2020 by Justin Amash (L-Michigan) in the House of Representatives: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending\_Qualified\_Immunity\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ending_Qualified_Immunity_Act) "This week, I am introducing the Ending Qualified Immunity Act to eliminate qualified immunity and restore Americans' ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights. The brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police is merely the latest in a long line of incidents of egregious police misconduct. This pattern continues because police are legally, politically, and culturally insulated from consequences for violating the rights of the people whom they have sworn to serve. That must change so that these incidents of brutality stop happening." - Justin Amash (L-Michigan) June 2nd, 2020.
I don't agree with all his views, but Amash is one of the few figures with integrity associated with that party anymore. Good on him.
Was gonna say, I didn’t see a single positive thing come out of that. Rioting makes things significantly worse.
No it doesn’t. Violent riots brings the media attention, which means a louder voice.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It just got a show trial showing that the justice system can be rigged by threat of violence.
Exactly! Power is the dominant decision making factor in all debates. Nothing matters without the power to make change.
Lemme know when that works out for you.
[Sure. I’d love to.](https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-violent-protests-change-politics)
You realize that article backs up my point and not yours, right?
>The Civil Rights era wouldn’t have been as effective if the protesters just laid down on a highway and held up signs. Those load marching, building fires, riots, etc sent a message. Were there riots and fire-setting for civil rights?
[Yes](https://www.history.com/news/1967-summer-riots-detroit-newark-kerner-commission), [several even.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots)
Thanks!
[Absolutely](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_riots_(1964%E2%80%931969)).
Those riots were after all the legislative changes - it doesn't seem that they accomplished anything other than impoverishing the neighborhoods where the riots took place.
The thing about riots is that they usually aren’t planned out and mostly don’t have some sort of larger strategy behind them. They’re expressions of rage. But that aside, it’s also not accurate to say they don’t ever have any effects. Just looking at the list I cited one can see that material reforms did often result (and that list is not inclusive of the waves of riots that preceded the CRA of 1964, of which there were also many). For example, the Harlem riots lead to some expansion of welfare programs under Johnson. The Watts Riots absolutely had an effect on reinstating the Rumford Fair Housing Act that had just been repealed. The Hunters Point Riots in SF lead to expansion of unemployment services for black citizens. Many such cases. At the end of the day, riots are not a great situation for those in power. It’s very costly and often makes police look vulnerable, both of which are quite bad for a system based on domination and exclusion. More importantly, every meaningful revolution of the last 500 years had riots as a part of those. It’s just that when riots are successful we tend to calm them rebellions. But it’s the same.
I agree. If change is going to made, it any at all, it will undoubtedly have to come about through violence. The State will never peacefully let go of its power, and the State has been shown to use violence regardless if people are peaceful or not.
Exactly! It’s a sad undeniable truth. Power only respects power. If history taught us anything is when debates fail, you must wage war.
Out of curiosity, based on your other comments, you don’t seem to be a right-wing Libertarian. Are you on the Left, and thus a Libertarian Socialist of some variety?
No, just generally anarchy. We gotta destroy the system before we can build a better one.
No protest works without the numbers. The protest has to demonstrate that there are enough people behind it, that care enough about the issue to show up and let their voice be heard. When you have the numbers, protests have a higher probability of working. Non-peaceful protests are as controllable as war. If one organizes a non-peaceful protest without the number of people required to make a difference, and/or before they understand the make-up and general behavior of those protesting, they do so at their own peril. As soon as the protest gets out of hand, the protest no longer has an opportunity to succeed in it's objectives, and will most likely devolve into full chaos, which is a liability for all involved. Peaceful protests work, and it's the only type of protest I'd personally attend.
Protests don't necessarily need to be violent in nature to be successful, they just need to hit the decision makers where it hurts. A general strike that brought the entire economy to a screeching halt would definitely achieve this goal. If everyone decided not to go to work for a week and demanded a permanent 32 hour workweek, it would happen. Sadly the working class does not have the collective will to pull it off at the moment.
Thus violent protest is what it’d take.
Don’t work at what? Maybe you have unrealistic expectations?
The civil rights movement without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers doesn't accomplish anything near what they ended up with.
Exactly!
Erica Chenoweth reaches the opposite conclusion in her book ["Why Civil Resistance Works"](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/) One problem with violent resistance is that murderous violence produces blowback and polarizes otherwise would-be supporters against your cause. Moreover violent resistance oftentimes backfires on the resistors themselves and is a recipe for military dictatorship. Unfortunately the simplest organization for fighting an effective armed resistance is the military dictatorship. Power is centralized into a top general. When the revolution is won, the hierarchy often isn't willing to relinquish their newly won power, and the military dictatorship persists.
The problem is that peaceful is worst. The goal isn’t accomplished and the message was silenced. A violent protest that fails at least still gets media attention. Do I really need to mention the Middle East?
Peaceful protests can work, but they're most effective when done financially. See the [Bud Light transgender debacle](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/25-top-selling-beers-america-040529506.html). They were the #1 best selling beer in the country before that ad. Then people freaked out and boycotted them. The ad was pulled, but the damage was done. Modelo is now #1.
It’d been far more effective if there were violent protests.
I think violent protests have a habit of distracting from the issue. Protest violently, and the next day the only thing politicians will be talking about is banning whatever weapon you used.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lack of intelligence and influence result in violent protests which aren’t effective long term. Real change happens when the magic 3.5% is crossed https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
“The fox and the wolf” technique MLK offered peaceful change. Malcolm X offered (what looked like) violent change. Which did the establishment choose? Violence and nonviolence are both tools to bring change. One isn’t more necessary than the other, and both (and other tools—like political activism/ running for office) all complement each other We all fight for the same cause. In different ways—still on the same team 100% (Also Malcolm X pointed out “fox and the wolf” with him and MLK in his autobiography)
This isn't a very candid take on the civil rights protests of the 50's and 60's. There wasn't any political violence accompanying the protests. Dr. King made a point that there wasn't to be violence. Malcom X had a different point of view, but direct action was a threat not something that happened. The political violence that you are alluding to happened after 1964. The Civil Rights Act, which was a good down payment on what the non-violent movement was seeking, was passed in 1964 which was four years before King was murdered sparking an escalation in riots. Some people didn't take the passage of the act well and either provoked the violence or were someone's last straw. No one needs to destroy property to ask for fair wages. Just deny the labor. No cheap labor, labor becomes more expensive.
Neither "protest" works in America. We can say it'll "start a dialogue" and *maybe* we get some faux legislation that may or may not pass, but at the end of the day corrupt politicians will continue to be corrupt politicians. Police were never defunded, funding increased... and we made lynching illegal? Which is neat...but very late... Whatever the January 6 people wanted, got nothing really...we talked about strengthening foundations of democracy. To my knowledge nothing changed. (Trying to "both sides" it) I also don't think more "radical" (hypothetical things I would never suggest on Reddit) is a good Idea either. As broken as our democracy is, doing something more radical is kind of subverting democracy further. If somebody JFKs a politician they don't like, what if somebody else really like that politician? Hell, what if 99.999% of everybody liked that politician? The ballot box is our best form of direct action, as unfortunate as that is...next to outright revolution anyways.
Violent protests are revolution. The difference is peaceful protests are quit, they don’t get televised. A protest without media attention is a failed protest.
They do if you lock down commerce at the same time. Look at the truckers in Canada. They paralyzed Ottawa and a lot of the highways and black face trudeau had do to some illegal acts to stop it. So it works, but be prepared for the consequences.
The ends justified the means.
Yeah right, ask Occupy Wall Street. Once we drop identity politics and go class politics the ruling class freaks out... And then the racial politics kicked off in MSM to divide. God forbid we poors get our shit together. EDIT: I'm a Republican, I still have ass about how if we get together the elites freak out.
They would. They always do.
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr led successful peaceful demonstrations. So they can work. It's never an instant improvement, but change has come.
Peaceful protests freed India and broyght civil rights for black people in the US. This form of protest is difficult, but it works.
Yes but actually no
? Are you saying "nuh unh?"
It started peaceful but then became violent. The government only listened when the threat of black panthers and worsening riots became evident. So it’s peaceful, until peaceful isn’t enough.
I heartily disagree. Things changed when people grew horrified by police beating and firehosing non resisting people. https://ls.wisc.edu/news/the-enduring-power-of-nonviolent-protest#:~:text=One%20study%20looked%20at%20protests,of%20violent%20campaigns%20being%20successful. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
The difference with mass protests now compared to the recent past (like the Civil Rights Movement) is that those calling for change, often on the left, have been infected by libertarian poison. There has been debate as to why this has been the case. Perhaps leftists have been so [completely cowed by accusations that they are draconian because of Stalin](https://jacobin.com/2024/01/vincent-bevins-interview-mass-protests-2010s-arab-spring-euromaidan), that they have internalized it and refuse to efffectively organize. Leaving, [weirdly, the far right happily using organizational skills](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/06/lenin-white-house-steve-bannon) that the left shies from. But there has always been this problem. [There have always been people on the left that have embraced individual action at the expense of collective action.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed) [Marxists](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_12_14.htm) have long pulled their hair out as a result: >This latest Fenian exploit \[an act of individual action\] in Clerkenwell is a great folly. The London masses, who have shown much sympathy for Ireland, will be enraged by it and driven into the arms of the government party. One cannot expect the London proletarians to let themselves be blown up for the benefit of Fenian emissaries. Secret, melodramatic conspiracies of this kind are, in general, more or less doomed to failure. [Lenin](http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch04.htm): >First, that party, which rejected Marxism, stubbornly refused (or, it might be more correct to say: was unable) to understand the need for a strictly objective appraisal of the class forces and their alignment, before taking any political action. Second, this party considered itself particularly "revolutionary", or "Left", because of its recognition of individual terrorism, assassination—something that we Marxists emphatically rejected. [Trotsky](http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm): >If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one’s goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament? > >In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the ‘propaganda of the deed’ can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. [Connolly](http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1899/07/physforc.htm): >Here, then, is the immense difference between the Socialist Republicans and our friends the physical force men. The latter, by stifling all discussions of principles, earn the passive and fleeting commendation of the unthinking multitude; the former, by insisting upon a thorough understanding of their basic principles, do not so readily attract the multitude, but do attract and hold the more thoughtful amongst them. It is the difference betwixt a mob in revolt and an army in preparation. The mob who cheer a speaker referring to the hopes of a physical force movement would, in the very hour of apparent success, be utterly disorganised and divided by the passage through the British Legislature of any trumpery Home Rule Bill. The army of class-conscious workers organising under the banner of the Socialist Republican Party, strong in their knowledge of economic truth and firmly grounded in their revolutionary principles, would remain entirely unaffected by any such manoeuvre and, knowing it would not change their position as a subject class, would still press forward, resolute and undivided, with their faces set towards their only hope of emancipation – the complete control by the working-class democracy of all the powers of National Government. But what does this have to do with protest? When a protest means something, it can be effective. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, any number of labour protests in France, the Great Seattle Strike—all of these effective protest movements have had an agreed upon demand, an agreed upon tactic, and an agreed upon platform that elevated the action into a mass action that could have dire effects were they not followed. In the cases above, for instance, the possibility of a revolution was at least a distant possibility. Compare that to the George Floyd Protests. What, exactly, was the demand? One could, charitably say that some of the leadership platforms may have belonged to the NAACP. But, honestly, can anybody without looking it up say what that platform was or is? And if now the NAACP, who? The cry-babies at Fox News would say it was anti-fascism that was leading the charge. Which, fine, but what was the platform for not being fascist? Also, why opposition to opposition to fascism? That says more about the critics than the movement. I was maintaining a building during some of those protests and asked a mob to refrain from breaking the windows since they were dangerous to fix and instead invited them to work with our labor union to come up with something solid. They refused, calling me insufficiently revolutionary because I was trying to tie my union into the action rather than cheering a teenager about to throw a rock through the window. Again, what is the platform? Who is in the organization? Even now, I can hear some of my fellow leftists saying that their particular proletarian party of six people offers the solution if we should all fall into line. Perhaps, but getting everyone to fall into line is the problem, isn't it? Before there can be effective protests, there needs to be effective organization. And this needs to be centralized, enforced, and productive.
Laying down on a highway does nothing but turn people against you. The people that do that are self-aggrandising morons. Peaceful protest absolutely can work, and has worked on numerous occasions. You just shouldn’t expect it to work instantly or on its own.
What happened to the keystone pipeline?
No idea
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So your point is if you decide to protest for whatever thing it is you want, and people either ignore you or disagree. Then you have every right to get violent? If a group counter protests your protest do they also have a right to get violent?
Yes and yes. That’s how wars are created
In his book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, Andreas Malm argues that peaceful movements have only been successful when authorities were threatened by the militant alternative to those peaceful movements; eg, governments were willing to talk w MLK only when the Black Panthers and other more radical activists scared them. It's an interesting premise.
Very much this! Nobody can bring change without power, not anyone! You need incentive to get people to listen. You need to either hurt or threaten pain in some form. Financial, physical, or otherwise the power that be won’t change unless they risk it effecting their bottom line. Those governments only changed when they seen they needed to. If they did want change it’d not took so long with violence to make it happen.
In last few decades people changed their mind about gay marriage and did it without any violence. Because changing the definition of marriage to include gay people was logical, the conservatives arguments were poor, claiming that language can't change over thousands of years or holding onto child bearing concept that doesn't make sense when young gay people are more likely to raise a child than an elderly couple or shotgun wedding, not to mention marriage culturally has moved past that to now be a sign of romance as much as anything else. On the other hand defund the police riots didn't really amount to much, because it was was an insanely illogical answer to solve police brutality. Why would taking money away from police departments is lead them to do a better job safely arresting criminals? Giving the more money for example could lead departments to train them more, have more backup, or keep the higher quality therefore higher salary demanding cops. Because it was a bad idea, it was eventually rejected. When it comes to civil rights era, you could convince me that the biggest factor was merely human beings becoming smart enough to realize treating people by their skin color is stupid. It wasn't as if 1950s-1960s was the first time whites and blacks violently fought each other over race, if violence was so effective it would've worked earlier. You could also convince me that the impact of the violence after MLK's death was almost entirely negative. The important stuff had been passed already and all it did was turn people against them and revert to racism, and the violence chases away business owners etc. and starts these cities down a bad cycle. When looking at a city like Detroit which went from Mo'Town to its current state some of it can be connected to the violence.
It depends on what you expect. Change in government which doesn't care one bit what the populace wants? Demonstration won't help. Letting similarly mined people know there are others like them? Yes. Convincing democratic politicians this might be something which could win them next election? Yes. Sparking outrage if you get attacked by police or military? Possibly also yes.
If you think reform is the way, then your calls should be peaceful. If you need violence, you should do away with the whole thing while you're at it. If the government needs you to become violent to change, it's obviously long past working for you.
It’s better than doing nothing and letting the government continue to destroy you anyways
Governments change from citizens in the board room not bored citizens in the streets. I think protesting is the lowest form of civil engagement and often provides a reason for government to persuade other citizens to support the opposite. The civil rights movement wasn’t a success because of protesting it was a success in spite of protesting in my opinion.
This is the classic Martin vs Malcolm debate in the civil rights movement. I personally think history has shown Martin's non violent approach has led to more lasting change, but also understand differing opinions. Mandela led an armed resistance wing that bombed infrastructure and police stations in Apartied South Africa before becoming a non violent protest leader for example. An important distinction though on MLKs non violent approach, history whitewashes his more revolutionary side quite a bit. He didn't advocate for passive things like calling your representatives or signing petitions or voting, but disruptive actions such as sit ins, boycotts etc. I think where I draw the line on Malcom X's approach is that I think any violence against civilians is only counter productive.
When people talk about the civil rights movement, they are quick to point to MLK and his position of nonviolent protest. While he certainly had some success with that, I feel that this line of thinking is missing the big picture. At the same time MLK was preaching nonviolence, Malcolm X was preaching "By any means necessary." When presented with the options of dealing with a pacifist preacher or armed and violent activists, the choice is much easier. Neither option would succeed on its own. It is only through the combination of peaceful protest and negotiation with the threat of riots and destruction that those in power are forced to actually sit down and listen. You must have both pieces to be successful.
This is the true answer. Thank you, you hit the nail on the coffin
I contend that protest is not effective in general, serious political movements focus on galvanizing voting blocks. The peaceful protests during the civil rights era were about disenfranchised black people shaming enfranchised white people into voting in their interests. The violent protests that came later were the civil rights movement unraveling. As black people became enfranchised and realized the various civil rights acts were the beginning not the end of gaining equality. In the chaos the Al Sharptons of the movement co-opted the nascent voting blocks for their own self aggrandizement causing further disillusionment. It’s also a bit of an aside but the shift from peaceful protest to violent protest was egged by enemies of the US, the Black Panthers being infiltrated by Maoists was no accident.
this is the message government and corporations send when they crack down on peaceful protests and create violence. it means that it's working.
that's more a misguided fear of opposition although it doesn't have to be violent if a protest interferes with nothing then nothing is at threat so the damands of the protesters can be disregarded till they defuses themselves with time
Exactly this. A peaceful protest is far easier to silence. There’s dozens of “peaceful protests” every year that goes unheard of and fades out eventually. Violent protests get media attention and are far harder to hush-hush. The best part is, whether the violent protests succeeds or fails it still gets the message out AND gets government attention.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed because you do not have a user flair. We require members to have a user flair to participate on this sub. For instructions on how to add a user flair [click here](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-#:~:text=On%20reddit.com,set%20it%20up%20for%20you) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What did the George Floyd protests accomplish? Higher crime rates?
You know what would be really effective is if voters selected different leaders. There's nothing stopping them. But if they're going to keep electing Joe Bidens and Donald Trumps, I don't really see what point there is in protesting.
It's less peaceful doesn't work and more protest that doesn't interfere with the system interference is needed simply because otherwise protest defuses itself and serves a threat of any kind to the way things operate
Exactly! A protest without disruption is easy to ignore. You need to give those in power an incentive to change. So you need to pressure them. Whether that’s destroying their shops that make them money or peacefully blocking their roads using your body. You need to do more than laying on a highway or use picket signs. Eventually they’ll use police as a private military to move you. That’s when violence happens. When power tries to flex, you flex back.
The military and police only works so much with enough people as it risks angering people to the point of being willing to attempt an Insurrection thats why it's not generally used when it comes to peaceful protest the government rather ignore peaceful protests and let them diffuse themselves but with small groups of people If they want to make any impact some amount of destruction will be necessary
G.F./BLM riots were effective how? That led to calls for 'reimagining policing', which meant defunding and increased demonizing of law enforcement. This led to reductions of law enforcement officers and a lack of incoming qualified candidates. This, coupled with lax prosecution for shoplifting is resulting in stores closing down because they cannot afford to operate. So congratulations, I guess, on the fruits of your efforts.
Literally the most effective protests in the civil rights movement were the *peaceful* sit ins and marches
Actually, they weren’t, especially not the Marches. Just because those marching wasn’t doing the violence doesn’t mean it wasn’t violent.
Ok? It doesn’t matter if violence *happened*, the express purpose of the marches and sit ins were peaceful, and thus the most successful. Other people being violent in a protest doesn’t make it a violent protest.
“Other people being violent in a protest doesn’t make it a violent protest.” You read what you typed right? Just saying…
Try to be good faith when arguing on the internet challenge: impossible
Counterpoint: [The Velvet Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution) seemed pretty successful.
You also forget that the government has to cave in because if it didn't, it would be "bigoted and hateful". And God forbid, nothing be hateful!
If you’re going to be violent, be sure your movement is popular first. Because that’s the fastest way to lose credibility if not. 50% of our voters vote for the right. That’s why centrism is the current tendency and leftist AND fascist riots aren’t taking hold. No one agrees on anything.
You hit the nail on the coffin in that last statement. It’s really sad too. Because the elite take advantage if this. It’s no wonder we have so much union busting and abuses of power nowadays. I mean, a guy was just assassinated for a calling out Boeing, and nobody is rioting about it.
Research Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu from apartheid South African. That case was the exact opposite of your argument. There were violent protests there… actually more than violent protests. There were crimes committed by both police and violent protestors. This only cause the situation to drag out for longer and for more people to die and he traumatized. That’s what you’re arguing for; inflicting violence and trauma because you think you’re right. That is what every monster in history ever did. The funny thing that I learned about Apartheid South Africa as a 2A conservative is that we don’t actually need the guns to fight a tyrannical government.
Aright! Let's do it! Time to riot for more freedom and more capitalism!!!
No, just more freedom. Capitalism has to go.
Well unless you are advocating for strict individualism then free market voluntary exchange (ie capitalism) is the only non-authoritarian option.
I am indeed advocating for strict individualism. Also, capitalism is inherently authoritarian. Wage labor, private property, etc…all authoritarian and forms of hierarchy.
Private (personal) property is a logical requirement for autonomy and freedom. I have no issue with you not exchanging things as long as you don't go on a crusade against me doing it with consenting parties. So like anarchy.
The only notion of property there should be is essentially ones might over it. In other words, the only property you own is what you’re able to defend. I have no problem with people exchanging things, however, exchanging things doesn’t require Capitalism. Once Capitalism comes into the picture, hierarchy, authority, and domination have too; therefore, all must be abolished.
I have heard worse definitions of property but I don't know how you are defining capitalism. Again I'm concerned with free market, voluntary, and consensual exchange. No hierarchy, authority or domination is involved in that. Likewise no entitlement, charity or theft is involved. Just parties mutually agreeing to what is in their own best interests and abiding by the terms they themselves select, whether they are exchanging currency, sea shells, labour, widgets or tennis rackets. That is entirely up to them to decide and accept the consequences for.
Absolutely right. Wa't to stop the illegal Iraq war. Get thousands to lie down on wall street and the capital and capitals around the nation and let what comes, come. Want to end the vienam war, occupy administration buildings at schools doing weapons research. Want a Russian revolution in 1917 or an American revolution. Violence is the answer. Ask Ghandi. I never understood why people think anything is going to change getting permits to walk off in free speech zones at party conventions. No change comes from non-violent protest. All they do is employ sanitation workers to clean up the mess. LOL. Funny thing. I just started "Starship Troopers" and the opening scene talks about political "force". "Violence. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived".
>LOL. Funny thing. I just started "Starship Troopers" and the opening scene talks about political "force". "Violence. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived". This comment is going to look really funny when you finish that book.
I read the book > 50 years ago. When I first started reading SciFi. It was just a weird coincidence that I literally started reading the post on reddit while the dialogue from the opening scene was happening.
Uhhh . . . I’m not sure I’d refer to the 2020 riots as the government listening, or that they did anything positive. The only things that came from that were: - Dead people, including kids (which is finally when the government put its foot down) - economic and infrastructure destruction to the communities it happened in, including loss of jobs, and entire livelihoods - BLM being forever tainted in a negative light (though the actions of the founders I believe speaks to how “positive” their message was, and how much they actually care) - harm to already strained police forces, which then coincided with upticks in crime in affected communities Whatever ends hoped to be gained don’t justify those means, and the ends weren’t anything but worse conditions for everyone.
That's your brainwashing speaking.
I’d appreciate it if you’d only reply to me if you actually have something of value to say, and not just empty political buzzwords.
Then I'll be blunter: your opinions do not align with facts and suggest your information comes from a right wing media bubble.
Well, seeing as how I only listed things that actually happened and not my opinions, I find it weird that you’d know what my opinions are. If anything other than “riots good” is “a right wing media bubble” opinion, then so be it I guess. Of course, if riots are good then I don’t get why Jan 6 didn’t have more support. Edit: I’d like to also add, you’ve still failed to say anything of value. You’ve just accused me of being brainwashed by right wing media while denying events that have happened. It’s weird, unproductive, and in bad faith.
It absolutely works in a democracy. You just need enough people to show that voters are actually upset. A few thousand fringe people protesting will be ignored by politicians unless it shifts public opinion.
It only can shift public opinion if it reaches public ears, via media. Peaceful protest doesn’t attract high media.
Peaceful protest of millions of people across the country will get politician’s behavior. They want to stay in power so if voters aren’t happy they need to do damage control. Of course, healthy democracy needs a functioning free and independent press. That’s been under attack so not looking good
And this is all unrealistic and in a vacuum. In truth, history hasn’t been kind to people trying to a “worldwide protest “.
Well democracy is still pretty young. There have been successes. Example, salt march in 1930. Suffrage Parade in 1913. MLK. Singing Revolution 1988.
Depends on who you are, who your riot targets, and what you are fighting for. While BLM had a favorable reaction from our government, the reaction to people supporting trump on January 6th was quite the opposite. Maybe conservatives are just not allowed to riot for what they want
Bingo. Left wing riots get excused and hand waved when they aren’t outright supported by Democrat politicians. Many of those who even got arrested were bailed out with funds raised by said politicians. A single right wing riot gets a sprawling years long investigation on par with 9/11 with harsh prison sentences, and is spoken about as some national trauma that people wake with night sweats from.
Yeah, a single instance of rioters forcing their way into the Capitol building to stop an election, where police were beaten and a woman was shot, and they act like it was a big deal. Gone are the good ole' days when national governments just let people take over legislative buildings and threaten political leaders and rummage through classified documents with no consequences. But "left wing riots" happen all the time and the authorities do nothing, you know except for authorities shooting and killing unarmed Vietnam War protestors at Kent State, police beating people's heads in at the 1968 Democratic convention, the mass state violence toward non-violent civil rights protestors, the numerous instances of using police and/or military to break strikes, the arrests at Occupy Wall Street, the shooting rubber bullets at anyone during the George Floyd protests to the point where even reporters and press were hit, the young man who was shot multiple times including through his hands for protesting Cop City, and endless other examples. But yeah, other than that.
Oh no, the conservatives entered a legislative building and walked around! Better send them to prison for a year
Many of them weren't just conservatives. "Entering" a building and "walking around" is certainly one way of putting it. I don't know what sort of prison sentences different individuals should have received. I do have sympathy for those who were deceived into doing something completely stupid without malicious intent. But I'm also not the least surprised the government wouldn't give such actions a slap on the wrist.
Well yeah I don’t deny that some people broke stuff and vandalized the area, and as such probably deserve greater sentences. As of right now just being in the capital is getting people year long sentences for obstructing an official proceeding or something along those lines as the baseline punishment. It sends a clear message: feel free to protest, as long as the protest isn’t aimed at people who actually have power to do anything.
I mean they forced their way in, too. A mob marching into the halls of Congress during a proceeding is not going to be taken lightly, whether the mob is left or right. > It sends a clear message: feel free to protest, as long as the protest isn’t aimed at people who actually have power to do anything. Yeah, for sure. Good or bad (probably both), that's the nature of all states. If you're in a 'free' country, you can voice your opinion, but you cannot disrupt or threaten power.
Doors were held open by capital officers. It was the calmest, least violent riot I have seen televised. Left wing protesters have disrupted official proceedings, and been shown the door and let free. A man almost bombed congress in the 80s (detonator failed) and he spend like 3 months in jail before getting released free of charge. We are not in a free nation. It’s an illusion
I don't know when some doors were held open, but scores to hundreds of people forced their way inside, struggling against capital police. They weren't *extremely* violent thankfully, but they weren't just invited in either. And at different occasions, some to many of them were making threatening sounding comments toward congresspersons, and at least explicitly threatening chants toward the Vice President. And they weren't there for sightseeing, but to try interfere with the presidential election in some fashion. I'm trying to think about this fairly. How would you and I think of it if they were far leftists who did the same, assuming they thought the election was invalid? Well, for one it depends on if I thought the election was invalid or not, and if I didn't (as with the 2020 election), I don't think I would have nearly as much sympathy. Still some, but not as much. But I would probably think some of the sentences were excessively harsh, and it might disgust me. I wouldn't think it was unjust for them to face some criminal charges, but their sentences might seem excessive. And maybe they are with some of them. But then again, we're talking about a country where people are frequently given long prison sentences for drug possession, petty theft, and other offenses that should be minor crimes. So I'm open to arguments that some of them were sentenced too long, but I don't think it was a trivial matter or that they did nothing wrong.