"The nonviolent campaigns in the data had about a two-to-one advantage in success rate over the violent campaigns.”

This episode of the Social Science Bites talking with Erica Chenoweth about political violence and why non-violent resistance is more successful is really interesting.

If you've got 20 minutes while you're making dinner or doing some chores, I recommend giving it a listen!


@frankiesaxx Do they go into the dynamic of how effective "reasonable" resistance is depending on how much "unreasonable" resistance is going on?

They never used the terms reasonable or unreasonable resistance. I'm not sure what that is.

@frankiesaxx "moderates" and "extremists". Violence or no fits on this spectrum, I think.
@frankiesaxx Like, would the nonviolent campaigns be as effective without violent campaigns as an unspoken threat?

"[ . . . ] you can get more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word."

-- probably Professor Irwin Corey

@clacke It seems like the research indicates yes? It's just a short interview and I'd like to read the book, but one of the points they talked about was inclusiveness, and how more people are able to participate in nonviolent resistance movements, and the types of people that are able to participate - women and children especially - can be a factor that moderates a potentially violent response from authorities

@frankiesaxx I listened to it, and she answers my question completely. They counted nonviolent movements with violent flanks as nonviolent, but later they also dug into the different nonviolent movements, and the pure nonviolent ones were more successful.

The critical factor is mass participation, and the violence puts people off. Plus that successful violent campaigns put violent people in charge and thus won't lead to a democratic aftermath.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!