Disruption and obstruction can force concessions without explicit violence.
(Edit: To clarify, I’m not claiming that violence can’t achieve anything, because we all know it can. I’m saying that nonviolence can also achieve things, because the key component isn’t the exact tool, but the strategy of using it.)
The Montgomery Bus Boycott achieved its goal without it by demonstrating the economic significance of black passengers. The Nashville Sit-ins won through the resilience of its participants without fighting back. The message in each case was “We’re going to continue being a problem until we get what we want.” The Civil Rights Movement in general achieved a lot of victories simply by being a persistent, well-coordinated nuisance.
Their discipline in staying non-violent even in the face or cruel injustice was a psychological weapon, which can win battles without firing bullets. It drew attention to that injustice, dominated news cycles until people could no longer look away. If media thrive on outrage, police violence is more effective than police suppressing terrorists.
The mistake that people make is to conflate peaceful, “polite”, lawful protest with non-violence: Protests need to be a problem. I can ignore people chanting whatever in the streets, but I can’t ignore them disrupting businesses and obstructing public places. I can try suppressing them with violence, but what if that doesn’t work, if they keep coming?
There’s a book on the topic, “Waging a good war” by Thomas E. Ricks that I found quite enlightening. The important takeaway is that there are multiple ways to win a war, and defeating the opposition’s will can work without actual violence, but the key part is still a military level of discipline and planning.
The Civil Rights Movement in general achieved a lot of victories simply by being a persistent, well-coordinated nuisance.
It achieved a lot because in addition to those nuisances you had groups like the black Panthers demonstrating that should they not be respected they will use the means they need to enact their change. Don’t be so willfully ignorant of the past.
If violence was so ineffective at creating change militaries would not exist. Those who wish to oppress you will do so by any means necessary, combating that oppression takes the same resolve. You dont get any where by tolerating intolerance.
The Black Panthers, founded 1966, had nothing to do with the fact that people started avoiding the malls in Nashville because of the violence that had transpired there in 1960, or the fact that four thousand people confronted the mayor about his failure to stop that violence. Violence, critically, that could not be pinned on the demonstratively nonviolent students, who then made a point of doing their penal labour with the enthusiasm of youths trying to prove that they’re not, in fact, troublemakers, but actually cooperative community members.
That violence can achieve things is hardly novel, nor do I deny it. It is a tool, and if used right, it can effect change. The trouble the US had with the insutgents in the middle east is a wonderful example of the power that well-supported and organised resistance can achieve with violence.
I simply deny the claims that it’s the only effective tool, nor that it is effective by itself.
The Panthers, for all their laudable bravery, lacked the rigorous discipline and organisation of the CORE, SNCC or SCLC. Once people flocked to their image of militant resistance, they lost their grassroots nature of feeding kids and treating the sick. They made a half-hearted attempt to stop the law against carrying loaded weapons in public, but it turns out that thirty people with guns who didn’t even know the way can’t have the same impact as a few thousand people without guns marching in stoic unity. They also lacked the political appeal: While the firefighters in Birmingham (1963) eventually refused to keep turning their fire hoses on children at the police’s behest, no such qualms were had about attacking militant insurgents.
The key with any tool is to use it correctly. If you’re gonna pick a fight with the state, make sure you’re better prepared than the Panthers. Learn from their mistakes, learn from the successes of the SNCC and SCLC and learn some military theory about targeting the will of the opponent rather than reducing war to pure bloodshed.
If you don’t want to read a book, maybe a blog post is more digestible?
Disruption and obstruction can force concessions without explicit violence.
(Edit: To clarify, I’m not claiming that violence can’t achieve anything, because we all know it can. I’m saying that nonviolence can also achieve things, because the key component isn’t the exact tool, but the strategy of using it.)
The Montgomery Bus Boycott achieved its goal without it by demonstrating the economic significance of black passengers. The Nashville Sit-ins won through the resilience of its participants without fighting back. The message in each case was “We’re going to continue being a problem until we get what we want.” The Civil Rights Movement in general achieved a lot of victories simply by being a persistent, well-coordinated nuisance.
Their discipline in staying non-violent even in the face or cruel injustice was a psychological weapon, which can win battles without firing bullets. It drew attention to that injustice, dominated news cycles until people could no longer look away. If media thrive on outrage, police violence is more effective than police suppressing terrorists.
The mistake that people make is to conflate peaceful, “polite”, lawful protest with non-violence: Protests need to be a problem. I can ignore people chanting whatever in the streets, but I can’t ignore them disrupting businesses and obstructing public places. I can try suppressing them with violence, but what if that doesn’t work, if they keep coming?
There’s a book on the topic, “Waging a good war” by Thomas E. Ricks that I found quite enlightening. The important takeaway is that there are multiple ways to win a war, and defeating the opposition’s will can work without actual violence, but the key part is still a military level of discipline and planning.
It achieved a lot because in addition to those nuisances you had groups like the black Panthers demonstrating that should they not be respected they will use the means they need to enact their change. Don’t be so willfully ignorant of the past.
If violence was so ineffective at creating change militaries would not exist. Those who wish to oppress you will do so by any means necessary, combating that oppression takes the same resolve. You dont get any where by tolerating intolerance.
The Black Panthers, founded 1966, had nothing to do with the fact that people started avoiding the malls in Nashville because of the violence that had transpired there in 1960, or the fact that four thousand people confronted the mayor about his failure to stop that violence. Violence, critically, that could not be pinned on the demonstratively nonviolent students, who then made a point of doing their penal labour with the enthusiasm of youths trying to prove that they’re not, in fact, troublemakers, but actually cooperative community members.
That violence can achieve things is hardly novel, nor do I deny it. It is a tool, and if used right, it can effect change. The trouble the US had with the insutgents in the middle east is a wonderful example of the power that well-supported and organised resistance can achieve with violence.
I simply deny the claims that it’s the only effective tool, nor that it is effective by itself.
The Panthers, for all their laudable bravery, lacked the rigorous discipline and organisation of the CORE, SNCC or SCLC. Once people flocked to their image of militant resistance, they lost their grassroots nature of feeding kids and treating the sick. They made a half-hearted attempt to stop the law against carrying loaded weapons in public, but it turns out that thirty people with guns who didn’t even know the way can’t have the same impact as a few thousand people without guns marching in stoic unity. They also lacked the political appeal: While the firefighters in Birmingham (1963) eventually refused to keep turning their fire hoses on children at the police’s behest, no such qualms were had about attacking militant insurgents.
The key with any tool is to use it correctly. If you’re gonna pick a fight with the state, make sure you’re better prepared than the Panthers. Learn from their mistakes, learn from the successes of the SNCC and SCLC and learn some military theory about targeting the will of the opponent rather than reducing war to pure bloodshed.
If you don’t want to read a book, maybe a blog post is more digestible?
Against the State – A Primer on Terrorism, Insurgency and Protest