Nonviolence

Violence vs. Nonviolence as a Paired Strategy

• A recurring claim: nonviolence only works when backed by a credible threat of violence from aligned but separate actors (“good cop / bad cop” at movement scale).
• Argument: power-holders can ignore purely nonviolent protest, but not those willing to use force; negotiation with moderates becomes attractive compared to radicals.
• Counterargument: this risks justifying violence and ignores that violent factions often alienate the public and shrink support.

Empirical Claims about Movement Success

• Several comments cite research on ~600 movements since 1900 claiming:
  • Less violent campaigns succeed more often (roughly 40% vs 25%).
  • Nonviolent movements are more likely to lead to democratic outcomes.
• Others challenge causality and raise survivorship bias: less promising movements may be more likely to turn violent.
• The popular “3.5% rule” is discussed; some see it misused as a magic threshold, others note even its authors warn against over-reading it.

Historical Examples and Disputes

• US civil rights and Indian independence are seen by some as succeeding partly because of background riots, armed groups, and global pressures (e.g., postwar Britain), not just principled nonviolence.
• Others stress that women’s rights and abolitionist campaigns show nonviolent moral arguments can succeed, though critics reframe these as driven by economic shifts (industrialization, labor markets).
• There is debate over how much parallel “militant” figures actually influenced concessions, and whether that’s historically substantiated.

Moral Frameworks: Agape vs Utilitarian Pacifism

• Some distinguish a deep, love-based nonviolence (agape, “exiting the domination paradigm”) from tactical nonviolence used simply because it “works.”
• Concern: without such a moral framework, movements treat nonviolence as a gambit and may abandon it once they gain power.

State Violence, Everyday Life, and Social Contract

• Several comments argue everyday “nonviolent” order actually rests on the state’s monopoly on violence (police, courts, eviction, fines).
• Hypotheticals (e.g., being illegally locked out of housing with no legal recourse) are used to argue that when institutions fail, turning to direct force becomes understandable.
• Others insist most people act nonviolently out of norms and trust, not fear of punishment.

Modern Protest and Media Dynamics

• Some see contemporary mass protests as ritualized “rights exercises” with no escalation path, thus easy for authorities to ignore.
• Media coverage is said to reward spectacle; there’s a cynical suggestion that a small “unassociated” violent wing can amplify visibility while the main body stays nonviolent for optics.
• Nonviolent resistance is also framed as broad-based disruption and quiet sabotage, not just marches.

Limits and Preconditions of Nonviolence

• Multiple comments stress that nonviolence presupposes some “moral audience” capable of shame or persuasion; in contexts of extreme repression or low empathy, its efficacy is questioned.
• Others maintain that, even then, violence tends to destroy social fabric and carries long-term costs that often outweigh short-term gains.