I was surprised and then dismayed to find out that "if you mobilize 3.5% of the population, you win" and "nonviolent movements are more successful than violent ones" are from the same Chenoweth research. I had thought that these two beliefs were independent bad beliefs afflicting contemporary social movements, but they're connected.
The "nonviolent movements" claim is from data misclassification. "3.5%" is from confusing correlation with causation.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
I'm not even sure where to start with the 3.5% one. I could read the publications in question and go over them bit by bit but I have far too much to do, and I suspect that "3.5%" is about to die as a belief anyway.
There is an entire contemporary social science theory about revolutions that is not from hopeful leftists who may be experts in economics (Marx, etc.) It says that revolutions happen when the essential structure supporting the state fails.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
In this view, in some sense revolutions are always waiting to happen and a certain kind of state failure causes them -- not merely immiserating the population, but the system changing so that elites can no longer be supported by it.
Imagine that this theory is correct. Wow you'd see 3.5% of the pop in the streets just before each big social turnover.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
Does that mean that the chain of causation could go the other way? No it doesn't. According to this theory, if the basic mechanism of the state is still supporting the elites they will crush whatever popular movement is there.
Contemporary communications are really good at getting a large % of the population into the streets for a couple of days. Will that work by itself? No.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
If communications make it easy to turn people out, they also make it easy to turn counter-people out.
The US Iraq War protests involved, by some measure, 5% of the US population making some public demonstration against the war. They also involved 20% of the population making some demonstration for the war.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
At any rate I have to get back to work. I understand why people like this theory: it's an easy "numbers go up" theory. But i don't know of any successful movement that took this correlative description as a goal and then succeeded.
/fin
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@richpuchalsky
Thank you. So that proportion is not the goal and in any case there must be clear demands for a movement to succeed at anything. But assuming a clearly stated demand and enough solidarity to sway the financial class to abide by the terms of the demand, the logic is sound and it has succeeded in plenty of cases. Union strikes are maybe the clearest example. So you are pointing this out because we need to know the actual numbers we need and a low goal like 3.5% is likely being used as a means of misleading activists into movements that will easily be suppressed like Occupy Wall Street was, right?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from resl@kolektiva.social
@resl
"Clear demands" are not it -- many movements have succeeded with unclear demands. "Solidarity" isn't really it, although it may be necessary though not sufficient: movements with good solidarity have been crushed. What's needed is leverage. What is the critical point supporting the current state of affairs?
For instance the US Civil Rights Movement. The critical point was US/USSR ideological competition. US couldn't be seen as despotic to its satellites.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@resl
Parenthetically, "union strikes" are not really a good example. They succeed in winning better wages and conditions for the workers involved, and have broad social effects if a large % of the pop is unionized. But they don't change the basic relationship between worker and employer. Successful unions win their workers a higher percentage of profits, then settle down to defend their employers and industry against the rest of the public.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@resl @richpuchalsky
So far as I can tell (just my reading), what's required for the "mass movement in the streets" model to work is:
enough numbers, with enough solidarity and support, to occupy the centre of the capital city and completely stop business as usual for 6-8 weeks.
This includes resisting and overcoming the extreme force and violence the system is willing to deploy during that time.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from RhinosWorryMe@climatejustice.social
@RhinosWorryMe @resl
Since just about any regime will be willing to call out the tanks to crush this kind of movement, and since I don't really think that contemporary movements are capable of standing up in combat to contemporary armies, I don't think that this works unless the regime is ready to crumble and the armed forces aren't loyal to the elite. It's a step in the chain of causality but depends on earlier ones.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@richpuchalsky @resl
Bigtime. I wasn't saying we're at that stage. But it's important to know in detail what "that stage" is.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from RhinosWorryMe@climatejustice.social
@RhinosWorryMe
It's notable that "6-8 weeks" is not really the best guideline. The beginning of all this in our communal imaginary is the Paris Commune, which occupied the capital, stopped all business etc. It was militarily crushed after 2 months.
If it had taken 6 months to mobilize the armies, I don't think that would have been significantly different.
@resl
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@richpuchalsky @resl
As I say, a very rough estimate based on what I saw in a load of examples.
If the French hadn't been able to get troops into their own capital city for 6 months? Yeah, I do think things might have been different, because something serious would have had to be going on to cause that.
But I'm not strongly wedded to it, and the Commune isn't my specialist subject. Is there a figure you'd suggest instead?
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from RhinosWorryMe@climatejustice.social
@RhinosWorryMe
The something serious was in this case the invasion by Germany. If Germany hadn't been led by Bismarck, who never had wanted a protracted war, it could have lasted much longer.
There isn't any definite figure I'd suggest. Basically, the capital isn't the country. It's def a bad sign if the country loses control of it for protracted periods but it's not fatal unless what happened to the capital is also happening elsewhere.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@RhinosWorryMe
There's a lot of intra-left dispute and I'm not sure whether it's even worth referring to now. "Blanqism", for example, was supposed to be a belief that a small, expert cadre could take over and make a revolution. People routinely criticized e.g. Lenin for it but Lenin's revolution succeeded because the Tzarist state was crumbling for other reasons and his cadre was there to take advantage of it.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social
@RhinosWorryMe
Basically, my mental model goes:
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from richpuchalsky@mastodon.social This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini