Revolution 3.5%

[Zardnaar]

In previous threads I have mentioned how I am opposed to political violence because I think it's counter productive and usually fails.

I have seen figures previously at University iirc about overthrowing a government that requires 3% support. This seems to update it to 3.5%

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

It argued if you get 3.5% of the population being actively involved in non violent protest a revolution would succeed.

By active they mean willing to take to the streets. If you get that amount in the streets a far larger number probably agree with them.

Troops and police are also reluctant to fire on large groups of non violent protestors due to feats of friends and family being in the crowds.

Note revolutions can still fail. Success rates

Non violent 53%
Violent 26%

Still a high rate of failure either way. Police and Soldiers are a lot less reluctant to fire back if they're being fired on or having things (bricks, concrete, Molotov cocktails etc) thrown at them.

Violent revolutions also require weapons, secrecy and young men. Non violent can draw on greater numbers.

Not in the article the CCP had to bring in troops from other parts of China in 1989 in Beijing as the local troops didn't want to fire in the protestors. A tank driver didn't want to run over tank man. Not all revolutions succeed.

 

[Modder_Mode]

It depends on the livelihoods of the people protesting, if it's mostly unemployed people protesting then the impact won't be felt, if the protestors employment are part of a section of society that we all rely on heavily like transport (trucking, couriering etc.) then there could be a substantial impact and thus revolution could be successful.

As long as people have their smartphones, internet, TV's, fast food and microwave meals (governments know this will pacify their citizens) they're usually fairly content and might have a whinge at the family BBQ, but there's really no interest for them to overthrow a government, people will still virtue signal on Facebook to prove they are "doing their part" (some might remember the Kony incident a few years ago) but that's about as far as it would go. The Hong Kong protests are an interesting and unique one.

It's usually not until an issue starts to affect the middle or upper class elites that something gets done about it.

 

[Ferocitus]

If it doesn't succeed it's a rebellion, not a revolution.

I wonder what the authors of the book say about Mikheil Saakashvili who was one of the leaders of the "successful" Georgian revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili

How the authors define the duration until a revolution is deemed to be a success or not would be interesting. Saakashvili turned out to be such a corrupt nutjob that Ukrainian President Poroshenko (USA's good guy at the time, I believe) decided to appoint him the Governor of Odessa in 2015. What he did for Poroshenko to overturn his Ukrainian citizenship in 2017 (without giving a reason) would also be fascinating to know.

 

[DJNotNice]

I think it's pretty telling that the study stops at 2006...how many protests since then have been successful? Look at Hong Kong, more than a quarter of the population joined the protests at some point but the police force has subdued them for months with no confirmed deaths.

The author uses a lot of small countries in the post-WW2 era as examples; violent crackdowns by these types of governments would have warranted economic obliteration by sanctions. I'd say in general, the information age has drastically reduced the power of mass protests; a dedicated, equipped and loyal police force backed by state-of-the-art surveillance technology can enforce their will on a populace many times its number

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it's pretty telling that the study stops at 2006...how many protests since then have been successful? Look at Hong Kong, more than a quarter of the population joined the protests at some point but the police force has subdued them for months with no confirmed deaths.

The author uses a lot of small countries in the post-WW2 era as examples; violent crackdowns by these types of governments would have warranted economic obliteration by sanctions. I'd say in general, the information age has drastically reduced the power of mass protests; a dedicated, equipped and loyal police force backed by state-of-the-art surveillance technology can enforce their will on a populace many times its number

Hong Kongs only a small % of China's population.

You would need 50 million+ Chinese supporting them actively (protesting, fighting etc).

A million man March in Washington DC won't do much but 11 million nationwide will be more effective.

Note that a lot if revolutions still fail.

The first thing an autocratic regime died or even flawed democracies do is limit the flow of information.

The new way is apathy rather than over the top brainwashing if Nazi Germany or the USSR. *****ing and moaning in Stalins USSR could get you killed and it was iffy in Nazi Germany. You've got more leeway now in most places as long as you don't protest or join certain organizations.

Some countries are making VPNs illegal now.

 

[DJNotNice]

Hong Kongs only a small % of China's population.

HK is part of China now? Be careful, that's commie talk

You're absolutely right about apathy being the new way, especially in the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size shows that the top 3 all have happened since Trump, do you think these protests have been effective?

 

[Zardnaar]

HK is part of China now? Be careful, that's commie talk

You're absolutely right about apathy being the new way, especially in the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size shows that the top 3 all have happened since Trump, do you think these protests have been effective?

The only protest that really matters is election day or ones that are really really big.

If you had 10 million people protesting at on e right across the states that's impressive.

Protests are really a safety lid to let people blow off steam. And they're easily ignored or dismissed.