“When and Why Civil Resistance Works Against Authoritarian Regimes”: Foreign Affairs

article:

Between 1900 and 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance against authoritarian regimes were twice as likely to succeed as violent movements. Nonviolent resistance also increased the chances that the overthrow of a dictatorship would lead to peace and democratic rule. This was true even in highly authoritarian and repressive countries, where one might expect nonviolent resistance to fail. Contrary to conventional wisdom, no social, economic, or political structures have systematically prevented nonviolent campaigns from emerging or succeeding. From strikes and protests to sit-ins and boycotts, civil resistance remains the best strategy for social and political change in the face of oppression. Movements that opt for violence often unleash terrible destruction and bloodshed, in both the short and the long term, usually without realizing the goals they set out to achieve. Even though tumult and fear persist today from Cairo to Kiev, there are still many reasons to be cautiously optimistic about the promise of civil resistance in the years to come.

more–very clear, despite the inevitable judgment calls about who counts as “(mostly) nonviolent”; & they go through why & how nonviolent resistance builds broader coalitions. Hopeful, but very aware that you can do everything right and still lose. Not enough about USA as exporter of violence, though you do get some of that. Via Ivan Plis maybe?