The DHS secretary also argued to the reporter that she doesn’t know of “any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign."
The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it’s categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.
Personally, I don’t think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it’s useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it’s actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don’t listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.
In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.
The autocrat supports oligarchs, who use their influence to keep the autocrat in power.
For example, Musk, Bezos, Zucc, contributing many millions in campaign donations to support republicans.
My point is, if public sentiment turns against these oligarchs and is expressed through boycotts, they may withdraw their support for the autocrat. The problem of course is the amount of money Trump is funneling to them in the form of grants and tax cuts. It will be difficult to exceed that.
The problem with that rule is that it says you have to be perfectly peaceful and roll over. For example, though it’s categorized as a non-violent movement, the civil rights movement in the US had a fairly large violent wing as well. Also, the non-violent wing was said to be violent by the media of the time.
Personally, I don’t think non-violence alone can accomplish the goals. I think it’s useful to show the regime how much support there is, and how much force is available if it’s actually needed. The violent wing also needs to be there though causing actual damage that they can witness. They need to see what will happen if they don’t listen. The non-violent group will begin increasingly supporting the violent group.
In order to cause real change, there needs to be a credible threat. They don’t care if you politely ask for change. They care if they’re in danger. That’s all authoritarian regimes ever care about. Not the will of the people.
Ok but money is a credible threat.
Dr Jack Goldstone was talking about this on ologies podcast episode about revolutions.
The autocrat supports oligarchs, who use their influence to keep the autocrat in power.
For example, Musk, Bezos, Zucc, contributing many millions in campaign donations to support republicans.
My point is, if public sentiment turns against these oligarchs and is expressed through boycotts, they may withdraw their support for the autocrat. The problem of course is the amount of money Trump is funneling to them in the form of grants and tax cuts. It will be difficult to exceed that.