Violent Versus Nonviolent Revolutions: Which Way Wins?

That may explain why the feminist movement has succeeded. It makes sense. In contrast, you look at the rowdy groups like Occupy Wall St, which consists of young men, socially and radically trying to change the system through traditionally revolutionary means. Force and intimidation can be strong motivational tools, because you get to the point. There's no beginning or middle, only an end. And they have failed to achieve attention to their concerns or causes. But does it only consist of the rebel Democrat? Highly unlikely.

How many times have you heard from the left about the rights obsession with guns? Plenty. And the right have socially engaged in traditional forms of revolutionary means, like protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, looking to take away your guns. The threats, cautionary tales, and paranoia can make you engage in this free fall state where you feel threatened. Many times it feels so real that when the utter mention of Obama is going to take away your guns becomes fixated, you look to counter back, when the NRA emotionally builds up support to their cause. But is far from a run away government: If I had a nickel for the solution to solve complex problems by using a gun I'd be rich by now.

But it is interesting how this study is accurately portrayed. To be fair, is only from 1900 and to the present. I think is fair to say that before 1900, the only way to bring change was through violence. We are used to it. Slavery needed violence and war; the revolution needed violence; the barbarian invasion of Rome needed violence(and a lesson in life); and the Nazi invasion needed violence to end the ugliest World War in history. Is probably a guy thing. Actually, I'm quite certain. We men can be stubborn animals.

Hey Doug,

I've looked but can't find any website listing the weekend debate's abstract or and audio-visual link. Wasn't it recorded?

Great post. When did Rob and Joan come to ASU? I bet you're tickled pink.

TED Menlo Park is coming up soon. . . . : )

Interesting article, and I think the thesis is probably correct as a general summary statement. But I wonder about this nice tidy classification of revolutions into violent and nonviolent. Seems the devil is in the details, and there is far too much latitude to customize the data to suit a predetermined conclusion.

Just for starters:

The ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood from power in Egypt. As a movement it was famously nonviolent, even as government cracked down violently on what some believe is the largest mass demonstration movement in history -- certainly the largest popular revolt in Egyptian history. Classify as nonviolent? Okay I'm for that, but consider: the success of the revolt was very much in question until the army chose sides and stepped in -- if not with a great deal of actual violence, certainly with a credible and substantial threat thereof. Surely the actuality or scale of violence is not the key issue but the factual nature of its present threat and the key role that played in the success of the revolt. I would say this was a violent revolution that -- fortuitously -- involved a relatively low level of actual violence.

Mandela. If anything this is vageuely like a time-reversal of the above example. The ANC began as a terrorist group that used violence to attempt to achieve their ends. Later under Mandela's moral (if not actual) leadership it became a largely peaceful movement. Does converting, in later stages, to a peaceful movement qualify it as peaceful? Also consider that under the leadership of his wife the movement continued in its violent activities long after Mandela himself, still in prison, is purported to have come around to deciding to pursue his goals through peaceful means.

I wonder if both examples above should each be regarded as two revolutions -- in the former case an unsuccessful peaceful revolution followed by a successful violent one; the later an unsuccessful violent revolution followed by a peaceful one?

What of the Palestinian uprising? Youths throwing rocks ... yes, that is "violent" but the whole point of it has been to provide visuals of a reversal of the old David/Goliath story, with bare-fisted youth facing soldiers with sophisticated weapons, so (by contrast) non-violent. Yet, as one digs deeper it becomes evident that "non-violent" is also not an appropriate characterization -- thousands of rocket attacks, for one. But, whichever way one characterizes it, there remains the question of whether it was successful. Within a year of the first intifadah they had largely managed to establish Al Aqsa as Judenrein. That was a "goal" but not the overarching goal, which was to do the same for all of Palestine -- a clear failure.

Numerous other examples present themselves, demonstrating that it is problematic to purport to neatly classify such political movements as either "violent" or "non-violent" and as "success" versus "failure".

My Qu should i fine sh my last violence or not, she has pôöuôülo

I think these findings only apply in anglo saxon countries or in those countries that were colonnies of those countries,like India,South Africa. In Latin America,specially when protestsw are against comunist parties in power peaceful resistance is useless , see the case of Cuba and right now the case of Venezuela. If the army does not support protesters they will not achieve anything. This also applies to China and Rusia where dissent only meets bullets.

doubt that your advocated method work in the middle east :)

I can safely say that 5 years later, peaceful methods have ceased to be a viable option. Westerners have gotten way too complacent. To protest peacefully, is to let the opposition have their way. Arm up.

I would have to theorize that when victory is achieved nonviolently, it may be less of a victory then you perceive. Those in power do not simply concede without some hidden agenda making them feel like they are getting something out of it that actually makes them victorious. With every step the feminist movement makes which they view as another victory towards gender equality, my life has become a screaming reminder of how you have to be careful what you ask for. I wish the feminist movement never began.