I don’t lead a military that can compete with that of the USA.
I only have philosophy and history to offer in these times.
Power is not intrinsic to rulers. Gene Sharp says that the sources of the ruler’s power ‘depend intimately upon the obedience and cooperation of the subjects’.
I’m not sure what you are implying should be done. But we have to start somewhere.
I’d agree if they were trying to force you to “work the fields”. A protest that’s non disruptive and costs who you’re protesting against nothing is complete passivity.
If enough people show that they will not comply with the regime, it will cause problems for them.
Eventually, even if a protest is peaceful and non-disruptive, the regime will be forced to act against the demonstration and cause a disruption where the regime shows both their brutality and their lack of true power.
Think of what your reaction would be if you saw a parent striking a 5 year old in public. Would you think that parent is in control of the situation?
Ultimately, once the regime starts to use violence against non-violent resisters, that’s when the resistance gains power. And if the resisters continue to use non-violence despite the brutality, they will gain sympathy from anyone on the fence.
At some point, they will even gain support of the military and law enforcement which has been applying the brutal crackdowns under order of the regime. And those enforcers might even refuse orders and that’s when the regime begins to topple.
This has been a proven strategy to fight authoritarian regimes in history. If you are interested, please read one of the books above in the comments.
It has almost NEVER worked against any regime. Not at any point in history.
Also, 100,000,000 people in a peaceful protest to express not being happy about the regime doesn’t make the regime go away or hurt them. You haven’t gave them less power, less money, less control, or more fear.
You got in a pile to let them know you were unhappy, and then you went back to work.
The closest thing that I can recall a truly peaceful thing changing the minds of a regime was all the way back when Mr. Roger’s got our government to continue funding public television…We couldn’t even get a 40 hour work week without bombs and like 100 people dying.
There most certainly have been successful overthrows of authoritarian regimes throughout history. The most well known one is when India made the British give them independence.
I’m not an expert, or even a pacifist, but I do want to limit death as much as possible.
Just because some historical events used violence, that does not mean that all must. In fact if we engage an authoritarian regime militarily, we are attacking the regimes strongest advantage. Instead, it is the regime’s weak points that should be taken advantage of.
I don’t hold a high government office.
I don’t lead a military that can compete with that of the USA.
I only have philosophy and history to offer in these times.
Power is not intrinsic to rulers. Gene Sharp says that the sources of the ruler’s power ‘depend intimately upon the obedience and cooperation of the subjects’.
I’m not sure what you are implying should be done. But we have to start somewhere.
I’m implying that Trump and his supporters don’t give a shit about your books, or your protests, or your philosophy.
And Trump’s US subjects are obedient and cooperating with his maligned agenda. They’re simply going to laugh at your protests.
Maybe, but I’ll never comply with a fascist. I would rather choose death over giving them the smallest degree of legitimacy.
And if more Americans felt the same way, we could start a movement that could remove the regime.
If only one person reads one of the books I posted, it’s a step in the right direction.
If that where true, you wouldn’t choose passivity.
Non violent resistance is not passive
I’d agree if they were trying to force you to “work the fields”. A protest that’s non disruptive and costs who you’re protesting against nothing is complete passivity.
If enough people show that they will not comply with the regime, it will cause problems for them.
Eventually, even if a protest is peaceful and non-disruptive, the regime will be forced to act against the demonstration and cause a disruption where the regime shows both their brutality and their lack of true power.
Think of what your reaction would be if you saw a parent striking a 5 year old in public. Would you think that parent is in control of the situation?
Ultimately, once the regime starts to use violence against non-violent resisters, that’s when the resistance gains power. And if the resisters continue to use non-violence despite the brutality, they will gain sympathy from anyone on the fence.
At some point, they will even gain support of the military and law enforcement which has been applying the brutal crackdowns under order of the regime. And those enforcers might even refuse orders and that’s when the regime begins to topple.
This has been a proven strategy to fight authoritarian regimes in history. If you are interested, please read one of the books above in the comments.
It has almost NEVER worked against any regime. Not at any point in history.
Also, 100,000,000 people in a peaceful protest to express not being happy about the regime doesn’t make the regime go away or hurt them. You haven’t gave them less power, less money, less control, or more fear.
You got in a pile to let them know you were unhappy, and then you went back to work.
The closest thing that I can recall a truly peaceful thing changing the minds of a regime was all the way back when Mr. Roger’s got our government to continue funding public television…We couldn’t even get a 40 hour work week without bombs and like 100 people dying.
There most certainly have been successful overthrows of authoritarian regimes throughout history. The most well known one is when India made the British give them independence.
30+ Examples of nonviolent campaigns and how they were successful
Mightier than the sword: The unexpected effectiveness of nonviolent resistance
I’m not an expert, or even a pacifist, but I do want to limit death as much as possible.
Just because some historical events used violence, that does not mean that all must. In fact if we engage an authoritarian regime militarily, we are attacking the regimes strongest advantage. Instead, it is the regime’s weak points that should be taken advantage of.