If nonviolence gets you want you want, you don't resort to violence in the first place. Did the author account for this and consider whether resistance categorized as violent began as nonviolent?

The conclusions are more nuanced than the headlines. Her data shows that violent and non-violent methods often work in tandem. It tends to be different factions of the same movement using different methods, and they tend not to like each other. The more violent faction says the peaceful faction is naive, while the peaceful faction finds violent methods unconscionable.

More people will tend to join the peaceful faction, perhaps because it's easier to join the side that isn't asking morally gray things of them. However, the violent side plays a more direct role in undermining the system of oppression.

I would ask her to correlate them with existence of violent movements alongside.

The MLK-Malcolm X dichotomy

In short, the presence of a militant option alongside your nonviolent option is quite useful in compelling the opposition to your side because the other option is the militant one.

That’s cool n shit, but I’m for hanging tyrants by the balls.

Laughable methodology, painfully transparent motive. This is propaganda.

What about this kind of protest?

Are the two even comparable in terms of motivation? Violent resistance often stem from the motivation to bring replacement of the current system rather than reform. Often ending up as "resistance" because they lack logistics and resources.

Its kind of pithy but like we still live in a capitalist hellscape, so have any resistances really been successful?

They produce change but only incremental, impotent change that just temporarily assuages the protestor back into submission while fueling a false sense of accomplishment.

Its gonna happen again in the US and they will vote in more neoliberal shills while thinking they've won.

...all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions.

323, in over 100 years. And they are exuding campaigns that did not work? I would assume there have been 10s of thousands of protests in that time that where non-violent and also ineffective. Why are they not included? What would make a campaign go from non-violent to violent? What constitutes a campaign, is it non-violent in whole or only part? I would check but I need to buy their book.

I can not even think of any movement that resulted in territorial or government change that did not involve some form of violence. This study does not seem to pass the sniff test.

I'm trying to find the data around the "data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables" and am not finding it. Closest I find is the excerpt from their book here https://muse.jhu.edu/article/760088 which tells a rather mixed story.

I understand this was posted within the context of ongoing events in LA. Of note in the research being shared here is the goal of "overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation" which I think is a very different scope. However, I would encourage reading their latest peer reviewed paper here which I believe does a better job of scoping the LA protests.

Of note is that it addresses the consistent conflating of "violent armed overthrow of the state" with "throwing rocks after getting shot at".

The insane knuckledraggers currently in charge do not understand the concept of "peace".

Good thing unions peacefully protested for a 5 day work week and 8 hour days

Sometimes violence can be necessary to start. But anything won or held by violence will also be lost by violence. Only that which is held through peace and understanding will ever be secure.

Sure, when reality is sane. Not with Shitler at the helm.

Burn them all

Utter bullshit methodology. Reference: Benjamin Case, "Street Rebellions" (2022). Goes through the entire dataset of Chenoweth tangle of garbage. Case shows that every case of 'civil resistance' involved 'non-violence' of the order of UNARMED riots with punches, rocks, and fires were involved. So indeed, civil resistance with non-violent marches, barricades, punches, rocks, and fires have contributed social progress change of decomposing mass-murder militarists governments. Slinging such desctructive false claims is likely to be effective at de-mobilizing people confused about acceptability of burning down unoccupied parts of a genocide and pollution funding bank and military station (cop station), for example, and to have very serious consequences against authors of that sort of garbage. Another problem about Chenoweth's methodology: they pretend intention of protesters of replacing a military hierarchist, heritage-based, fiction-book-based, racist pigs regime (asristocratic, 'demo'-oligarchic, duopolist) with another regime of the same type of garbage with another shuffle of names and addresses. Even a cursory review of literature and interviews with real protesters has shown a lot of demand for flat local networks run by local competent persons, usually referred to under contested name space of words like anarchism, direct democracy, co-operative societies, etc.

I kind of wonder what Chenoweth, a they/them in a LGBTQ relationship, thinks about Stonewall?

The fourth element is especially important now. Don't engage on the playing field Trump set up on what is plain to see is a setup to authorize martial law powers for himself.

But it also means don't let government drive the conversation in media either. Keep standing up and keep the message clear that this is a stand against tyranny and let Trump and his admin flail, grasp at straws and reach for the Project2025 book of excuses. They look weak and unconvincing against the resolve of the peaceful resistance movement.

Based on the cases you have studied, what are the key elements necessary for a successful nonviolent campaign?

CHENOWETH: I think it really boils down to four different things. The first is a large and diverse participation that’s sustained.

The second thing is that [the movement] needs to elicit loyalty shifts among security forces in particular, but also other elites. Security forces are important because they ultimately are the agents of repression, and their actions largely decide how violent the confrontation with — and reaction to — the nonviolent campaign is going to be in the end. But there are other security elites, economic and business elites, state media. There are lots of different pillars that support the status quo, and if they can be disrupted or coerced into noncooperation, then that’s a decisive factor.

The third thing is that the campaigns need to be able to have more than just protests; there needs to be a lot of variation in the methods they use.

The fourth thing is that when campaigns are repressed — which is basically inevitable for those calling for major changes — they don’t either descend into chaos or opt for using violence themselves. If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.