alt Hacker News"Nonviolence" only works when a group is doing that, AND there is also a contingent of violent folks with the same aims.
Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists.
We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works.
Replies
Somewhat relevant Cautionary Tales episode, wherein a slight variation on your same point is made from history and survey data: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/a-deadly-da...
Is anyone aware of a more thorough argument for why this must be the case? Is it a commonly held view? It sounds realistic, but not necessarily and immutable law, I’d like to know what thought has been given to this.
“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”
> We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works.
[citation needed]
There are multiple studies and books that go over how the less a movement uses violence the more likely it is to be successful:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44096650-civil-resistanc...
* https://global.oup.com/academic/product/civil-resistance-978...
The above book has a chapter about how if a movement is non-violent, but a contingent/faction wants to use it, various ways to handle it.
> but we're not permitted to say that out loud.
You just said it out loud. Are you one of "them"?
Sorry, are you suggesting that violence doesn't also require coordination of a group? I think the record of lone gunmen solving institutional problems remains kind of scarce.
Whether you want to be a guerilla group, terrorists, or take a peaceful approach the first step is always going to involvefinding confederates.
> Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists.
This is definitely true to some extent, especially when non-violence has been used in the more distant past.
But in recent history, the non-violent approach creates a sympathy for the cause among impartial 3rd parties, who find violence against non-combatants to be unpalatable. You can turn the world against an enemy by putting the enemy's asymmetric use of force on display. This doesn't work in a lower empathy society.