Reddit reviews The Failure of Nonviolence

Here's a book for you, try it out.

You're fine with state sanctioned violence (cops) but not with people advocating against a reprehensible ideology.

Even all out Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin admits:

> The biggest and most important lesson is that large rallies on public property, where we know there is going to be confrontation with antifa, are not a good idea.

Warning, actual neo-nazi piece of trash source

Antifascist tactics have forced them to abandon large public demonstrations where, unopposed they would appear powerful and have the ability to recruit.

Many arguments in favour of nonviolence, but I'll give this a shot. With regards to the research itself, I'm not as informed as I would like to be. However I did find some interesting stuff for you:


First, I think it is only natural I mention the Battle of Cable Street. The violence at Cable Street basically forced the British government to act against the British Union of Fascists.

>Previously, the government never directly interfered with the BUF‟s activities.
However, Cable Street illustrated the level of popular opposition to Mosley and
his movement. The government was convinced that the potential for violence
and unrest was too great. As a result, Parliament voted for the Public Order Bill,
which was enacted as the Public Order Act on January 1, 1937.

Source: Bret Rubin, “The Rise and Fall of British Fascism: Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of
Fascists,” intersections 11, no. 2 (2010): 323-380

Specifically: Pg 375, or Pg 53 of the PDF.
__

Second, this is regarding nonviolence in general. Although many articles and sources will emphasise the effectiveness of non-violence, it seems (as in, I have not read the following for myself to verify), that Peter Gelderloos, in the Failure of Nonviolence, seems to make an effective argument against this.

A short review his work can be found here. Interesting bits from that article:




>In comparing and contrasting a list of recent protest actions, he makes a convincing case that combative tactics are far more effective in achieving concrete gains that improve ordinary peoples’ lives. He also explodes the myth that “violent” resistance discourages oppressed people from participating in protest activity. He gives numerous examples showing that working people are far more likely to be drawn into combative actions – mainly because of their effectiveness.

and

>Is Nonviolence Effective?

>Gelderloos sets out four criteria to assess the effectiveness of a protest action:

> It must seize space for activists to self-organize essential aspects of their lives.
> It must spread new ideas that inspire others to resist state power and control.
> It must operate independently of elite support.
> It must make concrete improvements to the lives of ordinary people.

___


Third, I think, when focusing specifically on violence against fascists, finding data on its effectiveness can be difficult. What do we mean by effective anyway? That it is able to destroy fascist movements? That I do not enough knowledge to answer. However, if by effective we mean that they are protective, as antifascists emphasise that their cause is "protective", then I would argue, logically, that it is.
Consider, for instance, Golden Dawn. When they go around doing shit like this and this for instance, then I fail to see how peaceful acts of nonviolence against fascists can possibly be effective (in the sense that it protects those fascists target) against those perfectly willing to use violence or the threat of violence.


_

I don't know about the tactics of Hope Not Hate, but this paragraph on the fall of the British National Party is still interesting to look into, regardless of whether they use violent or nonviolent tactics:

>The BNP also suffered from being confronted head-on by the anti-extremist group Hope not Hate. In 2010, Griffin expected to be elected MP for Barking, where the BNP had won 41 per cent of the wards they contested during the previous local elections. Hope not Hate mobilised 1,500 volunteers and handed out 350,000 newspapers, leaflets and letters across the borough before the elections; not only did Griffin lose, but the BNP’s vote share actually decreased from 2005.

Source: What killed the BNP?; New Statesman


_____


PS: Thanks for a great thesis topic idea.

https://www.amazon.com/Social-Movements-Suzanne-Staggenborg/dp/0199363595/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524116263&sr=1-1&keywords=Social+Movements

https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Project-History-Crisis-Movement/dp/081299356X

https://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Occupied-Media-Pamphlet-Chomsky/dp/1884519016

https://www.amazon.com/Failure-Nonviolence-Peter-Gelderloos/dp/0939306042/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=TA9JFMNZ6P9YJBESCE21

> people on the fence didn't see reports of violence and say "I want to join them", and people opposed to it used violence to legitimize their own oppression.

People also didn't see MLK on TV and think "Oh, those poor black people are getting beat up by cops, maybe they should have the same rights as white people", no, instead they said "Thank god those cops are puting those damn uppity n*ggers in their place." Its really kinda taboo to talk about since nobody wants to admit to being on the obviously losing side of the civil rights fight, but that's basically what it was like. By the time the protest kicked off most people were already so diametrically opposed that nobody had a chance of "winning over the other people". A protest acts more as a reckoning. By the time people are so fed up they hit the streets its too late to try to gather public support. The numbers you have at that point are basically what you're gonna get. The flow of addition people isn't from switching sides on the issue, its going from feeling hopeless to believing there's actually a shot of having change. When it comes to protest, continued action actually depletes numbers. The longer you have a protest, the more fairweather people get annoyed bit it and the more people think positive outcome is more and more unlikely. Its like dominoes, by the time the first one topples its only a matter of time until all of them do and you damn better hope you have enough lined up to knock over whatever you're trying to topple. Ok, that metaphor doesn't really work but I hope you get the idea.