I feel like this 3.5% shit is a psyop to get people to do planned, permitted, and non-disruptive protests that have zero chance of actually accomplishing anything instead of organizing strikes, sit-ins, shutdowns, and other things that actually work, because hey, everything will just magically work out if we just get to 3.5% right? No need to turn the screws on the people in power or actually disrupt anyone’s day and force them to listen to your platform when you can just have a nice day in the sun with your quirky sign with all your friends and it will magically make change happen because there are a lot of you.
Problems is that people are just kind of seeing “3.5%” and they’re not actually listening to the details behind it.
The 3.5% is a sign that you’re organizing effectively. The number in and of itself is not the goal.
Also, the research noted that, once an authoritarian regime starts to crack down on protests, that well organized machine usually has to flip to other nonviolent tactics like general strikes, shutdowns, and pressuring regime supporters to join the resistance.
Can’t they just go to Cuba if they want socialism?
Can’t you just get an education since you need one?
Education doesn’t give livable wage anymore. My sister has a master degree and she barely makes the equivalent of 10 dollars an hour
It tells us that people love the system telling them they are rebelling correctly, according to the system. “You can’t fail if you keep doing things the way you’re told!”
What it doesn’t say is it still takes orginized violence to achieve the goals.
There’s a breaking point of civil disobedience when they are no longer able to control the sheer number of people.
Actually, her research says the complete opposite. Violence significantly lowered the odds of being successful.
So if we get 3.5% of the population to stand in a field the fascist have to just give up? Swiper no swiping?
Grow up dude, use your brain to figure out what happens in between aggregating people and fascists being removed from power.
Grow up dude
Can we dial it down? This is Lemmy, not X. We don’t need to treat each other poorly in order to have a conversation.
While this article doesn’t say 3.5% showed up… It’s dubious that the claims of there being 3.5% of the population engaged in the No Kings Day protest is correct exactly because some of the numbers offered magically hit that 3.5% mark. People are starting with the conclusion they want and making the numbers match to reach it. There’s a range of estimated participation in No Kings Day, and most estimates are below the 3.5%. It was an amazing turnout that the press largely ignored.
It only works when politicians are worried about getting reelected. When fighting dedicators it doesn’t really work that way.
All of this research is around overthrowing authoritarian dictators.
Where was an authoritarian dictator abolished without armed conflict with rebels getting external support (like in Syria)?
Mass protests in Belarus - no change
Mass protests in Venezuela - no change
Mass protests in Iran - no change
Mass protests in Turkey - no change
There isn’t a world where removing fascists from power doesn’t take organized violence.
The people wishing to delegitimize violent protest are either ignorant of history or actively fighting against change.
The research didn’t say “mass protests and they’re out.” It simply shows the key characteristics that make a resistance more likely to be successful. And nonviolence, a focused message, and high participation are a good way to increase your odds.
I keep seeing this but the claim is dubious at best and feel like conflating correlation with causation. While the examples cited were largely non violent they had aspects and sub movements advocating violence and destruction, so any outcomes cannot be isolated in a way to make this claim.
She doesn’t claim that you need to hit 3.5% and then you’re magically able to overthrow an authoritarian government.
She notes that disciplined nonviolent resistance, focused around a concise and relatable message, is a characteristic of successful movements. And that turnout number is a common artifact of movement who are focused, strategic, and disciplined. The number in and of itself is not the goal.
The authors coined a rule about the level of participation necessary for a movement to succeed, called the “3.5% rule”: nearly every movement with active participation from at least 3.5% of the population succeeded.[8][9] All of the campaigns that achieved that threshold were nonviolent.[10]
I have read books by Mark Penn and Malcolm Gladwell, which talk about that magical 3.5% as a “Tipping Point” that can kick off a trend. It’s not guaranteed, but historical records indicate that it takes at least 3.5% to reach critical mass.
In America, that’s about 11.5 - 12 million people.
FWIW, the rightists seem to have picked up on a similar number:
The group’s name derives from the erroneous[6][7] claim that “the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists” during the American Revolution.[8]
Obama’s old speechwriting director just interviewed the researcher who uncovered this phenomenon. Pretty fascinating conversation about what successful authoritarian resistance movements have in common.
She didn’t “uncover” this phenomenon. Mark Penn was the Clinton’s pollster, and he published his book Microtrends in 2007. Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point was published in 2000. The concept of the “Tipping Point” has been known and studied for a long time. .
What was new was the quantification of participation.
I believe both Penn and Gladwell used the 3.5% quantity for a Tipping Point.
