,
9 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Thread on #nonviolence theory and in particular the way #ExtinctionRebellion have over simplified 'Why Civil Resistance Works' research (WCRW) to short circuit important discussions around diversity of tactics that any #ClimateEmergency movement must have #NVDA #XR /1 
XR uses unsourced claim from WCRW that non violent movements are twice as successful in many XR places including FAQ but assumptions in original paper make its claims irrelevant to debate around tactical diversity in radical environmental movement rebellion.earth/the-truth/faqs/ /2
First off violent movements are defined in WCRW as those in which 1000 or more battle deaths between armed combatants. This not only excludes every environmental action ever described as 'violent' but also armed groups like the Zapatistas & even Red Army Faction /3
Secondly non-violent groups are defined as those that are judged to be primarily non-violent. In the real world movements seldom have a clear seperation & any environmental movement that has existed has been primarily non-violent in this context /4
WCRW acknowledges that violent & non-violent tactics often coexist but what's already clear is the XR "53% of nonviolent campaigns were successful as opposed to 26% of campaigns that used violence" claim has no relevance to environmental tactics debate as no violent side exists
An additional issue is WCRW research is premised on what's most effective in reaching a compromise. The is no compromise possible in terms of stopping 2c #globalwarming in the next 11 years, we can't afford to compromise at 4c or even 3c #ClimateChange /6
But I think the WCRW paper can act as a discussion around tactics and how very often violence is imposed on a movement by a system unwilling to surrender power or wealth. That aspect is ignored by XR and ties into general naive attitude XR has towards policing & prosecution /7
But 1st it is useful to say where I'm coming from. I'm not an ideological pacifist but as WCRW most movements using NVDA are not either. Most of the time non-violence as WCRW talks about it to include highly disruptive actions makes tactical sense /8
Hmm something went wrong in the thread compositions so the linkage broke, The thread continues at
