No Kings marches:
* Over 2,000 marches
* One day (so far)
* ~11 million participants
👍🏿
Black Lives Matter marches:
* Over 7,700 marches
* Multiple days
* ~26 million participants
👍🏿
Whoever told you 3.5% of the people protesting is some magic number for social change, lied to you.
@alltherum
A well-intentioned person who studied changeovers in political power came to the conclusion that a change in power is inevitable at the point that 3.5% of the population of a country become engaged in making that change.
Now that number is getting quoted as a target without matching context.
In early 2020, Erica Chenoweth explained that the 3.5% number is a descriptive statistic; not an inevitability - despite the far too common misunderstandings of their work: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/Erica%20Chenoweth_2020-005.pdf .
"other factors—momentum, organization, strategic leadership, and sustainability—are likely as important as large-scale participation in achieving movement success"
Per @mekkaokereke 's pointing out things that have happened since then.
@aud @mekkaokereke @ohmu @alltherum
May @indivisibleteam continue with the necessary follow-through.
@michael_w_busch @aud @mekkaokereke @ohmu @alltherum @indivisibleteam
Indivisible did just that tonight in a massive Zoom call. They provided next actions and loads resources.
#nokings
@belfora @michael_w_busch @aud @mekkaokereke @ohmu @indivisibleteam
Ash-lee Woodard Henderson is an excellent host.
@aud@asta.lgbt @mekkaokereke @ohmu@wa.us @michael_w_busch @alltherum The small "No Kings" protest I went to on Saturday (which fed into the giant one in downtown Portland, OR later that day) had several speakers from local orgs/government that made this point. Namely, that this event is a *starting* point, not the end, and it's critical to find the community and organizations where your work can and will make a difference.
So, at least in my neck of the woods, a fair number of people understand the larger assignment.
@jonathankoren Why didn't he just say that then?
*looks Mekka directly in the eyes in a fake-serious manner*
Why do you want to know? What do you think he meant? Be honest
@drdrowland @jonathankoren Honestly, I'm used to Mekka speaking highly obliquely as a rhetorical device to generate conversation. Being this wasn't one of those posts, it threw my dumb ass into a strange place where I was looking for context after spending a day struggling with people who never miss a chance to punch down at marchers.
One choice quote was "they might as well be Republicans".
I know Mekka's a good guy and does this for a living. I'm just a guy who has trouble with subtext tho.
💯
Yeah Erica Chenoweth knows what she wrote, and her paper is being quoted out of context all over the place. She's not the one lying to people.
First, she already admitted that her rule has been broken several times since she wrote the paper. That was before No Kings.
Second, her data focused on regime change, not civil rights causes like "Abolish ICE" or "Black Lives Matter" or "No Kings."
But people are talking about No Kings like "C'mon guys! All we have to do is get to 3.5%, and then we win! It's like, science man!"🤡
Like, they just memory-holed BLM protests, and how massive and sustained they were.
These protests are too small and too far between.
What is needed is not some spare time activity.
What is needed is general strikes, whole-city blockades, local soviets.
(Nobody knows what local soviets are now, here is an example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_soviets)
@mekkaokereke @dgodon @ohmu @fulanigirl Even with regime change, there are exceptions that clearly show that 3.5% is not some magic limit, only an inflection point on a curve. #Belarus protests in 2020-2021 lasted for over a year and involved 5-10% of the population, yet regime change didn't happen.
It's not just the kind of change, it is how entrenched the regime is. Be it 230 years of occupation or 400 years of slavery, generational prejudice has to be deconstructed, not just overthrown.
@dmitry @mekkaokereke @dgodon @ohmu @fulanigirl I studied democratic revolutions a long while ago and dug through relevant literature to find historic patterns for conditions of success.
In order of "needs to be overcome, if previous is met" I found
1. monolithic military support
2. output legitimization by governance efficacy
3. support from external actors
4. lack of alternative elites
5. culturally aligned role models
3.5% public dissent may be an epiphenomenon of 5,4,2
Anyway, this /...
@dmitry @mekkaokereke @dgodon @ohmu @fulanigirl ... historic pattern for regime change is only conceptually relevant insofar as the US is playing it in reverse.
There are other models for descent into fascism that may have more explanatory adequacy. However, I find a kernel of optimism in apparent displays of dissent in the military, seeing just how important it is for regime change that it does not align with the autocrat.
See https://pxi.social/@jakob/114692456247431571 for a brief argument why so.
I don't think I have a sizable follower count looking for English political science commentary, alas even if posting into the void here's an observation from studying regime change. The way the military breaks is critical for the success of democratic revolutions. It is in fact a table stakes requirement: If and only if there exist factions within the military that do not align with autocratic leadership can regime change take place(1). .../ -- 1 see Thompson and (w caveat) Huntington
@fulanigirl @davebainbridge @mekkaokereke @dgodon @ohmu
Using a word like 'never' is all too human.
In drama it can signify effectively! Also between quarreling 7 year olds -- eg "You'll never be my friend anymore!"
'Never' signifies too loosely for history writing.
Another mixed-bag-signifier is 'unprecedented'.
I think the original finding was 3.5% of the population working to remove an unpopular dictator from power.
I feel like in the US's case you'd need to have more supporters than the other faction.
And I'm pretty sure that more than 3.5% of the US population supports white supremacy.
Yeah, the 3.5% is blowing up in the zeitgeist right now.
Erica Chenoweth (they/them) crunched the numbers, and found that nearly every movement with 3.5% of the population *actively* mobilized nonviolently (strikes, boycotts, etc.) were effective in overthrowing the regime they were fighting against.
They also found that nonviolent movements were 2x more likely to succeed, since it’s easier to find participants for a nonviolent movement than an armed one.
To me, their findings are more descriptive (what has historically been the case) and less so prescriptive (a roadmap to making change).
But seems interesting nonetheless!
They gave an interesting interview on this Sunday’s Pod Save America* (2nd link).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule
https://crooked.com/podcast/the-3-5-protest-rule-that-could-bring-down-trump/
*hosts are Democrats, and believe in the Democrats. I am not and do not, though I'll often hold my nose and vote for 'em.
Edit: changed “descriptive” to “prescriptive”
@dusk @alienghic @mekkaokereke I just did a think; by my reading the 3.5% point is being misread 👉 https://helvede.net/@jwcph/114696948259395077
The issue is People Power™️ - basically there's a pretty sharp limit to how much of a population can be held in check by an unpopular regime & that number is lower than we think.
- and yes, 25% or whatever voted for DT, but that doesn't mean they work for him, will risk themselves, or even form any kind of movement at all. If they want to be the 3.5% they can, but... SMH
I think we need to talk about the #Chenoweth 3.5% thing a bit, because it's kind of important right now. I'm not an academic & haven't crunched the study, but with that caveat I don't see EC talking about being nonviolent at any cost. My read is non-violent strategy = protests & strikes vs. violent strategy = guns & bombs. Tactics can get violent, e.g. in self-defense or if Bad Guys™️ have occupied a locale & have to be routed by force, but this does not equal a violent uprising. OK?
@dusk @alienghic @mekkaokereke Good points, although you double-"descriptive"d in the middle:
> To me, their findings are more descriptive (what has historically been the case) and less so descriptive (a roadmap to making change).
@sleet01 @alienghic @mekkaokereke
Ah, right you are. Edited.
@alienghic @mekkaokereke it also depends on what we're counting as "working to remove" someone. Evidently, ~3.5% of people holding signs is not enough. If 3.5% of us were doing sustained effort to do so, including tasks such as sabotage and other things that are illegal*? That might do it!
*I say this because when something actually works, the ruling class usually works very hard to make it illegal. Or like with voting, they work very hard to make it not really work anymore
The more protests the better. It raises consciousness to the corruption of the regime, that's for sure.
@mekkaokereke I'm hopeful that the organizers who managed to mobilize so decently this time will find ways to continue getting people out on the streets.
But that's in their court. In the meantime, I'm glad so many folks signed up for the local CPUSA mailing list, and happy I helped make that happen.
@lkanies @mekkaokereke The Portland PD's union is one of the nation's most powerful (and effective) police unions. They pioneered the practice of getting hired back to the force after you've been fired for any number of misconduct and/or abuse incidents.
The "Behind the Bastards" podcast episode on the PPD will make you tear your hair out.
@mekkaokereke I hope for change in the USA, too.
But there were massive protests in #Germany last year against the fascist #AfD as well - and yet they got their best ever results in this year's federal elections.
One day of impressive demonstrations does not directly translate into lasting change. There needs to be a lot more momentum.
As far as I remember, AfD fell in the polls during the mass protests?
But then the election was ~ 1 year later so a lot of time for Merz to pull all of his bullshit....
"Whoever told you 3.5% of the people protesting is some magic number for social change, lied to you."
Voting
Voting is the proper vector for social change
(somewhere in toxic idealist land: "NOOOOO!!!!!!!!")
Also, Hong Kong, a territory of 7 million people, had 2 million people in the streets at once and many hundreds of thousands could be brought out with a few days notice. And those were just the people who were willing to take to the streets and march. Support for the pro democracy movement was overwhelmingly massive, yet ultimately crushed by the CCP.
There is no magic number. Just lots of sustained hard, scary work.
Is that really comparable?
I listened to a lecture by protest researcher Tareq Sydiq (University of Marburg) recently and he mentioned the Hongkong protests and pointed out that achieving change through protests is more difficult in authoritarian countries like China or Iran. I'm not claiming that the USA is a perfect democracy but I think that, right now, you have more rights / possibilities than people in Hongkong.
Also you can't really know how successful protests will be before you try?
People in East Germany were successful in the late 1980s.
mekka okereke 
What's it to you?
Weird Socks
Michael Busch
Asta [AMP]
Belfora
David Nash
jonathankoren™
David
fulanigirl
Demian
Androcat
Dmitry Borodaenko
jakob.pxi
David Bainbridge
human_powered
xXx_K1R4_xXx t3h FoXXXDerG oF d00m🏳️⚧️
Diane
Dusk To Don 
JWcph, Radicalized By Decency
sleet01
Morgan ⚧️
⚛️ Yours Truly! Unruly 🇨🇦🇪🇺🇺🇦🌻
alfonso adriasola
scott f
mike bayer 
The Embodiment of RED 
Luke Kanies
😀🚲
klausfiend
Jürgen Hubert
Mab_813
Angelo Veltens 🏳️🌈
maschmi
Ben Royce 🇺🇦
My camera shoots fascists