I have sympathy for the protesters in Iran right now. At the same time, many are going around setting fires and destroying things. Any government would respond to that with repression. Isn't the destruction counterproductiive to the protestors' cause?
@eighthave I am an American with only American experiences. But from my perspective:
I have never seen a protest that was both effective /and/ did not also face repression.
And unfortunately, I suspect it is the only language that the regime will hear. It's fires to property or fires to people. I am sure that the other options have been tried.
This comes up everytime a protest grows beyond people holding placards and "partying" and actually ends up doing something.
@trashpanda Repression is a given, but protesters have options. I can suggest the work of Erica Chenoweth, her research shows non-violent movements are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw
Some key examples off the top of my head:
* The expressly non-violent organizations in the US Civil Rights Movement were the largest and most effective.
* ANC's turn to non-violence led them to victory.
* Czechoslovakia's Velvet Resolution was non-violent, swift and effective.
@trashpanda most interesting of all: "Countries where resistance campaigns were nonviolent were 10 times as likely to transition to democracy compared to countries where resistance turned violent—regardless of whether the campaign succeeded or failed in the short term. Even when nonviolent campaigns were not immediately successful, Chenoweth/Stephan found, they still tended to empower moderates or reformers within the ruling elites who would gradually initiate changes."
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/advocacy-social-movements/paths-resistance-erica-chenoweths-research
