Leave. The moment it turns into a riot you’re doing damage to your cause. (If you’re in a protest and see hooligans, restrain them.)
You cannot fight against violence without violence. Violence is most effective when it's implied/threatened, before it is materialized.
The goal of protests are:
1) To serve as a show of force (they are literally called demonstrations in some languages because you demonstrate your ability to organize and act - large numbers of people are capable of large amounts of violence).
2) To paint your side as the victim by provoking an overreaction.
Westerners often think that 2 is sufficient because they live in democracies where a large part of the government is also unwilling to use violence and become the aggressor. But against a dictator who is willing to use as much violence against the people as is available to him, 2 alone is worthless.
Goal 2 only serves to maximize the number of people willing to rise up but the real goal is to break the enemy's will to fight. Either to make the dictator lose his nerve and flee or to kill him because corpses don't have a will.
The point is it's a delicate balancing act to paint yourself as victim/weak to get more support and angry/strong to make the dictator back down. Westerners focus on the first part because it works against their governments but against greater oppression, you will not get anywhere without actual will to fight and kill.
well you wrong, in fact you can. latest news is US Navy bomb houthi as we talk right now
You cant do violence if you well die, it is effective
It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.
One motif of Allinsky's message is the importance of organisation. Triggering tear gas against your peaceful protest is one thing. Losing control of it such that stores start getting looted is not.
> It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors
This is the first-order effect. They got a tweet. (Not a headline.)
I'm sceptical they'll get a second because this isn't a clear case of a nonlethal weapon being used against a peaceful crowd, it's something more muddled, and as a result there are zero comments in this thread discussing what the protesters are protesting.
It's been going since November. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the prelude to a civil war.
They got a headline https://apnews.com/article/serbia-protest-sonic-weapon-85025...
> Serbian officials deny illegal sonic weapon attack on peaceful protesters
The people who have the state-sanctioned monopoly on violence are the ones who get to decide when a protest becomes a riot or unlawful assembly.
I’m not saying they’re always wrong but when only one group gets to pull the card that allows them to shut down protest it creates perverse incentives.
Practically, the media and the public at large. I forgot the source, but you can pretty much directly see the negative effect of e.g. bridge blocking on public sympathy for a cause.
But it’s trivial for police to incite violence. We saw it all the time in the US during BLM protests. A protest starts peacefully, then the protesters are pushed by riot control, then rubber bullets are fired into the peaceful protest, and now it’s not peaceful. Sometimes the protesters would even get surrounded and flanked so they can’t escape the descent into a riot.
If change does occur, what will happen is they will repaint history to make it seem as if the most cowish placid of the protests brought the change, to fool the public. And people actually believe it.
Your right to assembly remains. You just made a risk-adjustment decision about not participating in a riot. The correct thing to do is go home, regroup and join the protest leadership to help plan another protest where the hooliganism is kept in check.
Also, not being in Serbia myself I'm reluctant to make judgements from afar about what degree of hooliganism is justified in this case.
Correct. Escalating from peaceful to violent protest shouldn't (I'd argue cannot) be responsibly decided in the moment.
If you went to a peaceful protest "that was starting to get a bit rowdy," the situation clearly changed from underneath you. Go home. Take stock. Decide if what you saw was random rioting or targeted violence. If the latter, decide if and how you can help and if it will make things better or worse.
I'm struggling to imagine non-Hollywood scenarios where someone showing up to peacefully protest is useful when it effectively escalates to civil war.
Right to assemble is not a blank check for violent action, or even to assemble wherever and whenever your want.
That would explain why they seem to be so eager to employ violence against peaceful protestors.
No. The trigger was "a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy." Not a peaceful protest that gets gassed. The latter is extremely effective at generating public sympathy.
Ever wondered why protests always turn violent very shortly after the government decides it's time to disperse them?
I'm struggling to remember any rioting in the Maidan.
I guess I wouldn't characterise such focussed use of violence as "starting to get a bit rowdy." Rowdiness specifically implies unruliness, a lack of discipline. I'd also say that escalating from peaceful to violent protest is not a decision one should take in the moment--catapults and molotov cocktails imply preparation.