Forum Post: 198 Ideas For Non-Violent Resistance
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 10:37 a.m. EST by dealdoctor
(148)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Gene Sharp may be the world's top expert on non-violent resistance. These 198 ideas for non-violent resistance come from his book From Dictatorship to Democracy. His website is the Albert Einstein Institute. http://www.aeinstein.org/
Formal statements
- Public speeches 2. Letters of opposition or support 3. Declarations by organizations and institutions 4. Signed public statements 5. Declarations of indictment and intention 6. Group or mass petitions communications with a wider audience
- Slogans, caricatures, and symbols 8. Banners, posters, and displayed communications 9. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books 10. Newspapers and journals 11. Records, radio, and television 12. Skywriting and earthwriting Group representations
- Deputations 14. Mock awards 15. Group lobbying 16. Picketing 17. Mock elections symbolic public acts
- Display of flags and symbolic colors 19. Wearing of symbols 16 This list, with definitions and historical examples, is taken from Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part Two, The Methods of Nonviolent Action.
- Prayer and worship 21. Delivering symbolic objects 22. Protest disrobings 23. Destruction of own property 24. Symbolic lights 25. Displays of portraits 26. Paint as protest 27. New signs and names 28. Symbolic sounds 29. Symbolic reclamations 30. Rude gestures pressures on individuals
- “Haunting” officials 32. Taunting officials 33. Fraternization 34. Vigils Drama and music
- Humorous skits and pranks 36. Performance of plays and music 37. Singing processions
- Marches 39. Parades 40. Religious processions 41. Pilgrimages 42. Motorcades honoring the dead
- Political mourning 44. Mock funerals 45. Demonstrative funerals 46. Homage at burial places From Dictatorship to Democracy 81 public assemblies
- Assemblies of protest or support 48. Protest meetings 49. Camouflaged meetings of protest 50. Teach-ins Withdrawal and renunciation
- Walk-outs 52. Silence 53. Renouncing honors 54. Turning one’s back the methoDs oF social noncooperation ostracism of persons
- Social boycott 56. Selective social boycott 57. Lysistratic nonaction 58. Excommunication 59. Interdict noncooperation with social events, customs, and institutions
- Suspension of social and sports activities 61. Boycott of social affairs 62. Student strike 63. Social disobedience
- Withdrawal from social institutions Withdrawal from the social system
- Stay-at-home 66. Total personal noncooperation 67. Flight of workers 68. Sanctuary 69. Collective disappearance 70. Protest emigration (hijrat) 82 Gene Sharp the methoDs oF economic noncooperation: (1) economic boycotts action by consumers
- Consumers’ boycott 72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods 73. Policy of austerity 74. Rent withholding 75. Refusal to rent 76. National consumers’ boycott 77. International consumers’ boycott action by workers and producers
- Workmen’s boycott 79. Producers’ boycott action by middlemen
- Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott action by owners and management
- Traders’ boycott 82. Refusal to let or sell property 83. Lockout 84. Refusal of industrial assistance 85. Merchants’ “general strike” Action by holders of financial resources
- Withdrawal of bank deposits 87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments 88. Refusal to pay debts or interest 89. Severance of funds and credit 90. Revenue refusal 91. Refusal of a government’s money action by governments
- Domestic embargo 93. Blacklisting of traders 94. International sellers’ embargo 95. International buyers’ embargo 96. International trade embargo From Dictatorship to Democracy 83 the methoDs oF economic noncooperation: (2) the striKe symbolic strikes
- Protest strike 98. Quickie walkout (lightning strike) agricultural strikes
- Peasant strike 100. Farm workers’ strike strikes by special groups
- Refusal of impressed labor 102. Prisoners’ strike 103. Craft strike 104. Professional strike ordinary industrial strikes
- Establishment strike 106. Industry strike 107. Sympathetic strike restricted strikes
- Detailed strike 109. Bumper strike 110. Slowdown strike 111. Working-to-rule strike 112. Reporting “sick” (sick-in) 113. Strike by resignation
- Limited strike 115. Selective strike multi-industry strikes
- Generalized strike 117. General strike combinations of strikes and economic closures
- Hartal 119. Economic shutdown 84 Gene Sharp the methoDs oF political noncooperation rejection of authority
- Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance 121. Refusal of public support 122. Literature and speeches advocating resistance citizens’ noncooperation with government
- Boycott of legislative bodies 124. Boycott of elections 125. Boycott of government employment and positions 126. Boycott of government departments, agencies and other bodies 127. Withdrawal from government educational institutions 128. Boycott of government-supported organizations 129. Refusal of assistance to enforcement agents 130. Removal of own signs and placemarks 131. Refusal to accept appointed officials 132. Refusal to dissolve existing institutions citizens’ alternatives to obedience
- Reluctant and slow compliance 134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision 135. Popular nonobedience 136. Disguised disobedience 137. Refusal of an assemblage or meeting to disperse 138. Sitdown 139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation 140. Hiding, escape and false identities 141. Civil disobedience of “illegitimate” laws action by government personnel
- Selective refusal of assistance by government aides 143. Blocking of lines of command and information 144. Stalling and obstruction 145. General administrative noncooperation From Dictatorship to Democracy 85
- Judicial noncooperation 147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents 148. Mutiny Domestic governmental action
- Quasi-legal evasions and delays 150. Noncooperation by constituent governmental units international governmental action
- Changes in diplomatic and other representation 152. Delay and cancellation of diplomatic events 153. Withholding of diplomatic recognition 154. Severance of diplomatic relations
- Withdrawal from international organizations 156. Refusal of membership in international bodies 157. Expulsion from international organizations the methoDs oF nonviolent intervention psychological intervention
- Self-exposure to the elements 159. The fast (a) Fast of moral pressure (b) Hunger strike (c) Satyagrahic fast
- Reverse trial 161. Nonviolent harassment physical intervention
- Sit-in 163. Stand-in 164. Ride-in 165. Wade-in 166. Mill-in 167. Pray-in 168. Nonviolent raids 86 Gene Sharp
- Nonviolent air raids 170. Nonviolent invasion 171. Nonviolent interjection 172. Nonviolent obstruction 173. Nonviolent occupation social intervention
- Establishing new social patterns 175. Overloading of facilities 176. Stall-in 177. Speak-in
- Guerrilla theater 179. Alternative social institutions 180. Alternative communication system economic intervention
- Reverse strike 182. Stay-in strike 183. Nonviolent land seizure 184. Defiance of blockades 185. Politically motivated counterfeiting 186. Preclusive purchasing 187. Seizure of assets 188. Dumping 189. Selective patronage 190. Alternative markets 191. Alternative transportation systems 192. Alternative economic institutions political intervention
- Overloading of administrative systems 194. Disclosing identities of secret agents 195. Seeking imprisonment 196. Civil disobedience of “neutral” laws 197. Work-on without collaboration
- Dual sovereignty and parallel government
I found it too irksome to read this badly typed / poorly spaced (+ cut & pasted ?) forum post + I'm slightly suspicious of Gene Sharp ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sharp ) and prejudicially regard him as potentially a 'Company Integrated Asset', so ...
a) http://www.gandhiserve.org/ ,
b) http://www.gandhifoundation.net/ &
c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha .
pax et lux ; nunc et semper ...
Thank you for your input. I am no Gene Sharp expert nor did I wish to do more than place his views here for evaluation. I do know he has spent many years studying the subject of non-violence. I am for non-violence as opposed to violence. On a level playing field respectful debate ending with the will of the majority holding the day is the obviously best unless the basic human rights of the minority (think slaves) is crushed by a larger uncaring mob. I find it hard to see how anyone would not see the preferred progression as debate with majority vote, non-violence, and then finally war as a method of self defense. There is no reason to shoot a fly with a shotgun and it is only natural and right for us to have to defend our families from physical attack which threatens their lives. In the middle between words and guns in my opinion there are methods of non-violent resistance and they are to be found in various degrees as well. In a perfect world none of this is needed because things are perfect and even that does not need to be debated.
@ dd : Thanx for your thoughtful and gracious response - especially as I'd been a little tetchy !
I agree with what you say and also regard violence as only justified in self-defence and even then, only proportionately !! Thus, we may both conclude that the predations of US Empire are actually - in the final analysis, utterly unconscionable !!!
The best wishes of The Season to you and yours.
Pax et Lux ; Nunc et Semper ...
Gene Sharp - From Dictatorship to Democracy
supported from within Serbia.
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf
female voice version (english)- mp3 - 154.02 MB 2.5 hours
http://www.multiupload.com/P45C8H7ED2
mp3 male voice version (english)-154.02 MB 2.5 hours
http://www.multiupload.com/1VGT1XI0BE
Arabic
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD_Arabic-2.pdf
simplefied chinese
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD_simp._Chinese.pdf
traditional chinese
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD_trad._Chinese.pdf
Tell me more about "Dual Sovereignty and Parallel Government"!
The methods here are just the headlines.
I am not an expert and seeing all the downloads and resources at http://www.aeinstein.org/ as well as doing YouTube searches for Gene Sharp may assist you. I would think that these terms simply put forward that the power to govern must come from the consent of the governed so if an individual considers an OWS General Assembly their real government then although there may be other governments in a geographical area their primary loyalty would be with OWS not Mayor Bloomberg which has a parallel government in the same geographical area. I am sure Sharp would clarify in a more profound way on this one line item. There are free downloads of From Dictatorship to Democracy on the net. Google it.
The 99% delivered support to OWS. I have no desire to hand the keys to the country over to the NYCGA.
Their position is untenable. The NYCGA must shed all vestiges of leadership and defer to the National General Assembly. December 17th.
I agree. I think there was a prototype National GA at the Washington Monument last night with representation from several occupy locations.
Cool, but it proves my point. The NGA will languish in relative obscurity without public endorsement from the NYCGA, the de-facto leaders, no matter how much they say it's a leaderless movement. If NYC announced it, every media outlet in the world would show up to find out what's going on. Call out the NYCGA!
No, he simple collected a list of generic resistance methods used or reinvented by all revolutions, uprisings and so forth. You find them nowhere explained. Collecting anecdotes is no training. Gene Sharp is a shameless self-promoter.
I am interested in building a parallel government. Now, how to do.
Here's how: https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
The National General Assembly AKA Third Continental Congress AKA parallel congress
Went to the website and agree with with all of it. Wonderful work.
My one demand is that the NYCGA publicly endorse it. Failing to do so puts their integrity into question and makes the 99% Declaration working groups work difficult. It's blatantly unfair to everyone in the movement, treasonous.
Every revolution in world history was about building a new government structure. One might say the American Civil war allowed dual governments within America to do battle until one won by the tools of mortal force, the military. The British and the colonists in America had done the same thing earlier. OWS and Ghandi are about revolution without violence but it is revolution not reformation that is at issue in all these movements. To set up a dual government is to no longer recognize the the authority of the prior government and then to form a new one to which one gives loyalty. You leave playing Monopoly and start playing Clue. You leave football and start playing soccer on the same field. This is different than being the loyal opposition. It is being simply the opposition. It is a radical departure from an old establishment followed by the establishment of something new. It means a new Constitution at the core as well as new signers. My response here is simply to clarify my opinion of your question of what a parallel government might be within any given geographical area. With the establishment of a competing government within the geographical area of the original government the logical response by the original government would be to declare the new government tyranny and to declare war on it. Think civil war. This is the worst outcome and is almost never non-violent. As to how any government is first established just review how our own American government was first established. The elite in England were 100% against it and it was very messy within those who were for it here in America. It is not ever a simple thing but has internal and external struggle.
The concept seem to be 'parallel government'. I like that idea. A voluntary association of men.
How to do?
Your interpretation of American history (or Sharps) is clearly opinion rather than fact.
The Civil War began because 11 Southern states declared their secession from the Union was legal and the states that remained in the Union declared that it wasn't. The first shots were fired BY the Confederates-members-not the "government" of the US and the Union called it "rebellion" not "tyranny". Probably because tyranny isn't a word that even logically suits the situation.
What occurred during and after the Civil War was not a revolution. And what happened afterwards was called "reconstruction" because the re-united Union spent ten years re-establishing the country according to the original design and plan established by the Constitution. I'll agree that the Confederate states WANTED a revolution, they just didn't get it.
The Revolutionary War might have turned out differently IF both sides had indeed been located on the same geographical area. While there were British officers and "governors" residing in the US at the time, the vast majority of Britain's weapons and military forces were on another continent. The American Patriots had no established a "government" per se prior to engaging in war with England, they simple formed a group of united rebels intent on NOT being controlled by England any longer.
That Ghandi and his followers were about non-violent revolution did not stop their "revolution" from resulting in a horrific amount of violence. There were plenty of armed revolutionary factions working to obtain the independence of India as well as the peaceful ones.
Your opinion (grin) is also respected. The key thing that concerns me is not words but rights. The victors determine history and a government can frame a discussion to determine even what questions are permitted and asked. Bottom line in my opinion basic human rights trump the desires of a ruling elite. To label a person " a terrorist, a rebel, a whatever" can be an attempt to circumvent their real identity as a human being who has basic human rights as a human.
The question is-do people have the basic human right to label people?
Where do basic human rights come from?
Since the terms "terrorist" "rebel" "whatever" are adjectives used most often to describe the noun "human"-one could say that their identity as a human being must be assumed and understood prior to applying those labels.
Neither one of those words indicates that the person to whom they are applied must or should or even can be denied of their basic human rights. They do however imply that the person to whom they are applied might very well be acting in a socially unaccepted manner and thus have abused the social contract in which they SHARE certain basic SOCIAL rights with everyone else.
Your rights end where mine begin.
According to the American Declaration of Independence they come as natural endowments from the Creator of humankind. They are a primal given. If a person does not believe in God as creator then it would mean that they come simply from Nature as a natural given. You have the right to breathe because nature gave you a nose and air around your nose (grin). Bears have the right to do what bears do and dogs have the right to bark. Humans have the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We all have those urges it comes with simply being human. We do not naturally have the right to abridge those rights in others but must act in cruel ways to do to them what we would not have done to us. The old golden rule thing. So the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
endowed with "certain unalienable Rights"...and three are listed. It does not say that ALL rights are unalienable-only certain ones.
Society has the RIGHT to determine what behaviors and acts ARE acceptable to them in social situations and which ones are not. These rights are subjective and entirely alienable. They have the RIGHT to determine when someone in that society is acting in a manner that is, or even just COULD be threatening to the shared rights of that society along with what responses they approve of when those behaviors are encountered.
"We do not naturally have the right to abridge those rights in others but must act in cruel ways to do to them what we would not have done to us. The old golden rule thing."
So you're saying then that you "would have" all of the things you listed in the OP "done to you". You have zero problem with any of them being done in return to you? In fact, you WANT others to do those same things to you.
Keep in mind that every time OWS does one of those things they lose the support of every single person who would never treat others that way because they hate it when it's done to them. They understand that manipulation doesn't have to be CRUEL to be manipulative. That you would WANT to manipulate your fellow citizens in any way is what they find "terrifying".
I am confused by your reply but that often happens when people are not face to face. I am 100% against manipulation and 100% for people directing their own lives. Perhaps this document will help clarify what I and so very many others consider to be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Did this Universal Declaration of Human Rights come from a "creator" endowing them or a council of men?
Answer my question-are the "non-violent" methods described in your opening post all things you "would have"/want done to you? If they aren't, you should not be advocating that OWS does them to others.
People who would NOT want them done to themselves refrain from doing them to others. Those people are highly unlikely to join with OWS if OWS is doing them.
My son simply says there is time to tell an asshole, "Fuck you!" I resist that but perhaps he is right. What I am saying is that people have value, that what they, you and me, need by nature is a "right". I am also saying that I prefer non-violence to violence as a method of conflict. If you think that people have no rights except what a power structure issues them and that violence is to be chosen over non-violence as a way to resolve conflicts then you and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I wish you much luck finding followers who will agree to abandon their right to humanity and submit to your violence. Are you in the 1%? Yes, now I understand your position. Otherwise you are advocating that a society can vote that murder is just and it is ok just because they vote it in at the time. A longer history will judge such a society as will anyone with a conscience that responds to injustice. Injustice is an abuse of power even if that is by a majority.
Oh. My Crap. Maybe you should LEARN something so you don't have to depend on your SON for advice or depend on completely illogical ASSumptions like saying I'm in the 1%.
I'm NOT advocating for violence. Idiot. I've pointed out REPEATEDLY that most people find YOUR suggestions of non-violence to be offensive in and of themselves. Who needs violence to be annoying as hell and infringe upon the rights of others? THEY-without being violent-step all over the rights of OTHER PEOPLE-because you have absolutely NO concern for how your actions affect or trouble or deny OTHER CITIZENS their rights to PEACE and SAFETY and NON-obstruction by YOU.
Again-DO YOU WANT the things you posted in the OP-the freakin list of "non-violent" ways to protest-to be done to YOU? Would you be perfectly fine with me coming to your neighborhood with 40 Tea Party people and standing in front of your house screaming and banging drums all day? Would that be violating YOUR RIGHT to peace and quiet? Can we pack up and move into the vacant house down the street from you, and paint it red white and blue and sing Patriotic (or religious) songs all day and throw yankee doodle parades smack down the middle of the streets you need to drive to work on? Or take your wife to the hospital on? We wouldn't be VIOLENT-but we sure as hell wouldn't be respecting YOUR rights.
My point more clearly-and S L O W L Y typed-has it ever crossed your mind that the more enlightened a society becomes the LESS it takes to be considered VIOLENT? And even if the vast majority of people do not define them as violent, they DO define them as childish, stupid, and without regard to the feelings or lives of those they affect. And I'd love to know if you'd really want them "done unto you".
My son is a world class doctor not a six year old. All I get from you is the proper way to initiate change is to do either nothing or do things which your opposition considers kind. Perhaps a third option would be to simply debate the corporate greed centers into no longer being greedy bullies. M.L. King, JR thought inaction was just as immoral as violence. As to Gene Sharp's ideas I am not advocating any particular one of them but rather simply letting others read all of them as you evidently did sometime earlier just as I did and make their own evaluation. The post asked for non-violent ideas. The dude has got them. I certainly think there is a time and place for non-violent resistance and there is a debate about what tactic is best at any given time. I certainly would not like any of these practiced against me but then I would prefer all of them to being faced with violent means. Doing nothing except reasonable debate would have never achieved the civil rights movement's results in this nation or Ghandi's results in India. You and I disagree on at least one thing. I do think there is a place for non-violent protest and for perhaps honorable reasons you do not think it is ever appropriate. I am satisfied with that conclusion to our discussion. My wife and I disagree at times too and we have a wonderful marriage of 36 years. As a side note it is a wonderful thing to raise children who become one's peers. That was my goal since the days when I changed their diapers so very long ago. .
You want ideas. You got them.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/
The Revolution starts here!