CarwilBJ's Twitter Archive

New, data-driven research on Bolivia shows that the "backfire"—the moral and political backlash to repression— can happen even when movements fight back… up to, and including, when they cause deaths among security forces. cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-latin-american-studies/article/when-does-lethal-repression-fail-unarmed-militancy-and-backfire-in-bolivia-19822021/EF57368D13F9C5683EE42BD9025F2B6B
On twitter.com ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 6 Favorites 2024 Apr 26 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
This finding is consistent with twentieth century movement successes in Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia, including Argentina (2001), Egypt (2011), and Ukraine (2014), all of which overthrew national governments.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood 0

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
Backfire is real: Sometimes dramatic deadly repression fails spectacularly to achieve its desired results, while politicians’ choice to employ it puts their political futures at stake.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
But current theories of backfire, which argue nonviolent discipline is a pre-requisite, are wrong. We must refine our view of which movements can succeed by winning moral and mobilisational victories over repression, and of how they do so.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood +9 🙂

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
Unions of peasants and miners, urban uprisings against privatisation, teachers and pensioners each cultivated a combative profile. As unarmed militants they fought back against repression and won.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
Coca growers in particular were cast by successive governments as both criminals and terrorists, but maintained a mass base for mobilization and allies in civil society, often prevailing after deadly repression.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood -8 🙁

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
When unarmed opposition movements challenge a government willing to use deadly force, they have tactical choices: should they fight uphill battles to hold the streets, or maintain nonviolent discipline to claim a moral victory?
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
Over the past twenty years, have argued there is only one answer. "So, is this revolution capable of sustaining itself and using the type of tactics that are the only tactics that win against violence? … a textbook, sustainable, nonviolent, “can‘t be provoked” movement."*
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood +4 🙂

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
Recent Bolivian experience suggests that this choice is less fraught than other scholars have argued. Unarmed militants who engage in deadly confrontations can BOTH prevent their mobilizations from being quelled and win their demands.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood 0

…in reply to @CarwilBJ
Conversely, the victories unarmed militants win aren't all won tactically. It is politics and mass mobilization that ultimately save them, just as their holding the streets can keep open the space for mass politics.
Permalink On twitter.com 2024 Apr 26 Mood +12 🙂