3.5% participation is required for a population to reach a Tipping Point, and start a trend that leads to change. In America, that’s about 12.5 million people. The last No Kings protest was about 5.5 million people, this one was around 7 million, so we’re getting closer.
The thing to remember, because MAGA surely does, is that the 12.5 million doesn’t all have to be out marching. The No Kings protesters represent less than half of their actual numbers. In fact, they probably represent less than 20% of their total. A LOT of sympathizers stayed home, most of them, in fact.
MAGA understands that the protesters are only a small portion of the actual resistance, and they know they are surrounded. It’s time that the rest of the country recognizes that.
You could at least as easily say the calendar date is most important. With peoples lack of attention span, will this still matter to them next election? As we continue to build support, will it hit critical mass at the right time to affect next election?
Or on the shorter term, is it only the local results that matter. I live in a blue state that is trying to fight back in some ways. My most important short term goal is to show them that’s what their constituents want. They need to fight back with every chance they get and to not be discouraged.
I admit, it almost worked on me. I was a little scared to go, and I left my phone and identifying information at home. I also brought a 360 degree camera in case shit happened, figured I’d have a better chance of getting it on camera.
But instead it was a massive party, just fun people, hilarious signs and a truly pleasant and enjoyable walk through the city. It really helped break some of my cynicism; some, not all.
Seem to be a lot of people posting this so I’ll just repost what I wrote elsewhere :
The 3.5% theory is extremely questionable. The first paragraph of (the BBC) article is problematic if you know like 3 things about Philippine politics.
I’ve dug deeper into the data and it is very opinionated how it defines “success” and violence/nonviolence.
I’m not a pro-violence guy, i defend liberation struggles, but work to create educational/political/cultural revolution. Also the 3.5% mobilized population would be rad AF in USAmerica.
I haven’t read the whole book the study is based on, though I was working on it for a while. But IMO it misrepresents historical fact to make a nice-sounding abstraction, and I’m not sure how people will react to its failure, which would be based on a faulty premise.
We need to be more focused on what we will do with the power that will come from mobilizing like 12 million Americans rather than hoping some members of the political class notice and decide to fix things. The actual problem is that power is kept out of the hands of workers. The thought of building that power and giving it away would be a catastrophic blow to our movements.
The political system is empowered to fix problems, but not equipped. As far as I can tell, the only people who have ever created or fixed a goddamn thing in all of history have been workers.
No it doesn’t and stop posting this as gospel and read what the people who observed this actually say. For one there is one where 6% of the population was involved and it failed. Another protests are becoming less effective both peaceful and violent. Another other factors are also important besides the 3.5 number. Look up what these guys actually say instead of arriving some magical number.
I’d like to add. You also need them to actually be afraid. If they know a few protests is all it’s ever going to become, they won’t give half a shit. The threat, and the reason the government might start acting differently, is from the implecation that these (I suppose in this case 12.5 million) people are ready to hang the government. If they aren’t ready to do that, fuck all is going to change. As it is right now, it seems 99% of the protesters are pacifists. As in, going to do fuck all either way.
They don’t have to think that that many people are going to physically come after them–they have to think that if that many peaceful people are against them, how many not-so-peaceful are also out there? They have to think that those millions of people are going to be on the side of and support those that do come after them and won’t cooperate with the regime. In other words, if something should happen, these millions of pacifists will have seen nothing, heard nothing, have no idea where the “terrorists” are hiding, etc.
They also have to worry that if millions turned out to peaceably protest, millions might also participate in a general strike or other large work stoppages, another means of peaceful protest that scares them more than just large crowds. Even the threat of labor being withheld scares the oligarchs. So ee need to make that happen. The mayor of Chicago has already called for it.
They also have to worry that millions might also take part in the upcoming Black(Out) Friday on Nov. 28th, another form of peaceful protest the day after Thanksgiving (some say it lasts for the whole week) when we refuse to shop at big box stores/big businesses, only buying from small/local businesses. That’s the weekend that most retail companies make the bulk of their annual sales.
And BTW it was very important that there was no violence at the protests–the regime had been putting out a lot of propaganda warning that it would be violent and that participants would be mostly “antifa terrorists”, “illegal immigrants” and “Hamas supporters”. They hoped to get some footage of violence they could spread and tout as proof of their assertions and were denied–everyone could see how ridiculous their claims were. That’s important.
That is the tricky thing about basing predictions on historic trends. IIRC, is was Arab spring in some countries that broke the rule (and that “rule” was calculated based on data from 1900-2006). I’m also curious how Nepal and Madagascar stack up compared to historic trends.
Other aspects of Chenoweths research (such as the importance of “converting” certain factions such as police or military - or at least getting them to be neutral) are important as well but don’t get as much traction as the clickbaity 3.5% number does
ETA: Nepal’s discord had about 100k members, and it’s population is 29 million. So that was well below 3.5%. Like No Kings, Nepals protests were decentralized, which is potentially a factor compared to historic protests which tend to be focused on a single location or march
I’ve studied it quite a bit, and I stand by what I posted. Nothing is guaranteed, but the Tipping Point is a real phenomenon. That said, every situation is different, and it isn’t a Universal Truth, just a guide.
The primary point is that it doesn’t take an enormous wave to effect change. Studies and history have demonstrated that a Tipping Point can POTENTIALLY happen with as little as 3.5%.
Sure, but it makes no sense to just focus on the numbers. No threshold will be sufficient for change. And there’s also no numerical requirement for it. Those stats only have meaning the other way around - a successful “revolution” required X amount of people in the past. Matching that number will do nothing on its own
You aren’t understanding that it doesn’t matter. The bigger the crowds, the worse it is for MAGA, and they KNOW it. Assigning a number that can make them panic as it increases is the objective. It’s an enormously powerful psychological tool
Maybe it isn’t accurate, or it’s more nuanced than that, but all that is lost on MAGAs. They are cowardly to their core, so if they think their world ends at 12.5 million people, then they will get more and more frightened as we get closer, and either fight or surrender. Most will surrender, and we can deal decisively with those who try to fight.
We have to keep beating them over the head with the rising number getting closer and closer to the Tipping Point. That will keep them increasingly scared and vulnerable.
There’s definitely been some fallacious “appeals to popularity” from them. Like, someone will say that “I empathize with other human beings”, and they’ll snicker “Oh, buddy. You just outed yourself. The days are coming for people like you.” and the first person will just reply “WTF are you talking about? I don’t care if there are only 2 other people like me in the world, or if you’re threatening me, I’ll still hold to empathy.”
Those conversations worry them. Learning that they’re the minority, especially when the majority is not easily typecast as “illegal immigrants”, scares them.
It’s psychological warfare against people who have poor emotional coping skills. Every day that MAGA is unhappy is a good day for the rest of us. It throws them off their game, and causes them to make mistakes at a greater rate than usual, which makes it harder for them to hold their coalition together, and makes it worse for them in the next election.
While you’re not wrong, I believe it works for another reason. Almost nobody forms and acts on a political opinion in complete isolation; most of us follow the herd to a greater or lesser extent. And if we consider “herd followers”, (ie. people whose choice of political action or inaction is primarily motivated by what they see other people around them doing) as a demographic, it would be an overwhelmingly huge demographic, the majority of the population. There’s any number of reasons why people might act this way. Maybe they lack the resources or confidence to form an independent political opinion. Maybe they made a pragmatic choice for the sake of their own personal safety, or that of their children. Maybe something in between.
But the important point is that this demographic is huge, so much so that no political movement could hope to succeed without courting them effectively. How do you get these people to join you? Well, that’s simple, they are herd followers, so you have to be (or appear to be) “the herd”. When you see 7 million people in the streets, the message is clear. That’s the herd. That’s the way the wind is blowing. That’s how you get that demographic on your side, and when you do that, you win.
3.5% participation is required for a population to reach a Tipping Point, and start a trend that leads to change. In America, that’s about 12.5 million people. The last No Kings protest was about 5.5 million people, this one was around 7 million, so we’re getting closer.
The thing to remember, because MAGA surely does, is that the 12.5 million doesn’t all have to be out marching. The No Kings protesters represent less than half of their actual numbers. In fact, they probably represent less than 20% of their total. A LOT of sympathizers stayed home, most of them, in fact.
MAGA understands that the protesters are only a small portion of the actual resistance, and they know they are surrounded. It’s time that the rest of the country recognizes that.
A correlation not a requirement.
You could at least as easily say the calendar date is most important. With peoples lack of attention span, will this still matter to them next election? As we continue to build support, will it hit critical mass at the right time to affect next election?
Or on the shorter term, is it only the local results that matter. I live in a blue state that is trying to fight back in some ways. My most important short term goal is to show them that’s what their constituents want. They need to fight back with every chance they get and to not be discouraged.
I admit, it almost worked on me. I was a little scared to go, and I left my phone and identifying information at home. I also brought a 360 degree camera in case shit happened, figured I’d have a better chance of getting it on camera.
But instead it was a massive party, just fun people, hilarious signs and a truly pleasant and enjoyable walk through the city. It really helped break some of my cynicism; some, not all.
I can’t wait for the next one.
Do you have a source for this? I was recently wondering about specific numbers and would happily read something on the topic.
The Wiki article is a good starting point I think.
Most important to keep in mind for this is that afaik the research was only correlative so there can be any amount of other factors in causative play.
But it’s an intriguing couple of studies nonetheless.
Two good books are Malcom Gladwell’s Tipping Point, and Mark Penn’s Microtrends.
No kings needs to accelerate their frequency. This needs to move to every night.
Seem to be a lot of people posting this so I’ll just repost what I wrote elsewhere :
The 3.5% theory is extremely questionable. The first paragraph of (the BBC) article is problematic if you know like 3 things about Philippine politics.
I’ve dug deeper into the data and it is very opinionated how it defines “success” and violence/nonviolence.
I’m not a pro-violence guy, i defend liberation struggles, but work to create educational/political/cultural revolution. Also the 3.5% mobilized population would be rad AF in USAmerica.
I haven’t read the whole book the study is based on, though I was working on it for a while. But IMO it misrepresents historical fact to make a nice-sounding abstraction, and I’m not sure how people will react to its failure, which would be based on a faulty premise.
We need to be more focused on what we will do with the power that will come from mobilizing like 12 million Americans rather than hoping some members of the political class notice and decide to fix things. The actual problem is that power is kept out of the hands of workers. The thought of building that power and giving it away would be a catastrophic blow to our movements.
The political system is empowered to fix problems, but not equipped. As far as I can tell, the only people who have ever created or fixed a goddamn thing in all of history have been workers.
No it doesn’t and stop posting this as gospel and read what the people who observed this actually say. For one there is one where 6% of the population was involved and it failed. Another protests are becoming less effective both peaceful and violent. Another other factors are also important besides the 3.5 number. Look up what these guys actually say instead of arriving some magical number.
I’d like to add. You also need them to actually be afraid. If they know a few protests is all it’s ever going to become, they won’t give half a shit. The threat, and the reason the government might start acting differently, is from the implecation that these (I suppose in this case 12.5 million) people are ready to hang the government. If they aren’t ready to do that, fuck all is going to change. As it is right now, it seems 99% of the protesters are pacifists. As in, going to do fuck all either way.
They don’t have to think that that many people are going to physically come after them–they have to think that if that many peaceful people are against them, how many not-so-peaceful are also out there? They have to think that those millions of people are going to be on the side of and support those that do come after them and won’t cooperate with the regime. In other words, if something should happen, these millions of pacifists will have seen nothing, heard nothing, have no idea where the “terrorists” are hiding, etc.
They also have to worry that if millions turned out to peaceably protest, millions might also participate in a general strike or other large work stoppages, another means of peaceful protest that scares them more than just large crowds. Even the threat of labor being withheld scares the oligarchs. So ee need to make that happen. The mayor of Chicago has already called for it.
They also have to worry that millions might also take part in the upcoming Black(Out) Friday on Nov. 28th, another form of peaceful protest the day after Thanksgiving (some say it lasts for the whole week) when we refuse to shop at big box stores/big businesses, only buying from small/local businesses. That’s the weekend that most retail companies make the bulk of their annual sales.
And BTW it was very important that there was no violence at the protests–the regime had been putting out a lot of propaganda warning that it would be violent and that participants would be mostly “antifa terrorists”, “illegal immigrants” and “Hamas supporters”. They hoped to get some footage of violence they could spread and tout as proof of their assertions and were denied–everyone could see how ridiculous their claims were. That’s important.
That is the tricky thing about basing predictions on historic trends. IIRC, is was Arab spring in some countries that broke the rule (and that “rule” was calculated based on data from 1900-2006). I’m also curious how Nepal and Madagascar stack up compared to historic trends.
Other aspects of Chenoweths research (such as the importance of “converting” certain factions such as police or military - or at least getting them to be neutral) are important as well but don’t get as much traction as the clickbaity 3.5% number does
ETA: Nepal’s discord had about 100k members, and it’s population is 29 million. So that was well below 3.5%. Like No Kings, Nepals protests were decentralized, which is potentially a factor compared to historic protests which tend to be focused on a single location or march
I’ve studied it quite a bit, and I stand by what I posted. Nothing is guaranteed, but the Tipping Point is a real phenomenon. That said, every situation is different, and it isn’t a Universal Truth, just a guide.
The primary point is that it doesn’t take an enormous wave to effect change. Studies and history have demonstrated that a Tipping Point can POTENTIALLY happen with as little as 3.5%.
But no revolution comes with a guarantee
Sure, but it makes no sense to just focus on the numbers. No threshold will be sufficient for change. And there’s also no numerical requirement for it. Those stats only have meaning the other way around - a successful “revolution” required X amount of people in the past. Matching that number will do nothing on its own
You aren’t understanding that it doesn’t matter. The bigger the crowds, the worse it is for MAGA, and they KNOW it. Assigning a number that can make them panic as it increases is the objective. It’s an enormously powerful psychological tool
Maybe it isn’t accurate, or it’s more nuanced than that, but all that is lost on MAGAs. They are cowardly to their core, so if they think their world ends at 12.5 million people, then they will get more and more frightened as we get closer, and either fight or surrender. Most will surrender, and we can deal decisively with those who try to fight.
We have to keep beating them over the head with the rising number getting closer and closer to the Tipping Point. That will keep them increasingly scared and vulnerable.
There’s definitely been some fallacious “appeals to popularity” from them. Like, someone will say that “I empathize with other human beings”, and they’ll snicker “Oh, buddy. You just outed yourself. The days are coming for people like you.” and the first person will just reply “WTF are you talking about? I don’t care if there are only 2 other people like me in the world, or if you’re threatening me, I’ll still hold to empathy.”
Those conversations worry them. Learning that they’re the minority, especially when the majority is not easily typecast as “illegal immigrants”, scares them.
And making them panic does what, exactly?
Making someone panic is a great way to “encourage” them to make big mistakes. Panicky people don’t make good decisions.
It’s psychological warfare against people who have poor emotional coping skills. Every day that MAGA is unhappy is a good day for the rest of us. It throws them off their game, and causes them to make mistakes at a greater rate than usual, which makes it harder for them to hold their coalition together, and makes it worse for them in the next election.
While you’re not wrong, I believe it works for another reason. Almost nobody forms and acts on a political opinion in complete isolation; most of us follow the herd to a greater or lesser extent. And if we consider “herd followers”, (ie. people whose choice of political action or inaction is primarily motivated by what they see other people around them doing) as a demographic, it would be an overwhelmingly huge demographic, the majority of the population. There’s any number of reasons why people might act this way. Maybe they lack the resources or confidence to form an independent political opinion. Maybe they made a pragmatic choice for the sake of their own personal safety, or that of their children. Maybe something in between.
But the important point is that this demographic is huge, so much so that no political movement could hope to succeed without courting them effectively. How do you get these people to join you? Well, that’s simple, they are herd followers, so you have to be (or appear to be) “the herd”. When you see 7 million people in the streets, the message is clear. That’s the herd. That’s the way the wind is blowing. That’s how you get that demographic on your side, and when you do that, you win.
A good number of sympathizers were too busy working to stay afloat