I am confused about when Ahmed says "Not only did very few of these cases involve overthrow of a democracy, none of them involved successful nonviolent efforts to overthrow or change a Western liberal democracy." It seems to me that he is implying that we want to overthrow democracy! Am I interpreting this correctly? Or am I missing something?

Agree this is an odd choice of words – but I think the core point being made here is that the 3.5% figure derives from an analysis protest movements against non-Western, mostly autocratic regimes, and therefore cannot be assumed to generalise to movements in Western, liberal, democratic regimes, regardless of the intent of the movement

I think the basic difference between not only the cases Chenoweth et al. have looked at but also those the larger tradition they're working in (going back to first and foremost Gene Sharp) has focused on is the following: They are concerned with regime change, while we are working for system change. To me, it's an open question to what extent their results are valid or helpful guidelines in our situation and where they have to be modified or amended. I'm currently working on a more detailed analysis of this; if you're interested in reading and commenting on it, please let me know.

My view on this, specifically, is that given the paucity of any historical examples of successful, wholesale system change, it was a 'good enough' starting point to derive a strategy from historical examples of regime change but we now need to embrace the necessity of experimentation -- given that we're trying to do something that hasn't really ever been done before (at least in such a comprehensive way).

This means taking a more systematically empirical approach to actions (in particular). I.e., identifying certain metrics that could be used to ascertain the efficacy of different tactics across various dimensions (media coverage, positivity/negativity of members of the public encountering the action, subjective sense of success among rebel participants, etc etc).

However, if there is any way to better guide this experimentation with hypotheses derived from a refined theoretical basis, that would of course be ideal. Definitely interested in contributing to your analysis Wolfgang.

i think it's a really good article. some interesting insights and analysis on those books and some very appropriate criticisms of systemic issues within XR. i think it is a responsibility for all of us with any privilege to recognise and talk about how that power affects our peers and the groups we are in.

what triggers me a bit is the over-inflated idea of what XR's role is - "a vehicle to save the human species" 🤯. they really well outline what a healthy movement ecology looks like but kind of misunderstands XR for being the endgame and "spearheading the system change we desperately need".

XR has its DNA which exists alongside many other organisations as part of a larger movement and meta-movement. i think the work we need to do is to deeply understand what our role is as part of a system change and what it looks like to work as part of that, rather than as a silo-ed, self-proclaimed "movement".

Here's a video on movement ecology from the Ayni Institute - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGWYaw3he2w&feature=youtu.be

While I disagree some of the things raised in the article (Linda makes a good point that we are not trying to overthrow British democracy) I agree with the core of the article. That the case studies that form the basis of XR strategies maybe flawed given they consist of an obviously oppressed group trying to change the system of oppression by targeting their oppressors.

I think we do need to be more flexible with our stragegy. And not Just because we want to single-mindedly achieve our three demands, most of us in this movement do want to achieve them in a fair and just way that empowers those that have been historically, and still are, oppressed.

On inclusion, anti-racism and class awareness:

I think we need to take the critiques around inclusivity and diversity in XR really seriously. I don't think the detail of those critiques needs to be rehashed here, but I want to focus on one particular remedy that has been suggested repeatedly, including in this piece, which is to bring critical voices, people who can speak first-hand from the perspective of communities who currently feel excluded, into the core of XR.
I don't feel particularly central within XR but am am very aware that of the people I know who seem to be closer to the core of the movement, almost all of them look and sound like me. And an article also comes to mind – I can't find it now but perhaps someone else remembers – that I think quite accurately described how despite XR's claims to a decentralised, self-organising structure, there is a sort of invisible hierarchy, an influential in-crowd from which most of the major ideas and plans originate, and that admission to this group is not something that can be achieved through any formal route.
When I think about suggestions of workshops on various forms of power and privilege and how to include those considerations in our decisions in XR, I see a lot of value in the idea but I worry that there just isn’t all that much concern for those issues or appetite for learning more about them across the wider XR community. I think that to address that problem, there needs to be a change in the messaging that comes for XR spokespeople and the internal messaging also. And I think that all of that depends on bringing those perspectives into the core of the movement, not just trying to do our best to learn about them and represent them by proxy.
So I don't know how I feel about the existence of the invisible hierarchy exactly, and I don’t know that much about the makeup or diversity of the inner circle, but I do feel strongly that if that's how things are going to operate then that inner circle needs to include people with broader perspectives who can directly address XR's societal blind spots. And that when they speak, we need to shut up and listen.

For me it was one of the best and most productive critiques I have read so far. I am on solo childcare duties so that is almost all I can say at this time. The other article that I found most refreshing and illuminating on an emotional level is this https://medium.com/@copwatcher_uk/it-is-not-just-a-bunch-of-flowers-bc5078b899e4 from Kevin Blowe coordinator of NetPol who are ceaselessly hardworking in support of rebels and are most definitely the sort of critical friends where we must remember to always see the friend and not just the critic.

I agree that there is an inner circle. I believe that you can be admitted to it if you're around a lot and work hard (maybe that's just my bias because I kinda feel like I was admitted), but it is an informal thing and it shouldn't be. There is not enough acknowledgement of the fact that decisions that get the green light do so because the person advocating for them holds clout. This needs to change. In the self-organising system, power is supposed to be held by elected role holders who can be challenged at any time. This also happens. Both happen! I don't know how to get rid of the influence of clout...