This feels like such a huge and important question, with much to consider. I hope Loomio is able to help us navigate it together.

1. Popularity with who?

I think we would do well to prioritise working on our popularity with the working class and people of colour. Surreal as it is for me, it's media owned and operated by the middle class and elites who are painting XR as only reaching the middle class, so apparently we can satisfy them and the working class at the same time by better connecting with the working class.

This means (for example) not designing actions which disproportionately disrupt the working class. They (and people of colour) should be impacted less than other demographics by our disruptive actions. It also might involve messaging which is more in touch with issues such as difficulty of participating (let alone being arrestables) for people who can't get time off work.

People of colour - this doesn't feel like the right thread to go into detail but examples of how we might be more relevant and inclusive of PoC could include a more vocal recognition of the challenges, traumas and unfairness PoC face with police and taking part in actions which could also pose threats to people's right to live in the UK/ get work.

2. Relevance of case studies / XR's achievements

I will admit I've not read all of Chenworth's studies yet (happy for people to correct/ inform me!) but I hear frequent references of how unpopular MLK was in the American civil rights movement, the suffragettes and Ghandi during the salt marches; the beginning of India reclaiming independence from the British colonialists. These people and movements had far from majority support (especially in the early days) and I don't doubt we can learn from them, but XR feels pretty different. Eg. "Give women / black people a vote" vs "Give us a Citizens assembly + meet our 2 (maybe 3?) other demands as well"

I feel part of the challenge here is around the complexity of our demands (what is a CA? How viable is a 2025 zero carbon target and what would it entail??) and confusion around our tactics (why disrupt electric public transport to get at gvmt??) and perceived hypocrisy (you rebels have phones, cars & carbon footprints). I feel this makes XR quite different to these 3 human rights movements because they make visible a very clear oppression of a demographic of people.

3. 4th demand / solidarity

While XR is telling the truth in a way that's radical and is really speaking to a lot of people, I do feel there's a bit of truth we're not telling enough; to make sense of "where we are & how bad it is" I feel we need to connect more with the perhaps even more uncomfortable truth of "how we got here" - which by the way, is where much of the global south has already been, for decades - pollution, deforestation, mass extinction and climate change destroying communities, crops and infrastructure, starvation and mass migration.

In my mind, and heart, the we got here is white westerners' profound disconnection (of understanding and empathy) for the people and other life we colonised. For generation after generation, we have exercised oppressive power over other people and the planet, extracting from them for our personal short termist, selfish or complicit endeavour to satisfy an insatiable hunger for more power, comfort and consumables. Without this cultural disconnect, this unequal way of viewing other races and species, we will continue to see their suffering as less important than ours, and the injustice can never be rebalanced, and the healing can never begin.

Conclusion

I would like to hear from others, and I recognise the risk of XR collapsing in on itself if it tries to fight every injustice at once and that we need to pick our battles, prioritise them and start somewhere and move forward from there.

However, I currently would love for us to aim for much higher active participation and support than 3.5% (maybe more like 5% active participation + 60% support of our tactics specifically, and also for the skepticism and hate to be less extreme) - from the working class and people of colour in particular. So prioritising their support + active involvement.

Thanks Luke, yes to quote one of our UK Rebel Spokes on National TV recently, “it’s not a popularity contest.”
History shows in order to generate the pressure for change there will be push back. MLK, Gandhi and other successful peaceful civil disobedience movements get labelled terrorists. We need to develop the personal and collective emotional maturity and resilience to deal with this, Not try and avoid it.
In terms of numbers, Erica’s work is helpful, esp to inspire outreach, but should not be taken as gospel. each of us can be more proactive with outreach. Every time we do anything let’s be open to bringing new people in. Let’s have Sign up sheets, leaflets, stickers, etc with us where ever we go and use them! Let’s all train up to give talks and trainings and tailor them to our communities and help create new groups. Let’s all write letters to newspapers, social media posts, etc to bring new people in.
Let’s also be rigorous with data. What are three numbers saying? What works? We know the DLR action in April was our peak for recruitment and donations. What happened in October?
Let’s be rigorous in hearing all views not just the loudest and most repetitive. Many feel the 3 train actions were our most powerful and important actions to date, yet these voices and views have not been widely heard.
Let’s not have a 4th demand that’s been dreadful for the movement in the US, let’s amend the 3 demands to better include repair and colonialism, let’s all support the de-colonialisation trainings which we e been so close to getting but have not yet got off the ground so far.

Hi mate, excited for you to take part in this experiment. I have a lot of faith in Loomio helping us to have more effective dialogue, which translates into decision making and ultimately improving how we work. And amplify the unheard voices you mention (eg. those in support of the Canning Town action).

MLK, Gandhi and other successful peaceful civil disobedience movements get labelled terrorists. We need to develop the personal and collective emotional maturity and resilience to deal with this, Not try and avoid it.

I think I'm partly with you, and partly see more (very important!) nuance to this..

There's

1. a 'both and more' here I think; somewhere between avoiding it and dealing with it (depending how we deal with it) where we could do more imaginative, original, creative actions - ones we haven't done before, only this one is in a reeaally low income working class and ethnically diverse (more than we are) area; aaaanyway, let's keep this action-post mortem to the relevant thread! < would love to read your thoughts / learnings from that action

2. and I'm really interested in your thoughts on Nafeez's critique on this - separate thread for that too

The 4th demand is such a big one. I think it'd be smart to have a separate thread on that too, again hopefully using Loomio to do a Temperature check on it and hear all angles on the debate until we have the most insightful possible proposal come from our dialogue.

Still interested in your answer to this thread's question though Larch!
How popular do you think we should aim to be, all things considered? 3.5% enough or (how much) more?
and if you do think we should prioritise increasing our popularity - who with? (or all demographics equally?)

My thoughts on "How popular must we aim to be?/Erica Chenoweth"

If the question is, "do we need to be liked?" based on Erica Chenoweth's studies, then she said on her TED talk from 2013:

“The point here is that nonviolent campaigns can solicit more diverse and active participation from ambivalent people. And once those people get involved, it’s almost guaranteed that the movement will then have some links to security forces, the state media, business or educational elites, religious authorities, and civilian bureaucrats who start to question their allegiances. No regime loyalists in any country live entirely isolated from the population itself. They have friends, they have family, and they have existing relationships that they have to live with in the long term, regardless of whether the leader stays or goes. “

It suggests that the reason for the small % needed to achieve the demands are the social links. Remember other social theories like the 6 degrees of separation? Same theory, different angle!

Let me put it this way. If a movement reaches 3.5% of the population, non-protesters will have a high likelihood of finding individuals they know being involved. This fact will make non-protesters empathize with the reasons that lead protesters to mobilize.

This will happen if no-protesters like those protesting individuals or feel familiarised or identified with them (for example, if they belong to the same peer group). If non-protesters dislike those individuals protesting, knowing them will be counterproductive for the movement and its credibility (non-protesters might think “of course, my annoying colleague is one of those crazy people”, “not surprise my lazy uncle is an uncooperative crusty”).

So, my point is that by being popular, we maximize the efficiency of any action.

This efficiency push can come both from our popularity as individuals and the popularity of our tactics and actions. Better to be a Robin Hood when selecting our targets (Black Rock is a great specific example, and in general, targeting polluting agents).

If we think of it, XR tactics are meant to be popular to succeed. Non-violence itself is the most likeable approach we can take to an act of protest. Same as the sense of sacrifice… that is why they both come together, in love and popularity!

And what about our street parties?

More thoughts for a reply
(or for a kiss & a slug)

The target of 3.5% (based on the Chenoweth research) is for actively participating people. It's just completely implausible we could achieve that level of participation if there isn't broad passive support in the population (see the excellent post by @curiousmind). I don't think anyone knows exactly how much passive support we need, but my hunch is simply: if the majority are clearly against us, we can't succeed because the more influential and powerful we got, the stronger the opposition would become. Polls this year have tended to be around one third support, one third oppose, one third don't know (or slightly worse). So I really don't think we can afford to neglect how the general public sees us.

How does Loomio recognise the concensus in this conversation? Or does it?