Erica Chenoweth initially thought that only violent protests were effective. However after analyzing 323 movements the results were opposite of what Erica thought:
For the next two years, Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change.
If campaigns allow their repression to throw the movement into total disarray or they use it as a pretext to militarize their campaign, then they’re essentially co-signing what the regime wants — for the resisters to play on its own playing field. And they’re probably going to get totally crushed.
Our neighbors are literally the fashies right now. They’re dismantling our government as we speak. We’re literally being conquered.
You said violence isn’t ‘secure’ but then said you need violence to protect yourself from tankies and fascists, unless they’re already in your country I guess?
I’m just not following. And I’m not sure how your last statements relate to the idea of ‘nothing won by violence is secure’? How is the embarrassment that is the Democrats related to fighting back against tyranny with violence if necessary? If anything Democrats are the argument that peaceful methods are failing, not an argument that violence will gain us nothing.