[deleted]

What about in societies where the law is written by the law breakers?

Ghandi prevailed because there was an unassociated militant revolutionary movement operating at the same time. Also, Ghandi's brand of non-violence didn't include destruction of property. Ghandi advocated destroying British-owned goods and property. All this combined, along with the financial strain on the UK after WWII lead to the end of imperial rule.

non-violent protests are not just for powerless fools. they can be very effective at generating sympathy for your cause or coverage. they can be, but the media agrees with the powers that be these days and don't cover them and look for that one instance of violence true or not ('that guy lit a cigarette, this protest is filled with pyromaniacs!)

consider them a strategic tool that should be deployed when circumstances are right. Not the 'use this for everything' tool we seem to consider it now, which has greatly reduced their effectiveness and made them easy to ignore.

Part of the problem is that a violent protest will just lead to clashes with the police who will win and it will not help your cause. The media looks for the faults, not the triumphs, and they seem to be paid to paint a certain portrait. Anything less than non violent is neigh impossible to organize with anything more than a dozen people. So we use this somewhat poor option because we have few others.

Modern Democracy if you don't like it you can: vote (not effective) protest (not effective) bitch about it on the internet (not effective)

But nonviolent tactics will only receive concessions. For a while, things will be okay, they will give us something like our civil liberties back, a few at a time, lift curfews. But when it really cracks, when they start rolling military in the US streets, you think they will stop for non violent protests?

Our military has been trained how to infiltrate villages, how to raid houses, how to control and subdue cities. A few people sitting in circles will either be dragged away (Like pigs already do) Or hell they may not even stop the tanks.

Non violence is a way to also appease the state. They hope that the only resistance they will encounter will be sign holders, hippies with flowers, and maybe some of their own provocateurs to make sure things get broken up- by their thugs in blue.

There is a time and place for non violence. And at the rate everything is going, that window is closing.

Edit: Media is controlled by the top, the same people that control government. They can spin and portray non violent protesters as dirty hippies trashing the area around them (Zuccoti).

[deleted]

Yeah... Violence can work, no doubt about it. Having not been in war myself i can say it may even be a good idea sometimes. Violence against our government though may not go so well. You may have noticed that we've been slowly building a neigh impossible to resist system that can be if i wants to be far more effective than the syrian regime at keeping a lid on things. We are about a dozen years away from having neither non violent or violent opositions having the capacity to make effective change.

The internet. It precipitated change in whole industries, in social mores and attitudes, in the work, social and sex lives of millions.

[deleted]

Neolithic Revolution probably went pretty smoothly.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2012/07/20127722321939213.html

You need both in order to accomplish major social change. There is a peaceful side and a militant side. You need both because the peaceful side is not enough to scare those in power to change. MLK had the black panthers in Malcolm X and Stokley Carmichael. Ghandi had the organizations that were bombing british buildings and symbols. That is why the British didn't dispose of Ghandi, because they knew the alternative would be far worse. While MLK studied peaceful change and non-violence, Stokley Carmichael and Malcolm X studied power. One of the best quotes i have ever heard:

STOKELY CARMICHAEL: Now, let us begin with the modern period of — I guess we could start with 1956. For our generation, this was the beginning of the rise of Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr. King decided that in Montgomery, Alabama, black people had to pay the same prices on the buses as did white people, but we had to sit in the back. And we could only sit in the back if every available seat was taken by a white person. If a white person was standing, a black person could not sit. So Dr. King and his associates got together and said, "This is inhuman. We will boycott your bus system."

Now, understand what a boycott is. A boycott is a passive act. It is the most passive political act that anyone can commit, a boycott, because what the boycott was doing was simply saying, "We will not ride your buses." No sort of antagonism. It was not even verbally violent. It was peaceful. Dr. King’s policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none, has none.

I saw this on the black power mix tape, it is a sweedish documentary about the civil rights movement. A very eye opening, and perspective altering view of America from the non-partisan eyes of Sweedish journalist. I hope this helps.

I would greatly appreciate a link or a title for that documentary.

http://www.watch4freemovies.com/the-black-power-mixtape-1967-1975/ i think this should do

Velvet revolution?

The Bloodless Revolution

"The Glorious Revolution is also occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately. The English Civil War (also known as the Great Rebellion) was still within living memory for most of the major English participants in the events of 1688, and for them, in comparison to that war (or even the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685) the deaths in the conflict of 1688 were mercifully few."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

MLK would be a closer example.

MLK was accepted by the establishment because the alternative was Malcolm X.

And they would have lost that war.

http://shanoboy.com/ezln/index.htm EZLN and the Zapatistas it was called the first postmodern nonviolent revolution.

Womens' right to vote. Gay marriages. Fall of Berlin wall. Fall of Communism.

Womens rights:

"the WSPU's tactics became increasingly violent. This included an attempt in 1908 to storm the House of Commons, the arson of David Lloyd George's country home (despite his support for women's suffrage)."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage

Gay marriage:

Oh, sure. I bet violence played almost no part in any of these peoples' lives. Also, this revolution is not over yet.

Berlin wall / Communism:

Oh... it would appear you are an idiot.

Edit: Oh... it would appear i have been down voted for disagreeing with someone who is wrong. What a shock.

Oh... it would appear you are an idiot.

What is wrong with you?

I'm autistic.

Maybe you should stop posting shit on the internet.

Why? You are still wrong.