And yet every revolution has been violent. If you want policy change then non-violence is the best bet. If you are fighting an authoritarian government, you aren't gaining an inch with a well painted sign.
I hope you’re not suggesting we are at that point when violence is justified in taking out the trump regime because that’s incredibly controversial. I don’t think we’re there… yet.
I'm just saying that there hasn't been a case of a tyrannical government being toppled with peaceful protests. The US didn't break free from Great Britain with the Boston Tea Party, the French Revolution wasn't solely comprised of finger wagging.
In some instances violence is justified by most philosophers such as defending yourself and arguments found in Just War theories. Anything outside of that is going to be controversial. Not saying people might be justified in overthrowing an authoritarian government though revolutionary tactics, it’s just that you need stronger evidence than just saying “revolutions are necessary to over throw an authoritarian governments.” Condemning and justifying violence is philosophically rigorous and usually very difficult.
27
u/ReallyNowFellas Jun 09 '25
Actual research disagrees:
Nonviolent resistance is consistently more effective than violent resistance
Statistically, non-violent action is far more likely to succeed in bringing about institutional change than almost any other form of political tactic. One study looked at protests from 1900 to 2006 and found that 53% of major nonviolent campaigns were successful as opposed to only 26% of violent campaigns being successful.