There’s a Wikipedia page on nonviolent revolutions, so is violence itself necessary or is the threat of violence sufficient? History may not actually be in complete agreement in favor of violent resistance.
“Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.”
Those campaigns were surrounded with violence. That is why they worked. Riots, killings, people getting beat up, people fighting police. the police committing acts of violence, etc., not having concerted, armed, resistance, does not mean non-violent. Like you say the threat of the violence they could see, getting bigger, is the reason to reach out to the non-violent party for diplomacy. But the threat has to be real.
There’s a Wikipedia page on nonviolent revolutions, so is violence itself necessary or is the threat of violence sufficient? History may not actually be in complete agreement in favor of violent resistance.
“Nonviolent campaigns have a 53% success rate and only about a 20% rate of complete failure. Things are reversed for violent campaigns, which were only successful 23% of the time, and complete failures about 60% of the time. Violent campaigns succeeded partially in about 10% of cases, again comparing unfavorably to nonviolent campaigns, which resulted in partial successes over 20% of the time.”
https://www.ericachenoweth.com/research/wcrw
Those campaigns were surrounded with violence. That is why they worked. Riots, killings, people getting beat up, people fighting police. the police committing acts of violence, etc., not having concerted, armed, resistance, does not mean non-violent. Like you say the threat of the violence they could see, getting bigger, is the reason to reach out to the non-violent party for diplomacy. But the threat has to be real.