Nonviolence vs Violence Debate
The cluster discusses whether non-violent resistance or violence is more effective for achieving political and social change, referencing figures like Gandhi and MLK, studies on nonviolent success, and quotes on inevitable violent revolution when peaceful options fail.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
I think you are trying to mix several unrelated things. The amount of violence necessary to change something always depends on the amount of repression imposed. If the repression is light/inexistent, there is no need for any violence. If the enemy is an army that is coming for combat with no opportunity for negotiations, only full scale war will work. In between these extremes, several mixes of diplomacy and violence are necessary. It is just wishful thinking to believe that peaceful protes
Demand change without demanding violence.
Of course it's possible to be anti facist without being violent. It's possible to non violently get changes in the world, at least if you're in a remotely democratic society like the one you're in at the moment. People like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi proved it.Responding to political concerns with violence just begets more violence. It just entrenches people's beliefs even further, inspires revenge from the 'other side' (or at least, their own axe
Was there an alternative that didn't require violence?
Even revolutionary variants don’t necessarily need violence. It’s certainly a high potential in revolution, but not a guarantee. This isn’t just hypothetical, all or nearly all of us on here have witnessed revolutions which didn’t employ violence (though they certainly endured it).
It's not just a claim many studies do prove non violent struggle are more successful in bringing change than violent once. [1][1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Non-violent action is far more effective than civil war.
I think in general that violent resistance should be avoided, and people should work within the system. But if people truly believe that the system is no longer working for them, and that change within the system is impossible, then violent resistance makes sense. After all, what do they have to lose? They’re already the victims of state-sanctioned violence.When the majority have created an unjust system, and leave no option for reforms by minorities within that system, the only alternative