Why are some on the left so obsessed with violent upheaval...

Because I really, really hate all those smug assholes who think nothing can possibly get done without them

Because far-left never is able to muster enough popular support to create effective non-violent movement with just labor strikes and protests.

/thread

Vandalism is considered "non-violent protest."

You have no proof of this at all. You're calling for the murder of a minority class as opposed to taking non-violent political action because…?

I swear this place is becoming Holla Forums more and more every day.

Well I agree that glorifying violent is unnecessary. Blame Blanqui and Lenin. But I doubt civil resistance and pacifism can bring about world communism

I think we would all like a non-violent revolution. It's just not realistic, they will eventually use violent means to put us down.

They resort to violence to protect their own interests and always have: banana republics, private armies in Africa, union busting, and so on. Even today law enforcement is brutalizing innocent people trying to protest an oil pipeline for reasons that were recently proven to be completely valid and important: countercurrentnews.com/2016/10/massive-north-dakota-oil-leak-proves-native-american-protesters-right-fighting-illegal-dapl-pipeline/

To counter violence with nonviolence is as logical as homeopathy. There is nothing morally righteous about it, nor should violence ever be used when unnecessary in revolution, but it is certainly inevitable.

Because the things worth fighting for, the things that truly and fundamentally change the society we live in, necessitates revolutionary action. In the context of overturning class society, that means violence must be used, as the ruling class has historically and in everyday news shown their unwillingness to lose power to the masses. If the ruling class were to miraculously decide they were willing to relinquish their positions of power and turn it over to the subject class, then there would be no calls or necessity for violence; violence is not the keystone goal, it is merely the means to the end established as a response to the ruling class' own use of violence to suppress change.

Also the graph is vague. Yes, of course most nonviolent campaigns are going to be successful if they are large enough, but that's because most campaigns that people take part in are small-scale reformist efforts rather than large-scale foundational changes. By allowing those small-scale reforms pass peacefully, the ruling class ensures that the violent struggles are delegitimized and more drastic demands do not enter the realm of possibility among the campaigners.

Non-violent and violent protests both have tactical value. Don't be a black bloc idiot, but don't let your whole movement get slaughtered.

Successful nonviolence is often followed by a credible threat of violence. It's still an important tactic to win public sympathy, and that often means that your workers self-defense movement can't fire the first shot. (and sometimes if the morale of the repressive forces you're up against is bad enough, you don't even need to resort to arms at all.)

...

anyone who fell for this is an idiot

The left has virtually always been a proponent of violent revolution. Just because we continue to uphold these standards does not make us "more like Holla Forums every day."

Well, most socialists and communists have advocated general strikes or participation in parliamentary politics to seize power, as we should.
But in a place like china, they don't have the luxury.
I mostly agree with you though

fixed

obligatory:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-how-nonviolence-protects-the-state

One can merely argue that those movements resort to violence because the peaceful way didn't work.

Non-violence only works because of the threat of violence that backs it.

As the common saying goes, without Malcolm X we could not have MLK.

Also what is classed as a "non-violent" and "violent" campaign?

Some campaigns can only be carried out through violence.

...

They don't have a choice.

Change and collapse of the system is coming.

Socialism or Barbarism.