Please, do not look at Ghandi for guidance or help.
And please, do not say that MLK's message got through. He started whipping up the poor into becoming more left-leaning, and the government quickly moved to give them civil rights to pacify them since they had no intention of giving them socialism. There are very few "peaceful" movements that actually accomplished anything, and even both of those group had more violent, radical elements.
That's why you shoot them, silly.
Even though MLK and Ghandi were pacifists and were able to achieve something, the potential achievements by violent means would be much greater.
You speak from an bourgeois stance when you indiscriminently disregard violence as a means for change. There is nothing more effective than the people rising up to take what is their by force.
There's democratic socialism and anarchism which solves this dilemma.
I think violent revolution is the only way it will happen. We cannot expect just to reform our way to socialism. But if we can non-violently build socialism and then communism I'm for it.
Google Blanquism
Why does this make you uncomfortable when liberalism itself was founded on violent revolutions?
Most people just want the consumption lifestyle to never end. Not really a surprise. Everything else (even politics) is just finding something to fill the time.
What?
They're just sperging about the "coops aren't socialism" meme.