Peaceful revolution

Does peaceful revolution work? Pic related, it worked for him.

I think peaceful revolt can achieve some reforms, but the ultimate change of giving the means of production to the people who work them is something porky just wont give up.

Only if your opponent cares if you live or die. Most people want us dead.

Foreigners care about when people are being massacred alot of the time.

Porkie needs the working class to buy their goods so it might work.

It wasn't a revolution since the oppressed classes didn't overthrow the oppressing classes. This is where pacifism leads on the long run: revival of the cast system ("You were born in the sewage cleaning cast? you stay there, lol!"; "your husband died? You are now a beggar, lol!)

Pacifism: not even once.

Gandhi was spooked reactionary faggot.

The British started shedding away their empire at about the same time, so honestly, all he might have done was achieve independence a few years sooner.

I'm sure all the violent revolts preceding Ghandi didn't make the British think twice about keeping colonies in India.

That and the fact that WW2 just ended and Britain was too economically devastated to maintain foreign colonies.

Peaceful protest, as shown by the Civil Rights movement, is possibly the most effective way of creating progress. Otherwise, we would just have endless war.

"Violence begets violence. Hate begets hate." - Teddy Roosevelt

It only works if there's a parallel scarier violent movement to which you are the lesser evil.

Without the US federal government the Civil Rights movement in American would never have been successful. The US government was only sympathetic to the movement because they were trying to neutralize USSR propaganda about the US being a racist shithole and to prevent their own population from becoming radicalized. In other words, communism is why it worked.

pic related, remember what happened

Reminder that Pinochet resigned with a significantly larger percentage of the vote than Allende was elected with

reminder that Pinochet destroyed his country's economy and is only admired by edgy white people in the US who can't locate Chile on a map

...

If my other choice would be getting thrown out of a helicopter I would have voted for him too.

Read Letter to Birmingham Jail, a lot of the stuff MLK believed in wasn't realized by the US government. There's also a high chance that he was going to switch his activism to mainly socialism/class theory. That's why COINTELPRO assassinated him.

...

Reminder that the Economy under Allende was even worse, and it got much better after nationalization ended.

Only works if they threat of violence is real.

Didn't a lot of people drop below the poverty line?
Didn't Pinochet eventually kick out the Chicago boys?

reminder that America sabotaged Allende to no end and even then inflation and unemployment were way worse under the free market with pinoshit

It's not that peaceful revolution working or not, it's more about how it worked. If the American revolution and the India revolution worked is because it costed more to counter-strike these revolution for the UK than to admit the defeat.

Not really. Unemployment, wages, poverty rate etc., the social indicators were all worse when Pinochet left than when he started. But then again, according to neoliberalism, an "economic miracle" consists merely in a growing GDP and low inflation, and that much Pinochet accomplished. A shame that living standards had to go down for the "miracle" to happen.

Gandhi was also a Socialist supposedly but I dont know what his version of socialism was.

Gaddafi performed a coup without spilling any blood but used the threat of violence. What if someone infiltrates the gov by being voted in and doing socialist things without advertising it when running? What do those count as?

No it didn't, Brits let them go because their empire was collapsing after two world wars. I wish indians had revolted and killed every British porky in there.

Non-violent revolution has roughly 2x the success rate of lasting revolutions compared to violent upheavals. I think it really depends on what type of revolution however.

At first I was gonna flip shit, but then I saw the flag.

Underrated post.

There is a difference between Revolutions and "revolutions."

It works if your oppressors have a minimum respect for human dignity (aka not fascists or fanatic worshippers of capital)

It would require general strike on such massive scale that it would be practically impossible to do, so no. Particularly with decentralization of the trade unions in addition to lack of general organization within unions and this is not even considering the question of membership for unions.