Non-Violent resistance....Does it work?

So what are you thoughts and sides on this matter? What is the limit for non-violent resistance?

It's all situational.

My friend on the other hand thinks that all violence is wrong. He´s a odd bird

Nope never once in the history of the world has non violence ever solved anything........except for.......

India
Black civil rights.
et ketra.

India wasnt what you would call non-violent, and iirc a mjor role was played by some guerilla movement that fought against british rule.

Black rights movement in the US got part of the goods, but it still didnt eliminate grinding inequality and hasnt done it to this day. Also note that after the initial non-violent period with Martin Luther King and stuff, you had a massive increase in militantness that went from the black panthers through to the black liberation army.

About the question itself, recently I read a cool paper that quantitatively analysed some social movements in post-war Germany, and proved some theories on social movements formation and downfall, basicly what you get is an initial period of massive growth and action to which the governement fumblingly responds with repression leading to even greater popularity which then results in already established (reformist) institutions such as trade unions and political parties trying to coopt the movement causing tears which are then further strengthened by both governement negotiations which force certain activists to take on a more reformist perspective and on the other hand repression on the remaining more radical elements which in combination with the growing divide with the reformist majority leads to further radicatlization by the already radical elements. Basicly what happens in the end is, that the movement largely gets absorbed into already established institutes which vaguely adopt some of its measures, while a small group of alienated radicals become even more radical and often start using violence and terror.

For people with access to academic journals through their university or whatever il put up the reference here:
Ruud Koopmans, "The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989", American Sociological Review, Vol. 58, No. 5 (Oct., 1993), pp. 637-658

Yes, eventually. Not as fast as violent resistance, but is any cause really worth all that death and destruction? No.

Well the USA was founded on violent resistance.

Should the American revolution have really prevailed? No. Not without cheating. Maybe up to 40% of Americans supported it. But that's just a generous average. The only way it succeeded was with support from foreign nations. Which goes against my other political philosophy that all people have the right to their own future. And can fight their own battles. Without the immense support from France, 40% of America would have been fighting the other 60% and Britain, and countless lives and lands would have been destroyed without benefit or purpose. If enough Americans had actually supported it, peaceful resistance could have worked without a doubt. But since they didn't, the revolution should have failed. But it was swept up into the cold war between Britain and France into nothing but a proxy war. Get it?

At the same token violent revolutions are far more cooler, Like I highly doubt the Libyan revolution could have been non violent.

Reminds me of Ghandi good film, yes good person also..

My fav part in Gandhi was when the guy shot him and he was all like "oh god" and fell to the ground. But the rest was cool too.

Haha good part, actually this film seemed to drag on for hours.. I'm glad I didn't have to watch it twice..

Depends on the situation. Sometimes a non-violent protest can work, sometimes it can't. Really, saying one size fits all is just stupid and idealistic.

A violent revolution is only justified when the government in question is undemocratic.

Yes it works depending on the situation. Let's say I were to boycott a bus (like the Civil Rights Movement) by not going on due to unfair laws and I got some of my friends whom also ride the bus to join. It would definately work but if I were to revolt from a nation to create my own country it would require violence depending on the country I am a part of. The Indian movement was mostly non-violent but as all movements do tend to get a little violent at some times. The American Revolution required violence because most of the population didn't want to join in. The Indian "revolution" didn't require violence because most of the poplulation supported it. So in conclusion, if I were to start a revolution and most of the population supported it, I could preform it non-violently, but if only about 30% of the population supported the revolution, I would have to conduct a violent revolution.

yeah the end of Ghandi was cool, and non-violence only works in media supportive countries and if the opposition is a bunch of violent pricks ( ie cops during civil rights movement)

Well the teacher's union in New Jersey tries to do it every time. It has continually worked until now thanks to the awesome GOvernor Christie. (no i am not being sarcastic).

It doesn't work for countries that need their government reformed, in the case of Libya, it would've never happened. However, it is a considerable opposition to bad ideas, but has no power and no place for where it wants to oppose these bad ideas.

First world problems=teachers units protesting not having raises in pay. 3rd world countries problems=famine, starvation, terrorism, malaria, AIDS, etc.

SO MOTHER FUCKING INSPIRING MAN

It works well if your government isn't psychopathic. Good luck non-violently overthrowing the Chinese Government. Velvet Revolutions are a luxury that sometimes just can't happen.