This isn’t really true. Most successful revolutions in the last hundred years have been largely non-violent. I mean look at the dissolution of the USSR, for instance. Or Hungary recently, although how much of a revolution that is is sort of up in the air. Or Spain. I think the numbers are something like once 3% of the population is in the streets you’re donezo.
I mean, also, like, India was directly and very much this.
That isn’t to cast aspersions on violent revolution, but it’s more of a narrative than reality, at least now.
I mean there was violence but who is calling that a “violent revolution?” Come on. I doubt there has ever been a revolution without a single instance of violence, but you are well aware that that’s not what we’re talking about, comma fucker.
This isn’t really true. Most successful revolutions in the last hundred years have been largely non-violent. I mean look at the dissolution of the USSR, for instance. Or Hungary recently, although how much of a revolution that is is sort of up in the air. Or Spain. I think the numbers are something like once 3% of the population is in the streets you’re donezo.
I mean, also, like, India was directly and very much this.
That isn’t to cast aspersions on violent revolution, but it’s more of a narrative than reality, at least now.
Shelling your parliament with a tank isn’t violent?
I mean there was violence but who is calling that a “violent revolution?” Come on. I doubt there has ever been a revolution without a single instance of violence, but you are well aware that that’s not what we’re talking about, comma fucker.
Goal posts.